What is Digg?393 Comments
- franklymister, on 07/03/2008, -53/+226In a nutshell -
He realizes that the FISA bill blows, but it's better than the "Protect America Act" from last year. He would have stood against it, but that would give the Republicans more ammunition against him this fall by painting him as soft on terror, so he decided to go with FISA and hope he can get the part about telecom immunity taken out.
Basically, he's saying "I had to support FISA or get attacked by the right, and anyway, what are you going to do, vote McCain?"
The crappy thing? He's right, I am still going to vote for him, even though I think this was a weak move. - DocOrpheus, on 07/03/2008, -21/+130Gotta admire the way the man and his campaign are so swift in their responses to criticisms lobbed at them, and through the appropriate/relevant media channel.
I still hold my fierce criticism of his FISA position though. Dugg up, if just for the former. - nosecohn, on 07/04/2008, -8/+63The more I see how all these partisan issues shake out in Congress, the more it seems to me that there is just a cultural difference between the two parties. The Republicans, perhaps owning to their business backgrounds, are simply much better negotiators.
When what's at issue is a patch of dirt, the Republicans ask for the moon and the stars. The Democrats respond by saying, "How about just the moon?" The Republicans say "OK," and then go into a back room and snicker about what suckers the Democrats are. The Dems go back to their constituents touting their ability to "compromise." - iancgi, on 07/04/2008, -4/+58"...telecommunications companies that may have violated the law..."
May have violated the law? Shame on you Mr. Obama you sell the American people a platform of change but support the same treason and use the same rhetoric as your supposed political opposites. You sir are like all the rest who are willing to sell out their very own country. - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -13/+63What did Sean Hannity write this *****?
"In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. "
What condescending *****. - locojones, on 07/04/2008, -2/+50"This was not an easy call for me."
Actually, Mr. Obama, it's quite the easy call. You side with the government, who uses fear-mongering and made-up wars to erode the freedoms of American citizens, or you side with the People in upholding the Constitution. There's not much grey area to speak of.
"I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. "
So why is there the insinuation in your speech that you will vote for it regardless? You're the constitutional law scholar, why don't you take some time to draft a counter-bill and offer it up for consideration so that it takes into account all of the people's concerns?
"It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping."
If you vote for this bill, we will never know because Due Process will be eliminated by the stroke of a White House pen.
"That's why I support striking Title II from the bill,"
And what happens when you fail to strike it? Nothing in your statement addresses that at all, which is the most concerning.
"The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."
When the President takes office, he swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. When the administration has claimed to be above the black letter law during wartime, do you really believe that words on paper will somehow constrain that kind of unchecked behavior? Who will ever be able to challenge that clause when the White House has set a precedent of dismissing trials under the guise of State Secrets and National Security doctrines? This provision is meaningless when it can't be enforced by the people.
"In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. "
The government already has that authority under the original rendition of the FISA Act and the current 4th Amendment jurisprudence. It doesn't require any further legislation.
" I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe "
Do we need to persuade you that the American people need to retain their constitutional liberties now too?
" I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."
That's like putting the fox in charge of his own behavior in the hen house.
"But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. "
I'm sorry Mr. Obama, but there is no such thing as a compromise when it comes to American's civil liberties. If you vote for this bill, you will be as complicit as Mr. Bush and the telecom companies themselves. As a constitutional scholar, I expected much more. - mochaman, on 07/04/2008, -9/+55Responding to his supporters was definitely a good thing, however, it leaves me with the impression that he is triangulating where the middle is and that he is not standing wholeheartedly for civil liberties.
- AxmxZ, on 07/04/2008, -16/+60So basically, here's what he says: "I appreciate the comments, but guys, try seeing it from my point of view. When you run for President and have to get elected by the majority of a country, you'll understand. I can't afford getting painted into a corner as the guy who is soft on security and terrorism - that's just about the only thing McCain can spin into an actual issue with me. When I get where I'm going, that's when things will get really hopping for liberty and justice - pinkie swear. Until then, feel free to rant and rave - I'm totally taking notes."
Scary thing is, I actually think he's being mostly sincere on this, the idealistic dork. - alapoet, on 07/03/2008, -40/+83That's a deeply disappointing response.
But there's really nowhere else to go unless you want a third Bush term with McCain. - lukas88, on 07/04/2008, -11/+50Sorry, I would rather have a candidate with integrity who doesn't do the wrong thing just to get elected. Your kind of logic is one of the reasons this country is in the crapper.
- Ghoztt, on 07/04/2008, -29/+66Obama is other side of the same coin. Wake up people. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.
- noelsusman, on 07/04/2008, -4/+39Why not just link to the original source...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rosp ... - ThomasPaine23, on 07/04/2008, -3/+38***** pure and simple.
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/
FISA's new section 105A declares that "nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance . . . shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." Since the FISA court procedures govern the use of electronic surveillance, this change in definition removes such surveillance from the review of the FISA court. There may be "surveillance" that is "electronic," but if it does not fit into the FISA law's definition of "electronic surveillance" then the FISA court does not control it. This provision permits the warrantless surveillance of Americans when the surveillance is "directed at" someone believed to be outside the United States -- whether that person outside the United States is an American or not.
Outside the US and still a Citizen, guess what? So much for your fourth amendment rights....
This is clearly unconstitutional. ANYONE in congress who voted for this has violated their oath of office....
Obama may feel free to "compromise" his rights, but I won't vote for someone who is willing to compromise mine away. - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -11/+45As a very very big supporter, I have only one thing to ask:
Stop ***** talking about the south side of Chicago. We get it. You worked there. It was a long time ago and I'm sure you learned a lot, but keep ***** bringing it up at every opportunity.
That is all. - Labyrinth336, on 07/04/2008, -13/+45are you people just sticking your fingers in your ears and going NAH NAH NAH NAH..... you bashed him for supporting it and now because he is stating his reason your like... "oooohhh.. its cool now... he replied to us.." wake the ***** up...
- mediaspree, on 07/04/2008, -13/+45aaaaaaaaaaand... hes "opened the door" to reversing position on Iraq troop withdrawal. Who is Barack Obama?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25519279/ - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -14/+47Oddly enough, I knew his supporters would be behind this move. No matter how much they've complained about legislation like this in the past.
I'd also expect them to fully support him if he decided to expand the Patriot Act or limit the First Amendment. I mean, he's Obama after all. Telecom immunity is now good.
Then you wonder how Bush was able to his ***** done?
This stinks on ice. - monkeyrun, on 07/04/2008, -2/+33So he ran as a far left liberal when he was against Hillary.
Now since he got the nomination, he changes into Hillary.
One can only guess what he'll become once he becomes President. - Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -1/+32Deep down I was just the tiniest bit worried he was going to take a principled stance and I was going to be wrong when I said he'd vote for it even with immunity. I'll just quote myself back on 6/30: "He'll probably just skip the vote on it, but if by some chance he does show up and cast a vote for it with immunity still in tact, he will simply issue a speech like he did when he voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act and most of his followers won't care."
So we just saw his position signaling his intent to vote for it with immunity in tact, and I just read a whole bunch of comments from his supporters not caring. You'd think a change candidate wouldn't be so predictable in voting with the establishment. So to all his followers begging him not to do it, you guys got sold down the river and I got proved right about your man.
http://digg.com/politics/MoveOn_To_Obama_Keep_Your ... - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -11/+42True, we are going to vote for him no matter what. BUT will we still fund his campaign. Remember, he's withdrawn from public financing, and the people paying attention to FISA are the same people funding his campaign.
Anyways, I support his stance in this case because hes in a tough spot. - lordmike, on 07/04/2008, -13/+41Translation: I'm pissing on you, but hey, look, it's raining!!!
A disappointment, really, but expected... Obama's not going to stab the backs of the congressional superdelegates that put him over the top. There's a bigger story here, though... something going on the backrooms... congress is friggin' terrified of something that is pushing this bill... and it's not "being soft on terrorism".. there's something else going on... there's no real explanation why they are being so cowardly - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -4/+32I would not support a president that gave into his beliefs just because he was in a "tough spot."
- nosecohn, on 07/04/2008, -6/+33Unfortunately, yeah... he is right. The core supporters will still vote for him. And although many may no longer contribute, he's already got more money than McCain can get from public financing.
But the problem is that the swing voters may see this as weak and unprincipled. I know I do. So what if you're going to get attacked by the right? Your job is to convince the country and lead by example. Playing to the polls has rarely worked for Democrats. - PantsSupreme, on 07/04/2008, -3/+30Extremely disappointing :( These companies have been spying on us and will suffer no consequences. Constitution says that retroactive immunity is illegal so why is he supporting this?!
- lukas88, on 07/04/2008, -8/+34I was an obama supporter for a couple of weeks, mostly a "lesser of two evils" choice. Now the difference in evil between the two is starting to be less distinct. I'm thinking a write in is better than this.
- lukas88, on 07/04/2008, -8/+32Did you even read the article? He is using scare tactics and double speak. He is insulting your intelligence, and you admire him.
"The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise."
How many times will we give up more freedom because washington convinces us it will make us safer? I used to like obama but this makes it clear that he doesn't represent the kind of leader we need, he is part of the problem. - SIRBERUS, on 07/04/2008, -11/+35Translation: "Come on guys! Don't let a single issue make you question your blind faith! Let's all remember the good times when we only bashed McCain!"
- mushroomsrmagic, on 07/04/2008, -28/+51Obama is a corporate tool just like any presidential candidate the sheep are fed.
- Regbooker, on 07/04/2008, -9/+32Not so much for admiration. It goes like this: His staffers saw the uproar in the net (a fundamental medium utilized by his grassroots) then pushed him to make a "damage control" statement.
- menwuur, on 07/04/2008, -13/+35"He would have stood against it, but that would give the Republicans more ammunition against him this fall by painting him as soft on terror, so he decided to go with FISA and hope he can get the part about telecom immunity taken out."
Riiiiiiiiighhht - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -1/+22I don't get this whole "I don't want to look soft on terrorism and crime" stuff. How does violating the constitution make you tough on terrorism? How, honestly? The idiots who actually believe that won't vote for you regardless, so please, tell them to ***** off, and start caring about the people who actually WILL vote for you, your democratic base.
It would be like NIN deciding to do rap because they're afraid they might not sell as many tickets otherwise. Seriously...it makes NO sense. It's totally irrational. - Lancelot9201, on 07/04/2008, -0/+21I had questions about him "being his own man" when he agreed to assist Hillary, through fund raisers, in reducing her rather large campaign debt. I knew it for what it was, a bribe to get her to support him. Now he won't stand up to those Jerks currently calling Washington their home & I say, if he won't do it now then when will he. I bet it's never... I was ready to vote for him until these last two weak ass moves he's made.. It's sad, as I was really hoping we'd finally have someone who would look out for all that is good & right..
- MikeSD34, on 07/04/2008, -4/+24@kuhlmanb
The original poster asked and sirberus responded.
"Basically, he's saying "... what are you going to do, vote McCain?"" - Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -0/+20He always was Hillary, just more eloquent, tactful, and less manly.
- Shloppy, on 07/04/2008, -4/+23You're welcome, any time.
-Barack - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -1/+20I thought Obama was about change? I actually supported the guy many months ago when it was obvious Ron Paul didn't have a chance. However, something didn't click with Obama. I really looked into him, and figured out he was full of ***** like the rest of them. I'm glad to see a lot of people on Digg are finally realizing Obama is no better than your average American politician. Don't get me wrong, McCain isn't just as crappy as Obama. Regardless of who wins, we both lose.
- Nerys, on 07/04/2008, -6/+24I just do not understand people's position on this. What he did was illegal! Its just that simple. Morally and lawfully he only had one choice and thats to vote against.
He swore an oath on entering the office that he now resides to PRESERVE PROTECT AND DEFEND the constitution of the united states.
Out founding fathers realized that the ONLY thing that could protect us was a PEOPLE protected constitution that our representatives were to be held accountable to.
The idea was DO NOT violate this document.
Swear an OATH to protect it.
The idea being that if they do what they are doing now IE outright ignoring the constitution to which they swore an oath to that the people would stand up and go HEY what gives.
WHY ARE WE NOT DOING THIS!
It does not matter what the ramifications are. HE BROKE THE LAW in voting for the FISA bill. Its that simple. He was under oath to vote AGAINST that act because its a DIRECT violation of the constitution. Period.
I WANT to like Obama. I REALLY DO. his energy is amazing strong and enticing.
but CHANGE it not what we need. PROPER CHANGE it what we need.
Going from Mao to Kahn is change but it sure is not good change now is it?
I would prefer less change. IE OBEY the stinking law. OBEY the constitution.
If you do not agree with the constitution there are 2 paths available to you. Move somewhere else OR AMEND the constitution. THATS IT!
Any other answer is a VIOLATION of our most sacred laws.
Thats not the kind of "change" that makes me happy thats for sure. - deadbaby, on 07/04/2008, -12/+30Problem is those candidates don't get elected because politics doesn't work that way anymore. Blame the voters for falling for every "democrats are weak on terror. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE OMG!" argument for the last 7 years.
- P5ycHo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17Create a new, better bill?
- TheLittleVoice, on 07/04/2008, -1/+18We are the crooks and the Good Cop and Bad Cop have been selected for us. We never had a real choice. Scammed again.
- kuhlmanb, on 07/04/2008, -21/+37Why do people give answers to questions nobody asked them?
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -21/+36"Barack Obama" The Pinnacle of the old Idiotic, self-interest Politician, who will say and do anything for political expediency.
- menwuur, on 07/04/2008, -3/+17No bill
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14So much for change... Good job America you voted well...
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -7/+20And the damage control statement was just the same statement he said 2 weeks ago rehashed.
Which is the same as saying ***** off. - Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -3/+16He said the same thing when he voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act. You've got to wonder if the people who support him as an alternative to a Bush style police state are going to realize they better be looking elsewhere for someone who represents their viewpoints.
- thatsmyaibo, on 07/04/2008, -10/+23Instead of fighting the Republicans JUST to fight the Republicans, why doesn't he just make the smart decision? This bipartisan ***** is getting old where a candidate will take a stance just because it opposes the other side of the political spectrum. Obama honestly is not 'change'. Same ***** politician, different toilet.
- orxor, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14And they're not going to use the fact that he said he would have voted against it, and that he would never draft legislation like this? I don't buy it. Maybe now he can explain why he was saying that Iran is no threat and then 2 weeks after getting the nomination he called Iran a great threat.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -7/+20I'll never vote for someone who wants to fund Christians.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 397 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