What is Digg?309 Comments
- alapoet, on 07/18/2008, -11/+306The irony is that in their eagerness to avoid appearing "weak on terrorism," they ended up looking (and being) "weak on policy" and weak on protecting the Constitution.
Props to the 28 Democratic Senators and all the Representatives (all Democrats) who voted against FISA, though. - Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -20/+238Fear of not getting their cut.
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -6/+142"My fellow Americans, we bent you over and ***** you in the ass because we wanted to look tough."
Gee, thanks. That makes it all better. Allow us to re-elect you out of love. - nontoxyc, on 07/18/2008, -26/+147obama is a traitor to the constitution and it came out on that fisa vote the provisions in the act violate americans right to freedom from warrantless wiretaps which were declared unconstitutional. the government is supposed to have to get a warrant for each individual who is wiretapped but now they can obtain several thousand without even naming any names or giving any evidence or appearing in front of a judge. or in other words
***** THAT *****
***** THE NSA, THE CIA, AT+T, AND THE RIAA - SatoriSeeker, on 07/19/2008, -3/+72Obama used progressives who care about the constitution to get money and votes during the primary. Now that Hillary is vanquished he has shrewdly concluded we are no further use to him because the reality is that no matter how angry we are over FISA (and I'm boiling over) that we will not vote for McCain. Please let me be the first to say: Senator Obama, with all due respect, please go ***** yourself! I will take my $500 donation back and give it to the ACLU, a group that will honor their pledge to protect the constitution.
- pbd1637, on 07/19/2008, -4/+62We need representatives who have the guts to stand up for what they believe in. Not just playing politics to get their sorry asses reelected. Obama voted for a bill that may very well be unconstitutional. Which he declared he believed was unconstitutional.
Can we trust Obama in the oval office? Can we trust McCain? No, and no.
It is a damn shame that the process we use to select a leader in no way actually tests their ability to lead. They spend two years begging for money and votes. - DrCrankenstein, on 07/18/2008, -5/+58A nice little reminder that, though sometimes we hope for change and reason within politics, deep down it still sucks.
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -6/+58So in voting for a bill that a rather large percentage of the public is firmly against, he saved himself from political suicide?
"little deeper into your moral compass, or we will just get more of what we have for the last 7 years."
His statements that military intervention could be used when dealing with Iran now mean something different when he says it, as opposed to Bush?
He talks a great 'hope and change' game, but his record this past month and a half look like he's just reading over Bush's shoulder. - inactive, on 07/19/2008, -2/+47The line between Republicans and Democrats gets more transperant everyday. It all comes down to who can manipulate popular opinon to their advantage.
- lolupissed, on 07/19/2008, -2/+46People should not fear there governments, Governments should fear their people.
The constitution used to be more than the piece of toilet paper it is today sadly. - inactive, on 07/19/2008, -3/+43You can make all the excuses you want but he just help strip your 4th amendment rights....You are god damn right I won't vote for a guy who lets himself get pushed around and puppeted by his masters/opponents.
Both him and mccain are worthless. - electricwaffles, on 07/18/2008, -0/+38But at least the terrorists don't win.
/sarcasm - joeanon, on 07/19/2008, -2/+38Since most Democrats voted for the Patriot Act.... they really have no platform to stand on against warrant-less wiretapping.
Their biggest problem was bowing to GOP pressure and calling it a war on terror.
The dems have every right and ability to filibuster for the last 8 years and THEY FAILED.
I've been asking for a REAL third party for decades... and I'm only 30.
The very idea that a nation can function with only two parties is wrong. You will create a polarized public every time and this endless and useless tug of war for power.
There is on POWER in winning the majority of congress when you ultimately don't represent the people.
Politicians see this is a game of power... when in reality the only REAL long term power is in representing the public.
Bi partisan means constant compromise and cooperation, but that is simply not how they run their shows.
The GOP has a one minded strategy of winning at any cost and the Dems are ALWAYS overly willing to compromise, but unwilling to develop unity or make a strong stand.
When you step back you see it's not really a two party system.
There are two parties... but much of the time they spend their time attacking each other in hope for a majority and then misrepresenting the public because of their lack of diversity.
Most of the time we are being run by ONE party while the other warms the bench.
A strong third party COULD help greatly, especially if they were goal oriented and not concerned with appealing to party politics.
The entire strategy of US politics would change from polarization to a 3 party compromise. No party could focus on simply bashing their polar opposite, which is a very simplistic plan anyway.
If the Dems and Republican's can't stop fighting for power and start fighting for the benefit of their nation... they would effectively give power to the third party.
Even better would be an end to political parties, but people will always have the freedom to assemble in groups of similar political mindsets, so it's pointless to try to legally remove the political parties, even though they are high corrupt.
Instead, we need law that govern their actions and clearly limit their powers.
The GOP DOES NOT have the right to interfere with recounts or try to act as official government or police.
Some type of legislation is also needed to GET THE MEDIA OUT of elections.
We should have a media blackout DURING the election day(s). We should likely extend the election period or expect to count more and more absentee ballots by hand. A vote by phone system is likely a reasonable solution and could offer fully verifiable and anonymous enough voting for far cheaper.
The idea that we are fully anonymous when voting has always been a lie. That has never been true. If people were so concerned with the government and other organizations figuring out who they voted for then... why do we have exit polls and voting registration by party.
In fact... WHAT is voter registration by party have to do with anything ? You are basically telling everyone who you're going to vote for AND limiting both yourself and the nation to being stuck in a two party system.
Campaign finance needs a total overhaul and corporations and wealthy need to be kept out.
The wealthy have every advantage in the world... they don't need to be able to influence the vote with wealth and it's MORE THAN CLEAR that they do influence the vote every year. - mikelieman, on 07/19/2008, -0/+34Everyone who supported the FISA bill is...
SOFT ON CRIME! They're letting criminals walk the street!
Nice going Criminal Coddlers!
I hear some got bought for as little as a thousand dollar donation from the AT&T PAC. - Panzwhore, on 07/19/2008, -1/+32Spineless cowards the lot of them.
- chuckDontSurf, on 07/19/2008, -5/+36"Obama would have committed political suicide if he had voted against it"
Give me a ***** break. Did you not RTFA, specifically the part that gives examples to support the statement that "people can become emotional about the loss of their constitutional rights and what they perceive as government abuse if the point is made clearly." The Republicans are going to paint him as soft on terror regardless of what he does. Had he voted against it, it would have been a chance to show some real leadership. He could have issued a well-worded statement explaining why he voted against it (instead of the vague wishy-washy ***** statement explaining why he voted *for* it). Real leaders don't do something because they think it's popular. They do what they think is right, and they convince others to see their point.
"Obama needs to get elected, then he can change FISA from within, trust me, the SCOTUS will shoot more holes in it than Swiss Cheese."
Why should I trust you? No, seriously? - chubbybubba, on 07/19/2008, -1/+30Maybe they need to grow a set of balls. What's the point of a Democratic leader if he's too afraid to defend you.
- angusm, on 07/19/2008, -0/+29Terrorism - it's a blank check.
"Unless you vote to allow shadowy secret policemen to record all your email and phone conversations, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"Unless you allow us to kidnap suspects off the street, fly them to Cuba, hold them indefinitely without charges, and subject them to torture, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"Unless you give me immediate authority to start a war anywhere I want, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"Unless you allow me to offer huge amounts of taxpayer money to my friends in business under lucrative no-bid cost-plus contracts, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"If we don't immediately give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"If you don't submit meekly to invasive and unncessary searches of your person or property every time you try to travel anywhere, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"If you question any of my actions, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"If you deny me the right to veto or ignore any law I choose, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?"
"Unless you immediately send your nubile twin teenage daughters over to my office dressed in fishnets and miniskirts, carrying a kilo of cocaine in either hand, the terrorists win. Are you soft on terrorism?" (OK, I made that one up).
Seems to me the terrorists have practically won already. - chuckDontSurf, on 07/19/2008, -4/+29"Obama needs to get elected, then he can change FISA from within, trust me, the SCOTUS will shoot more holes in it than Swiss Cheese."
So you're okay with Obama knowingly voting for something that's unconstitutional? - inactive, on 07/19/2008, -3/+28So you're saying that Obama's career is more important to him than integrity, the constitution and the rights of American citizen.
I guess I agree. - Paramnesia, on 07/19/2008, -8/+30Appear weak to whom? The general public who would think FISA is a new type of frenchfries?
You think the typical American even knew what FISA was?
They would sell out the constitution to be 'cool'?! what is this highschool?
I think it was fear but not fear to appear weak.
I don't know of what but I bet you it has something to do with BushCo - palewook, on 07/19/2008, -1/+20amen. sold the 4th amendment for an avg cut of 8500.00 per rep from the telco pacs that were looking to avoid lawsuits.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -2/+21NOT A ***** EXCUSE!
- annjay, on 07/19/2008, -2/+21I agreed with lolupissed that Governments should fear their people.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -8/+27Fear of AIPAC and Big Brother Israel. All this "War on Terror" bullcrap is sponsored by them. We never had any problem getting oil at reasonable prices until we started the "War on Terror". The "War on Terror" is just a cover for Israel to nuke its Arab neighbors so they can expand their territory.
And is there any doubt that the FISA bill is part of the "War on Terror"? No! If you stop the "War on Terror", then you stop the madness. Is the American Public so afraid of the big bad terrorists that we are willing to give up our Constitutional Rights in exchange for an illusion of security? We need leaders that will stand up to this madness, not ones like Obama that capitulate out of fear. Next move for Obama is to visit Israel and do some bowing and scraping before his masters. - inactive, on 07/18/2008, -4/+22"Baby steps, across the finish line to the White House, then for some REAL change!"
Blind optimism is great, ain't it? - xZeddx, on 07/19/2008, -2/+20No *****.
Think of the democrats like an overprotective mother and the republicans like the abusive father. The friend's parents are the third parties and the libertarians, they are envied. The mother gets beaten so she sticks with the father out of fear. The siblings (citizens) side differently depending on who they're fed up with less.
If only they could be the neighbor's kids.. - avengingturnip, on 07/19/2008, -2/+19Not fear, cowardice.
- algaeturd, on 07/19/2008, -1/+18I think they're just a bunch of yellow, spineless do-nothings.
Honestly. That's why they gave the rights of the people over to the president.
They're a bunch of lapdogs. - deathweaver108, on 07/19/2008, -0/+16"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once."
- jaxontyler, on 07/19/2008, -0/+15You're wrong. There was 1 Republican to vote against FISA.
IL-15 Johnson, Timothy [R]
I figured Ron Paul would vote against it too but guess he didn't show up.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ... - kamiten, on 07/19/2008, -3/+18I don't believe there should be any question about what Ron Paul would have voted on FISA. I also supported him during his campaign, and was at first disappointed that he hadn't come to vote against this bill. But he had had a prior speaking engagement, one set months in advance, during which he spread knowledge of freedom and the constitution. When I thought about it, vote against a single bill one knew was going to pass overwhelmingly in the house, or stand by your commitment (to speak in this case) and teach more people about liberty; I know he made the right choice.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -1/+15I choose D.) none of the above / no faith
The only reason it's not on the ballot is everyone knows the majority will agree .....this system is flawed on purpose. Until changes are made, no 3rd party will ever stand a chance. - NightVortez, on 07/19/2008, -3/+17So what this article is saying is that the democrats who voted in support of this bill care more about the public opinion on themselves rather than the protection of our Constitutional rights?
- ericdano, on 07/19/2008, -1/+15Wow, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who will call Bush all these names and stuff? WTF. What happened to all this "change" they promised??
- FlaNative, on 07/19/2008, -3/+16Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -5/+18Fear of losing AIPAC financial support*, more likely.
* I.e., laundered US payments to Israel. - NightVortez, on 07/19/2008, -0/+12Right, only this little "game" as you call it is played for our country, and if the player is able to throw away liberties just so his opponent won't have a ***** card to play, do we really want that person winning?
- miriv365, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13Do you seriously believe the next president is going to give up ANY of the power accumulated by GWB?
ALL politicians are the same, it's the nature of the game. - brickbat, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13Well said
- gcopenhaver, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14Maybe the title should have been "Democrats Voted For FISA Out Of Terror"
- mbonzo531, on 07/19/2008, -2/+13While I understand that McCain and Obama are getting all the media coverage, how is that an excuse not to vote independent?
- PabloMac, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11Let's not forget that Congress has a lower approval rating than even our beloved President, for good reason.
- dalittle, on 07/19/2008, -1/+12You can get your contribution back. Make a formal request to Obama to get your money and send it to someone that does actually represent you.
- OC73, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11Which is why Obama would've also voted for the Iraq war if he were in Congress back in 2002.
- brickbat, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10Dude, The terrorists have won. They are in the White House.
Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." - kayfouroh, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11They sure are weak on terrorism. This ***** terrorism that our own government pushes down our throats. The Bush Terrorism.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12To look at Obama's recent about-face on some of his primary campaign platforms which, in turn, put him closer to being aligned with current policy directions, and think that you have "real" change to look forward too, is not very pragmatic.
- gobbleplex, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10Indeed, I don't know how democrats are so afraid of being called 'weak on terror' that they'll be bullied into anything in the face of it. I mean, do they honestly think the republicans will stop calling them "weak on terror" no matter how many times they cave in to authoritarianism? No, I don't think so.
They did it because they have something to hide. - SuperSneaks, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12Obama voting for the FISA bill just proves that he is another politician. Say what the people want to hear then do the opposite. I was an Obama supporter till he showed that he didn't have a backbone to stand up for what he "believes" in. Obama would of gained a lot more support from had he shown a backbone and committed "political suicide" then become W's lapdog.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is