digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at salon.com

George Bush's Latest Powers, Courtesy of the Democrats

salon.com — Congress is going to decree that the President has the power to order private citizens to break the law, as well as to spy on our telephone calls and emails with no warrants. Well done, Democrats!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • an0nymous, on 06/19/2008, -17/+264Why isn't this front page? It makes no sense. This is Telecom Amnesty. I've seen a hundred front page articles about this. It's about to go through ... and we can stop it. I mean if there was ever a cause for DIgg activism (next to net neutrality) this is it.
    Please call Obama's office today (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu] and ask him to take a stand. I'm voting Obama but I find his silence on this issue unnerving.
    Hell, even Republicans should be digging this article up because it highlights corruption in the Dems. Hoyer's and Rockefeller's conduct has been inexcusable.
    This bill ensures that if the Atty General states it's in the national Interest illegal wiretapping cases must be dismissed from court.
    Does ANYONE think that's right?
    Unless we make a ruckus this ***** will pass.

    tl:dr
    So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.
    • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -8/+70Obama won't oppose this. You need to understand that this is the two heads of the single party supporting one another, and the two heads to this corporate party don't have any REAL candidates.'

      Call Obama's office if you like, but it will do about as much good as squeezing blood from a stone. Obama's already paid for.
      • digitalhair, on 06/20/2008, -1/+17no taxation without representation! I swear to God I'll stop paying taxes from this point on and hole-up in my house with guns if other people would just agree to do the same.

        This government is not responding to the will of its people, and it's so God Damn infuriating to watch them not care.
        • xlneoMAXlx, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3***** ***** GOD DAMMIT
        • DigitusAnonymus, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6That's the spirit!! If words don't make them reason, bullets will.
        • HxChris91, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5Where is Ron Paul when we need him?
        • Tssst, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2you would be branded a terrorist and your 'bunker' bombed.
        • AnonyMohawk, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Hear That Whirring Noise When You Pick Up Your Telephone? Yeah.. It's Too Late. They're On To You!! Run For The Hills While You Have The Chance!!!
    • girwen, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'm sad to say I am sure this bos taurus excrement will pass. The wall street journal had an editorial that looked to me that it was written by speedy gonzales. (I thing he's still under a rock somewhere)
      • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -12/+3Nice. So you libs can make racial slurs when you dont like a minority conservaitve. How very liberal of you. Does that mean we can start making fun of Obama because of his race?
        • pgoetz, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4Oh, grow up, moron -- you're out of the first grade now.
        • dggeek, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Making fun of speed is racist?
        • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0@pgoetz

          Excellent argument. Instead of explaining why its ok to use racial slurs agains conservatives you tell me to grow up. Maybe all the Obama supporters should grow up and quit making race an issue as they do on a daily basis. Very typical liberal. Its ok when I do it but when someone else does its not politically correct. Looks to me like its you libtards that need to grow up.
      • Pstmann, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2That's what happens when Rupert MurDick takes control of a paper. Goes from a competent conservative news source to hack-rag overnight.
    • whiteboyfunk, on 06/20/2008, -4/+21Relic is right. If the article is accurate, Obama is democratic and won't oppose such a thing. Sorry, but it sounds like you're supporting the wrong candidate.
      • theaceoffire, on 06/20/2008, -11/+7Oh yes, because we should all rely on McCain to oppose the Republicans.

        Nothing like Republicans to cut back on Republican power.
        • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -3/+22No, not ***** McCain, smart guy. There are other candidates running besides "Blue Corporate Lacky" and "Red Corporate Lacky". That's the point.
        • theaceoffire, on 06/20/2008, -12/+8Voting for anyone else at this point is about as effective as voting for Scoobie Doo.
        • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -2/+14And as I always say to anybody who has somehow convinced themselves that voting outside of the corporate party is a wasted vote....

          The rampage of the two-headed corporate party continues.

          Wake the ***** up!!
      • laserdog, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5I'm a big Obama fanboy. But man, I cannot tell a lie here, I'm disappointed he didn't step up here.

        I mean, I can try to rationalize, like maybe he thinks staying quite to win the election is the best long term strategy...

        But god damn if that's not exactly what I'm sick of from the Democrats, sitting back and doing nothing while the administration runs rampant.
        • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1If he gets elected, get ready for 4 years of it. This is Obama.
        • laserdog, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Every other politician in existence sets of my BS detectors, but he doesn't.

          Sure, I suppose being jaded is the safe bet.

          But just this once I'm gunna give him the benefit of the doubt.

          He might prove me wrong, and that'll be disappointing, but at least I'll have actually voted for someone because I *like* them, and not because I hate the other guy more.
    • tlenker, on 06/20/2008, -17/+4Sounds OK to me.

      Digg activism? Whatever.

      Obama is a leftist not a democrat.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -6/+15"Obama is a leftist"

        I'm a leftist. Which policies of Obama's are leftist? I can't seem to find them. I'd like to vote for the guy who is going to win, but I can't find a reason to vote for Senator Obama. Help a socialist out, bro? What is leftist about Obama? Give me a reason to for vote for him.
        • theaceoffire, on 06/20/2008, -5/+3I am voting for Obama because he supports Network Neutrality.
        • caferrell, on 06/20/2008, -3/+12Obama is a Corporatist with artificial leftists flavoring. He went to Yale and Harvard Law School. He is part of the Club now. He has been convinced that for the good of all the system must be preserved.
          He is no leftist.
          I am a paleo-conservative - libertarian, but at this point I would rather see a real leftist than another damn corporatist.
        • quesi, on 06/20/2008, -2/+5Obama is a blue-bloodbrutha of Dick/Bush. This is a fact. McBama have the same interests, and it isn't our Republic. We the People are their enemy. It's not the false ploy of "right/left", nor (R)/(D), nor even Conservative/Liberal. It's THEM or US. Don't look for "change", demand the same - as in the same Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution - the LAWS that our government is to be held to - is the key. Band together, demand that they uphold their oath, demand they obey the Constitution. IF you don't like what's in it, you can work towards amendments later. This is so simple, yet WAY over the heads of too many. Why am I wasting my breath? I love my country, the way it's supposed to be - not the way it currently is represented.
      • whiteboyfunk, on 06/20/2008, -2/+0Are you naive? Uninformed? Supporting the raising of taxes is a democratic phenomenon.
    • roho76, on 06/20/2008, -16/+24What do you think of your precious little Obama now, kitties?
      • dpcamp, on 06/20/2008, -4/+13why does it matter what kitties think about Obama?
      • Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -2/+10I try to avoid political debates with crazy cat ladies.
        • digitalhair, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1hahaha "crazy cat ladies" hahahaha

          these people exist.

          I might have debated with one or two without being able to pinpoint the cause of my sense of futility





      • dclowd9901, on 06/20/2008, -4/+6He's still better than Bush: The Sequel.
        • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -4/+1What a compelling argument. How long did it take you to come up with that?
    • SethEllis, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7You know it takes time for stories to get popular... It's pointless to complain about something not being on the front page until it's been over 24 hours and it's dropped out of the top in upcoming section.
    • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -9/+6I'm not sure we all understand what is going on here.. Obama is not going to be a superhero and save everyone from every bad little thing. Of course taxes are going to have to be increased, we have to ***** pay for that war we are in and for rising healthcare costs. SO don't bitch when the time comes. Second, this telecom thing confuses me.. It's not like this is all the way passed yet. It still has the HOUSE to go through. This article is just ***** silly ass political ammo. And what.. there's only 51 Democrats in the Senate.. that means atleast 9 (Repubs or Indie's) had to vote for it for it to even pass. If this passes the house, then we can bitch. And the article has like 5 updates.. so this guy is just blowing smoke around.. and notice how he targets Obama for being absent when both of the candidates are absent. And he barely mentioned that Obama has been against it from the beginning. Both sides are being bought off in this, just check to see where some of the candidates money comes from, Telecoms. The companies want immunity with being charged with tapping our phones.. we all know that the top of the Bush Admin wanted it done anyway with the Patriot Act! So what's the fuss now that it's being written off so that the telephone companies aren't sued to death because of a power hungry admin?... lol. See.. I can fill in the blanks myself.. just give me a blog and a stupid caricature of myself.. and I can make it happen.

      All you right-wing nuts know this author is gay right? Openly gay in Brazil? And he's defended a neo-Nazi and lost big time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
      • ItsTheSun, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5haha... truth
      • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4as explained in the article. Dem house leadership wrote the language in this bill.

        "Obama is not going to be a superhero and save everyone from every bad little thing."
        This is a not a little bad thing. He promises new politics? Well here's a chance to deliver.

        "So what's the fuss now that it's being written off so that the telephone companies aren't sued to death because of a power hungry admin?"
        They're not being sued for money. They're being sued by the EFF and the ACLU to determine the extent of the damage. There has still been no public disclosure on the depth of the spying.

        "And the article has like 5 updates.. so this guy is just blowing smoke around.. and notice how he targets Obama for being absent when both of the candidates are absent."
        It's been updated with breaking news... the story is happening now. McCain's for amnesty, Obama's against it. Why doesn't he stand up to the house leadership?

        • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -3/+7"He promises new politics? Well here's a chance to deliver."
          He's not going to bring new politics. It's presidential election rhetoric and he's the Democratic nominee. He's part of the corporate machine.

          "Why doesn't he stand up to the house leadership?"
          See previous response.
        • quesi, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2OK, new name for the candidates - McCorpBama®
        • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1@an0nymous: you are still around? I thought you would have been banned by now.

          What are you going to do in November?
        • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Me banned? Why on earth? At worst I'm occasionally profane but usually in service to a point.
          Find a comment in my history that is ban-worthy.

          I'm voting for Obama, you know. I'm just really REALLY disappointed.

          In November I plan to drink to the end of the Republican Hegemony and wish that their replacements were better.

          edit: hey you only joined in Feb 2008. Did you used to post under another name?
        • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2@an0nymous

          Well, who did you used to support? Ron Paul? Cause I noticed how you phrased it 'voting for' rather than 'supporting'.

          I just seem to remember some of the avid digg users that pop up first under an Obama article. Maybe for some reason I thought you were cashman57 in disguise. lol

          And yes, I've only been on here since February 08, right around the time of Super Tuesday. I used to be anti-Obama in the beginning. I thought he was muslim, related to/helped by Cheney, a puppet for black power mongers. I never really cared for digg until all my friends got tired of talking politics with me.

          Lately, I've just felt like pushing back, even in the event that I embarrass the ***** out of myself. haha. The thing is, I know Obama isn't going to deliver all the changes he wants to happen, but I'd rather have him trying to be an honest man rather than just another puppet.

          Are you a long time republican supporter? What do you think of this Bush Admin? McCain?
      • Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4WTF is your point, msk275?

        Is it just ad-hominem attacks?

        Who the hell cares if he's gay or not, or visits Brazil? (Are you a bigot against the Brazilian people, eh?) As for the "defended a neo-Nazi" claim...

        Isn't that a huge POSITIVE for a first-amendment lawyer? That they may disagree with what someone says, but fight for their right to say it?
        • JaronDiggGuy, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1You're an idiot. "Bigot against Brazilian people"...his point was that he's openly gay over there and not here because he's ashamed of it.

          Maybe a 'positive' as a LAWYER, but as a human being? Not so much.
        • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Terr01, My point was to just throw BS back at you guys. The 'gay' part, I have no problem with his choice.. that was just political ammo to throw at the religious right folks of the republican party. The 'neo-nazi' case, that was ammo for any moderates/independents to turn away from. The 'neo-nazi' supposedly got away with killing the judge's husband and someone else. And just roll that around in your brain... a gay guy defending a neo-nazi. What is he doing smearing Obama and the Democratic party? Did it sound like I was being some kind of bigot? Cause I was mainly just asking questions of the audience in an ad-hominem kind of way. So yes. Isn't that part of the game of politics? If you are attacking me for that questioning, I want you to post something on every 'Hussein' comment you see.. every Muslim comment... black comment... My questions were just to push back against the flow in this thread.
        • Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1The "bigot" comment was meant to be tounge in cheek, Jaron. I apologize if it wasn't clear.

          msk275:
          >>>"The 'neo-nazi' supposedly got away with killing the judge's husband and someone else. "

          And Greenwald wasn't defending him on that case! Probably because... well, it's not a constitutional issue, is it?

          All of a sudden any lawyer who has defended anyone in any type of case is to be tarred with everything that person every does afterwards???
        • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Terr01, so you can say tongue-in-cheek stuff and I can't? I said roll that around in your brain dude.. not start a case. I believe I said I was >>>'throw(ing) BS back at you guys'.

          I apologize to you, as I see you are somewhat of an avid groupie of this guy and other constitutionalism cases.... is that you Greenwald? ha, just ***** with you man. I can sling ***** back, but I'm not going to waste anymore time on this issue. It has NOT passed the HOUSE yet, and really, that was my main point, it is NOT Bush's power.. yet... And I was criticizing his one-sided critic of Obama and leaving McCain along. Everything else was just fodder.
      • whiteboyfunk, on 06/20/2008, -1/+0Guess what, Obama fan, not only did he miss out on these votes, but he misses his votes in the senate all the time. Fortunately most of us can see through that facade. Personal gain in the history books is more important than doing duties in their six-figure job for some.
    • kuatto, on 06/20/2008, -1/+24We need term limits in congress!!!
      • WiseWeasel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Who's going to vote for them?
      • Naieve, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Bravo, one person talking some sense, but go further, we need election law reforms.

        NO BRIBING OF CANDIDATES.

        Simple.

        I sit back and watch everyone blame Bush for everything and call him Hitler.

        Guess what people, HE ISN'T A DICTATOR, HE DID NOT GET US HERE ALONE.
    • manifest020, on 06/20/2008, -4/+6@msk275
      Being a straight man I don't discard information coming from an intelligent individual just because he's gay. Getting to the relevant issues here, the fact that they are going through the motions to pass this should be enough to piss you off. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the invisible hand getting tighter around my neck, and throwing out evidence because it is deemed secret by a judge or the president is ***** dictator ***** in my country. The land of the free mother *****. Real Americans don't take this *****, and if Obama is ducking real issues like this one, than what isn't he going to tap out on? Without the checks and balances, no government is a democracy.
      FTA
      Obama campaign and were told that Obama and his staff are "literally reviewing the bill right now and will make a statement shortly."

      So did they not think that this was an issue they might have to make a statement on? Maybe they were hoping it'd just slip under the radar? I look forward to seeing it. Either way, any presidential candidate should be making you twitch at their every move.
      • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1I'm not a right wing nut, so I have no problem that he is gay. I know some people that know some people that are gay. I'm straight. Just throwing some ammo around to mix things up. It just seemed awfully one sided in this thread. lol.

        I know you probably want Obama to respond at the speed of light on this issue so you can have some witty response to it. If I were Obama, I wouldn't be in any rush to address controversial issues..
      • nick1971, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0I'd like to agree with you our openly gay mayor of Berlin Klaus Wowereit seems to be doing a great job. Funny about US politics when the Lewinsky nonsense was going on both the French and the Germany prime minister said and I paraphrase " what the ***** - next topic"
    • david76, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3This is HR 6304 to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

      Here is a link to the House member directory which contains links to all of the contact information for your representative:
      http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html

      Even if you just leave a message, it is important you voice your opinion. Remember, these are YOUR representatives; they work for YOU.
      • MrNeom, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I seriously laughed when I got to "Remember, these are YOUR representatives; they work for YOU."

        I've written senator/representatives many times and nothing ever changes. They're working for votes. Votes that come from lazy people are far easier to get than people who pay attention to whats going on. Far happier customers too. You just tell them they're happy and they are. Tell them you're doing whats right and they believe you. Throw in some other BS to make it all look legit and you're good to go.

        America is broke.
    • Metasquares, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2It's going to pass anyway. And if it doesn't, they'll raise it again and it will pass that time around. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    • pjpark, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I agree. I graduate from law school in a couple of years, and I want to get my hands on some of that telecom loot.
    • kosser, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3wow the saddest thing i've seen. Please call obama. Is Obama going to fix this? Obama wants this, I hope someone actually calls him then shows points out how his people probably said yea yea yea we want change blah blah blah....then does nothing. Please call obama?? lol
    • mrzeero, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I called his office this morning to voice my concerns and they told me that Obama was going to make a statement about this issue later today.

      • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ...
        his statement. not totally happy with it: he backs the bill but says he'll try to remove amnesty.
        "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."
        • tnoy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5"I will work..."

          Translation: "I'm going to say I back it to make the people that support it happy, and say I oppose the part that people object to so the objectors are happy with me, then I'll do nothing about it because I took a big payout from the telecoms."

          People are going to forget about this in three weeks, and then say things like "Obama would never let something like this happen!"
        • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Yeah.
          I called his office and told him no form of Amnesty is appropriate. I will not vote for him if he approves this bill with the amnesty clause intact.
          I hope he mans up and does the right thing.
    • paradexes, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4As I have been saying over the last year....2008 is the year we realize the world we thought we lived in is over.
      • msk275, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Uhh... okay.....
      • drspanklebum, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1That world has been over for a couple years now, there has just been a complete MSM blackout on any types of fascist behavior... Even if people were presented with the incontrovertible truth, do you think they would really even want to acknowledge it? "Oh, not now, I have to take the kids to soccer practice.." Its really disheartening.. I've become so upset by it I'm tempted to just stop caring.
        • lamey, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2never stop caring, ask anyone that has ever fought a seemingly unbeatable foe, you HAVE to fight. they want us to give up.
  • jvill, on 06/19/2008, -8/+234It's time to take hammers to knee caps.

    This congress is an embarrassment.
    • DooM, on 06/19/2008, -2/+62You can use my hammer after I'm done hitting myself in the head with it... repeatedly.

      I've been in touch with my Senator about this a number of times and have told her that she loses my vote forever if anything like Telecom Immunity passes without full testimony - I guess she doesn't care. AND, I have to think that there are a lot of Democrats who were complicit with illegalities with how this keeps getting put back on the table.

      I say we take off and nuke the entire Congress from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -1/+12Nuke the legislative bodies of every other country while you're at it.

        Make sure you get the corporate executives if you have a clear shot, too.
        • norcalscan, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1Except Steve Jobs!! he gave us the iPhone, and seeing how you're using your iPhone to launch the nuke missile, you gotta be nice to Jobs.
      • PlagueOfMorons, on 06/20/2008, -4/+19I've found that my representatives simply do not want to listen. Example: I wrote Dianne Feinstein and asked her not to support an upcoming bill giving amnesty to illegal foreign workers. Her reply:

        "Thank you for contacting me regarding foreign guest workers in U.S. agriculture.... While I believe that U.S. businesses should hire American workers first, the fact is that the domestic supply is not meeting the needs of our farmers. Americans are unwilling to do this work."

        Yeah? Thank you, Dianne Feinstein, you ignorant bitch. They're not guests, they're CRIMINALS. You sound like HP's Carly Fiorina, who said "Americans don't have a god-given right to a job." In the face of BS like this, I've given up expecting legislators to listen to citizens. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi, for whom impeachment is not on the table -- f-you and the horse you rode in on.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+20Immigration isn't a real problem. Corporate ownership of Congress is. We should oppose Feinstein and her ilk because they are owned by corporations not because they don't hate brown people hard enough.
        • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -8/+5I love that line, "Jobs Americans wont do." Elitist bitch. I bet that if someone is hungry enough or poor enough they'll do any job that they can. I know that I would do whatever necessary to make sure my family has food on the table.

          @chicofaraby - Your comments are woefully wrong. Corporations are the people that provide jobs and generate wealth. Illegal immigration is a huge problem and is getting worse. Why in the hell would you fault the people providing the jobs to the people. Just an asninie comment.
        • PlagueOfMorons, on 06/20/2008, -3/+9Chico, I apologize if it sounds like I'm picking on people by skin. Not so. What I'm against is immigrants who come here illegally, and what it does to society. Most of them are exploited by employers and I'm against that, it's near-slavery. However, my parked car was totalled by a drunk illegal with no license. Then my next car was sideswiped in a parking lot by a different immigrant - not legal either, and from a different country - and the wheelwell crushed in. I replaced that with a Volvo , and it was broken into by gang members - who proudly left a nice gang scrawl on the building too - and they ripped out the console trying to start it, ruining the car ($9000 estimate in damage!). I have nothing against people by race, but I really don't think much of crime caused by out-of-control foreigners here. I'm sick of the cost to society. Does Congress care? Hell no. And they go on enjoying the corporate lobbyist money.
        • Memitim, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5The jobs Americans won't do... for the ***** pay that is offered. Garbage collectors tend to make some pretty good cash, because most of those agencies can't get away with hiring illegals to subvert the higher pay that is necessary to attract enough Americans to perform that task.

          It's OK when Exxon is making record profits charging you for the gas to get to work but it is not OK when you have the audacity to demand a fair wage for a day's labor, apparently. Supply and demand works both ways.
        • laserdog, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4It seems strange to me that so many people have it out for illegal immigrants, but almost *nobody* talks about punishing the people who hire them.

          Last I checked knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant was a crime, if only for the lack of income tax reporting.

          You can prosecute those people, they have business addresses.

          Once there are real consequences for hiring illegals, they won't hire them, and they won't come here for work.

          The dirty secret there is that the Republicans *love* the cheap labor for the business interests, and just hate on the illegals to score "blue collar joe" points.
        • HxChris91, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Hey Plagueofmorons, I'd say its time to move to a new neighborhood.
        • PlagueOfMorons, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Hahaha Chris, for sure. except I live in the safest city on the SF peninsula. That's the part that's scary. If I lived up in Oakland, where a state representative was carjacked, and where people are shot every night, it would be even worse.
      • rezonq3, on 06/20/2008, -1/+12"I say we take off and nuke the entire Congress from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

        Damn nice Aliens reference. Well played, sir.
    • geddon, on 06/20/2008, -5/+14We replaced the Congress in 2006 to turn back the tides of war.

      Obama better have some solid tricks in his bag if this is how a Democratic Congress acts!
      • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -2/+19Um, Obama is part of this Democratic Congress.

        Just sayin'.
        • Gutterpunk, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1There is a difference between being part of it and being the head. I think that geddon meant that Obama won't make much of a difference as a president if Congress (both side) acts that way. One need to check how he voted as an individual on the issue.

          As a president, would he veto that decision with the Important Pen Of Veto (tm)? No one knows (although his track record indicate that it's likely).
    • universeman, on 06/20/2008, -5/+20I have to say I enjoy watching Democratic-party supporters learning the meaning of the old saw "A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it all away."

      This is why Ron Paul was positioned as a crackpot by his own party, the establishment wanted him out of the way so they could enact this crap. He was the ONLY candidate who steadfastly and in no uncertain terms opposed government invasion of privacy for ANY reason. And lots of other good stuff too that frankly people just do not appreciate, unfortunately, because they have too much trust in their government.
    • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -0/+12http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml#Y
      final roll call.
      • lizajane999, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I'm proud of my state's representatives, they all voted against it!

        /onipa'a Hawaii!
        • TonyLocNE, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4that's good.. my state went 0/3. As a Republican, I'm calling my state's 3 Republican representatives today and informing them they will not be receiving my vote in the future.
    • raytibbitts, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6Seriously guys. Us 'conservatives' rely on Democrats to keep the balance in check. WTF.
      The Opposition needs to keep up its end of the bargain.
      Presidential powers are already way overblown, and they were long before any of this latest increase began.
      Sometimes a third party doesn't sound all that crazy, Ron Paul.
    • paradexes, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Democrats and Republicans, Not any more they're not. I am beginning to see that diggers are starting to see things for what they are (some anyway). The 2 party system is a crock. That is a false division. Honestly, there are those of us here (many I would wager) who do not fit into either the Democrat or Republican mindset that exists now in Washington. We just need to wake up and realize that.
    • Naieve, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2Hey come on people.

      We all know George Bush is a dictator and therefore responsible for everything that happened over the last 8 years.

      Oh wait? He's not a dictator?

      Crap, who am I supposed to vote for now that I know he's only a scapegoat for the entire ***** up government.
    • prahareturns, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1There is no hope for congress. They have gamed the system (pork barrel projects, media in their pocket (left and right), and constant lies) and we will continue to re-elect them. Without term limits I don't see any hope for us. Since we can't point a finger at congress like we can the president nothing will ever change.
      • anonymousleaf, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Are you retarded? House Reps serve for 2 years and Senators for 6. I'm sad that out public education has failed you so badly as that you think that our representatives, whom we vote for, serve indefinite terms.
        • fookisgod, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Are you retarded? They can run for as many terms as they want. Hence the term limits would only let them run for only one or two terms.
        • prahareturns, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Anonymouseleaf, are you really as dense as your reply makes your sound? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my statement. I clearly said "we will continue to re-elect them." We the people continue to re-elect our Congressional representatives time after time due to gerrymandering, local pork projects which should be state funded but are built into federal spending packages. My recommendation is that congress is held to the same standards as the president. The 22nd amendment should be applied/expanded to cover Congressional representatives. Apparently the public education system did not fully enable you to read and comprehend.
  • tidu, on 06/19/2008, -7/+108"Congress is going to decree that the President has the power to order private citizens to break the law"

    Just to clarify, by using the terminology "person" in the bill, they're referring to a telco company or entity, and are much less likely to acquit a "private citizen" for doing this. It's still nonsense and retroactive immunity, though.
    • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -2/+35Right. The term "person" in modern capitalist terms actually means corporate body. When referring to actual people they tend to use words like "pawn", "fodder" or "exploitable resource" instead.
      • harveywalbanger, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6You forgot collateral damage...
    • TubeDigger, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3A corporation can have person-hood status (wiki it) and a 'person' is a corporations witch operate with the name on your birth certificate. You are a human (man) and HAVE a person. You just always thought you were that person. Strange...yes
      • harveywalbanger, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3It's a fact. Corporations have more rights than individuals.
    • marillion, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2I have a pet conspiracy theory ... The telecoms get their cases thrown out of court IF they get in writing that someone in the Executive authorized it. Would such a document be really nifty in a future trail against any number of former White House executives .... (this just fill me with all kinds of glee)
      • Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3It's still a huge step down, because other provisions make it very hard to even *have* that future trial.

        The lawsuits are not about proving that the government was the ringleader. The lawsuits are about compelling them to provide evidence, evidence which can be used restart the halted lawsuit against the administration, which is stalled on the technicality that no plaintiff can prove that they, personally, were wiretapped by the program.

        "Hey, honey, I just did a whole bunch of ***** to ten of the thirty people in that room, people who can now sue me, but as long as none of them can *prove* that they were one of those ten, I'm clear. Sweet scam, huh?"
    • theaceoffire, on 06/20/2008, -1/+9I don't care about the retroactive immunity.

      I care because it also gives FUTURE-active immunity.

      THAT is the real issue in my mind.
    • geddon, on 06/20/2008, -1/+8Relic180: I think the terms you're looking for to describe us non-corporate entities include "target," "market," and "revenue source".
      • quesi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4"stupid eaters"
      • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Oh. He's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market.
      • harveywalbanger, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You forgot collateral damage...
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I can see it now - GW ordering an american citizen (hooker) to snort illegal cocain off of his stubby lil wee-wee. HA HA HA
      Suck this GW! IMPEACH BUSH!
    • thereisnostate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2and millions of Americans voted for these politicians
  • y0urcl0ne, on 06/19/2008, -11/+46idiots

    That's all I have to say.
    • kaelyiesta, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Remember this corruption and all the past legislation leading to this point when you consider things like net neutrality. Do you really trust them with more power? This is the same government that established the monopoly amongst the tier one owners, the same government that used your taxes to do it, the same government that has secretly and illegally colluded with telecoms to spy on our traffic, the same government that now is breaking the law again by trying to grant retroactive immunities to its partners in crime, and the same government that 'regulates' the telecom industry by censoring content.

      I know the idea of net neutrality seems trivial considering the gravity of this topic, but we as a people need to become aware that history has shown repeatedly that we should be VERY wary of encouraging more legislation and 'regulation'.
    • georgemason01, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2They know exactly what they're doing.
  • bonsomme, on 06/19/2008, -34/+33You know what? If you're so concerned about being spied on, then just stay in your house, lock your doors and windows, and break off all communication with everyone. Otherwise, you might be a terrorist.
    We've got citizens to protect here!
    • kraney, on 06/19/2008, -0/+17> Otherwise, you might be a terrorist.

      But if you do, you might be the Unabomber. Your choice. Enjoy!
      • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -1/+31The Unabomber sent most of his packages to high level executives, and he's looking less and less crazy every day.
        • thedogfatherx, on 06/20/2008, -9/+1Mmmmmmkay.
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5If only that rage could be directed in a positive direction, like towards these corrupt congressmen...
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 06/20/2008, -1/+36You're right. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. All hail BB!
      • BabyWookie, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1What does hailing Barbara Bush have to do with this?
      • nick1971, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0Amazing the word which you misspell is forbidden under the German Constitution and German constitutional law.
        This is the result of going through decades of looking at our history and trying with all our strength to prevent the same mistakes from happening again.
        I know your answer is sarcastic but what we have gone through in the last decades may not be repeated in history.
        Make this crazy man stop. Lobby your friends, lobby your colleagues go to the streets or you may be faced with the same shame that we are.

        Once you have looked at the mapping of the patriot act and subsequent related legislation to the
        http://janschejbal.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/vergle ...
        this was the act against " terrorists" that Adolf Hitler 1 month after he came to power.and the Patriot Act then take a deep breath, start crying and wonder what you can do to change the status quo.

        I love America I have lots of American friends but you have started down a dark path, I pray that you have the strength to walk backwards

        To paraphrase and bastardize Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–198)
        They came for the terrorists and I said nothing
        They came for them political dissidents and I said nothing
        They came for me and there was no one left to hear me scream

        Stop it now
        • Naieve, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2When did we start gassing millions of people?

          Anyways, the government can only go so far.

          We have these things called elections, they are our checks and balances.

          Even if the people running don't give a crap, they deal with the problem or get the boot.

          It's not perfect, but far far far away from Hitler.
        • AKBryant54, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1You don't think the Germans had elections? They did, until their country was plucked up into a nationalist zeal and the militant enthusiasm started to kick in. Once that happens to a large enough group of people, all values and morals and ideals go out the window, and are replaced by an urge to defeat the common enemy. This can happen to any society, and it looks like it's happening to us. Nick's message is one of warning, we'd do well to heed it.
        • nick1971, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Dear Naieve,

          I never accused the US of killing millions of people in death camps.

          I asked you to look at the similarities between the Reichstagsbrandverordnung and the US patriot act.
          http://www.illuminati-news.com/patriot-act-vs-germ ...

          The initial people arrested under this law were political dissidents who were deported without a process KZ (concentration camps) at Dachau.

          The arrests were based upon the suspected crime of sedition they were made without due process and within KZ's were the people were held without trial.

          Look at the mapping above between the too laws and then ask yourself what would have you called Guantanamo Bay in the 40's.

          It was later that the KZ were were turned into death camps.
    • bullhead2007, on 06/20/2008, -0/+13Yes yes. The price of protecting our freedom is giving up our freedom.

      Such short sided and allowed absuses of our freedoms allows bad people to do bad things. You assume the good old big brother will only use its powers for protection. However, in every case of such power it is always abused and leads to tyranny. We have freedoms not to protect us when we are doing bad things, but to protect us from people who would do bad things if we didn't have those freedoms.

      And unalienable right is an unalienable right. It is not given to me by government, but by birth, and can't be taken away by government, by the constitution.
      • bullhead2007, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Please pardon my mental lapse above. I meant "short sighted".

        I'm a nazi about my grammar and spelling. Don't mind me.
        • janice92656, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1You said Nazi!!!! Which means that you must be a terrorist and your internet provider is contacting the "intelligence community" as we speak. Effective immediately you are on the No Fly List and within two months all credit cards, drivers license and even your library card will be suspended. May Bush have mercy on your soul!
    • damonic, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8Lets just say that you go to buy something from an online store. And lets just say that that online store is in another country. And that online store just happens to be on a "watch" list someplace. Now you are on that watch list too. You haven't done anything wrong and you haven't even left your house. Your calls are monitored, your internet browsing monitored. Best not try to get on a plane...

      Not a lot you can do about once this is enacted. Its best to take a stand now - before these draconian laws are passed.
    • diggingaround, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4you forgot /*sarcasm in your post... right?
    • Quaterni0n, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4"We've got citizens to protect here!"

      What a bunch of paranoid wussies! This fear mongering to the sheeple has got to stop. It's turning Americans into a bunch of whiny, fearful, cowering crybabies. Get up from that fetal position, go outside and for *****'s sake take that dorky looking bicycle helmet off.
      • Naieve, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Go watch television, and then sit back and correlate the news to paranoia.

        We are spoonfed paranoia from the television from just after birth.
        • Quaterni0n, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1True, but it doesn't mean we have to eat it up. Yeah, there's bad ***** going on in the world, but it's not any more dangerous than it was a generation ago. It's actually safer. We just became wussified.
        • fookisgod, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there not after you.
    • felixme86, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
    • AnarchoGoth, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Yes, because wasting tax dollars and increasing the signal to noise ratio by spying on millions of people who are suspected of no crime is the best way to gather information on terrorists.

      Yup, those Quakers sure seem sympathetic to politico-islamist extremist ideals. It is well worth the time money and effort to spy on them.
    • mactaggart, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Bonsomme: Here's a letter, addressed to you:

      http://www.ablankpaper.com/2008/06/dear-internet-c ...
  • captainxark, on 06/19/2008, -7/+37This is HUGE. No way to get out of Iraq if the check is already signed. Even with a lessened (who knows really though) threat from 'Al Qaeda' they still for some reason need everyone's phone conversation. Just when I was thinking about getting positive about Obama, this crap. I guess that's why it was ok for the system to decide, finally, to maintain habeus corpus, the whole place is a prison now anyway. Good luck Obama, now the place is ruined anyway, enjoy taking over a depressed police state economy. Just like Mumia says, as soon as the city treasury is looted, they elect a black mayor. Effective crowd control. For a second there I thought he was someone I might believe in. That will be the last time. Every person for themself. Get encryption, lay low. It's going to hit the fan.
    • Wargalas, on 06/20/2008, -6/+1Buried for quoting that cop killing ***** Mumia.
    • foxinthehole, on 06/20/2008, -2/+0Advice heeded.

      Do you remember what book Mumia says that in?


  • cherwilco, on 06/20/2008, -25/+8nice way to blame dems in the title. I don't think it was the dems that put that raving psycho into power to begin with so why dontcha blame the dumbass's that voted for him instead? oops I forgot its easier to just pull your collective fingers out of each others ass and point them all to the left isn't it?
    • richhein, on 06/20/2008, -2/+30We know who the Republicans are. We elected the Democrats in 2006 to change things in the United States. It is horrifying that, now that they are in power in the congress they, the Democrats, have passed laws restricting habeas corpus, passed laws condoning torture and many other laws that have no business being written in the United States. The Democrats were supposed to be our friends and protect us from this mindless torture of the last 7 years. They have the power to stop this. They run congress. The have failed. I'm as disgusted with them and will work to remove any person who has been instrumental in this travesty removed from public life.
      • ADVIZR, on 06/20/2008, -2/+7Democrats are in power? Define power. The Senate is basically dead even. Members of the same party rarely act and vote exactly alike, so to assume direct opposition is to make a false assumption. The only thing we can assume is that democrats are *more likely* to oppose the endless garbage of Bush & Republican Friends. And that part holds true.

        If the US actually wanted to see more opposition, more democrats should've run and more should've been voted into the Senate.

        As it stands right now:
        --------------------------------
        Democratic Party 49
        Republican Party 49
        Independent 2 Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.
        "Majority" 51 The Democratic Caucus (51 members) is in the majority.

        Lieberman is what he is: a Republican, currently attached to the hip of McCain. So, adjusted, that becomes 50 Republicans vs. 49 Democrats + 1 Independent (who may or may not side with republicans at any given moment).

        The power of democrats in the Senate is truly overwhelming.
        • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1"As I noted yesterday, the GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a "formality" which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: **********"I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."*****

          "Lichtblau himself noted that "the White House immediately endorsed the proposal" and wrote that the bill "represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute." Reporters Dan Eggen and Paul Kane were even more blunt and derisive in The Washington Post, noting that the Democrats "hand[ed] President Bush one of the last major legislative victories he is likely to achieve"; that "the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law"; and that "the negotiations underscored the political calculation made by many Democrats who were fearful that Republicans would cast them as soft on terrorism during an election year."
        • gcauthon, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1This was a house vote so what does the senate makeup have to do with it? Over a hundred democrats voted for this bill.
      • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7You're right about all of that except the part where you say "they have failed". Apparently you didn't figure out before the 2006 election that while the rhetoric is different, the goals remain the same.

        Maybe this is a good thing, and ordinary people will begin to see more clearly just how much the "two" parties are not so different after all.

        The answer is to stop voting for the "two" party stage-performance.
    • dcmjzero, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7the democrats hold the majority. they are to blame if this is passed. QED.

      third party anyone?
      • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Yes please.
      • cherwilco, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1yeah the dems hold the majority alright. kinda like normal people hold the majority over pedophiles. so dcmjzero who ya gonna blame for all the kid touchin going on? I guess that can be the new pedo defense system, "its society's fault for not stopping me"
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1what makes you think the dems are on the left?
  • JohnLawson, on 06/20/2008, -4/+56I guess personal freedoms are no longer the "in" or "cool" thing...... sigh.
    • GorfTron, on 06/20/2008, -9/+3Neither are mullets, you gotta take the good with the bad.
      • Memitim, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4And yet the mullets tend to go with the folks who blindly support those who work to eliminate our freedoms, so I'm still looking for the good. Can't we get free ice cream or something instead?
    • poploserdigg, on 06/20/2008, -5/+3Maybe if you got them with an iPhone...
    • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1***** that. Anyone who actively works to protect their freedom is cool in my eyes, at least.
  • jonthebishop, on 06/20/2008, -3/+46It isn't too late to stop telecom immunity. Write your senators and reps. The EFF has setup a page to make it easy: http://digg.com/politics/URGENT_Tell_Congress_No_D ...

    They have been fighting this for over 6 months, tell them not to give up now.
    • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -3/+13If your senator and/or representative has a big R or a big D after their name (and chances are that they do), then don't waste your efforts. Neither party ever REALLY opposed this bill, and they're not about to start because some pesky taxpayers are asking them to.
      • x713, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I dug you down because the person that gives up and just stands by to let something happen is just as bad as the person doing the action.
        • relic180, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Uh, well.. yeah. I'm not pissed at you because I still have +10 right now, but you should maybe read some of my other posts.

          Start with the ones that have the most curse words.
    • jarvismak, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Screw that. I won't lay down and give up my country without a fight. I called offices of both Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
  • FrankHope, on 06/20/2008, -12/+43Overheard in a conversation between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, "with friends like the Democrats in Congress, who needs enemies?"

    Obama, where art thou?
    • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -5/+39He's doing the bidding of his corporate owners right now. Quit bothering him.
    • Ryphal, on 06/20/2008, -3/+20He's busy campaigning right now and doesn't have time to be sitting in the Senate voting on these frivolous matters.

      Seriously, during presidential campaigns you always see these bills and stuff come out with the voting record and at the bottom you always see the presidential candidates were not in the session to vote. What a bunch of *****.
      • Memitim, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6Meh, I'm either paying ***** of money to support these idiots while they are acting like they are performing their jobs or I'm paying ***** of money to support these idiots while they campaign for jobs that they aren't going to perform. In either case, they're enjoying $50/pound Jamaican Blue coffee and first class travel on the public dime. It all comes out the same in the end.
    • ender7074, on 06/20/2008, -2/+31Obama = more of the same. Dont believe his line of *****. He proves daily that hes nothing more than the exact same as every other snake politician.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -1/+26Obama = one of those very same "Democrats in Congress" you talk about.

      The guy is a politician, not Jesus, not Moses, not Buddha. He's a ***** politician, no different from Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Leiberman, McCain, (insert legislator here), etc. Do you not realize this?
      • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4All of the above are either Democrat or Republican (Leiberman is a big fat R, btw). Notice the trend?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Hmm, would that be because we're essentially a two party system?

          To be honest, I can't name an independent or third-party congressman. If I thought about it long enough I probably could, but none of them have left a big enough impression on me to have their names roll off my tongue.

          Besides, I'd argue that at the core of it all, it's more about what kind of people they are than the party they belong to. As is stands now, it's not the parties it's the people we've been dumb enough to elect. Yes, that means Obama too.
        • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2If you simply don't know who the third party candidates are (and the media has done a good job making sure you don't) Start here.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_pres ...

          You're going to have to do your own research, until we can get the ***** media to start representing all the candidates properly. To get out of this ***** system is an uphill battle, it's been specially designed that way.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+10If Obama really wanted to change the country he could start by using he freaking congressional vote he has. I don't care if he is campaigning. Give me 1 good reason why that should stop him from doing the first job we already elected him for. He is to busy? GFY all this dude has is good speech writers.
    • Naieve, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I'm voting for Obama.

      I don't expect much change.

      I'm just hoping that his victory will get everyone talking about it.

      And for all the ***** people out there, we don't live in a dictatorship.

      Obama can do nothing without Congress, just like Bush couldn't.

      So everyone keep blaming Bush for everything, he is a great scapegoat.

      The fact that you are ignoring the rest of the people responsible, well that's too bad I guess huh....
    • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1He's laughing that he passed the Patriot Act and the media never talked about it
  • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -10/+19As long as we keep putting the two right wing parties back into government they have no reason to change their actions. Unless we vote for REAL change, leftist candidates, there will be no reason for the right wing to stop giving your money and your freedoms to their corporations.

    The Democrats are right wing corporatists too. Vote left or this ***** will not end.
    • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Who is viable on the left, though? The Green Party?
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+17If you won't vote for them until they are "viable" they never will be.

        Vote Green, vote Nader, vote for Bernie Sanders if you're in Vermont. If your state has no leftists on the ballot, vote for any third party to deprive the current parties of your vote.

        Truly, nothing will change if we vote for Democrats or Republicans.
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Bernie Sanders?? No thanks. Just because they run slightly outside of the mainstream doesn't make their solutions any more viable. It's still very much a pro-state solution deal, just finding different ways to spend tax money.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1The most successful systems around the world mix well-regulated capitalism with socialism and democracy. We should too.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Ind ...
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1@Chico: You'll notice that those that do work have a much more localized population, and a significantly higher level of representation per capita, similar to (gasp) our state governments. We're much too poorly represented at the federal level for that to work here, as demonstrated by this legislation. Socialist policy at the state, county or city level = manageable, socialist policy at the federal level = corrupt mess unaccountable to anyone.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Well if it's hard, we probably shouldn't try.
    • jbecker, on 06/20/2008, -2/+9Actually, as I see it, we keep putting 2 left wing parties into power. Both are giving more and more money to corporations, the military, etc. The government-media-military complex is putting out socialist propaganda and propping up Obama.

      Liberty and freedom are about what the government is not explicitly outlining. Less laws, less governmental power, more freedom.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4I guess if you are ***** insane right wing it might look like that. But frankly, here in reality socialists have never had any power in the USA. There is one and only one socialist in Congress. So pardon me if I dismiss your claims that the US government is left in any way. It is completely absurd.
    • Phylodome, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5It's funny that you think any change is possible if we still keep viewing politics as a dipolar, zero-sum game. This is the entire reason citizens get ***** over. Everyone creates a false dichotomy for them to believe in, and hence the sheeple become easily herded from point A to B to A to B. It's all *****, libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the only way "forward".
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I would qualify that by saying libertarianism/agorism is a necessary underpinning for any other solution. The core requirement is voluntarism, and not forcing opposing sides against one another via this system. As an extension of voluntarism, voluntary socialism is then feasible for those who seek it.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2No government is not the solution to bad government. We have governments because we need them. In reality we need our government to work well. Tearing it down and throwing it away seems childish to me.
        • Phylodome, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1This is such crap. You aren't providing any line of argument, and furthermore it's insulting how simplistic this assertion of yours is. Don't you think this would be one of the first questions a libertarian would ask themselves before further entertaining the idea?

          We need mechanisms that allow for organization and the dissipation of risk, but that does not mean that the state mechanism as it exists now is any more than a quirk of one historical reality amongst an infinite number of possible scenarios.
    • homercles337, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Exactly. Our choices are right of center and further right of center. Nice system we have.
    • PhantomBantam, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Left, right, it's all the same. Democrats are left wing corporatists. One will take away your rights in the name of security, the other will take away your rights in the name of equality. One will invade a country to gain military dominance, the other will invade a country to fulfill the white man's burden. Both make laws according to their own morals, and seek to impose them on everyone else.
    • DontLIE2Me, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Exactly
  • DeepFriedFetus, on 06/20/2008, -13/+87***** the Republicrats
  • FrankHope, on 06/20/2008, -4/+23Contact your Congressperson today, Friday. Don't wait the vote is today, Friday.
    http://www.stopthespying.org/
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/20/2008, -0/+17I have. I live in a Republican district, so it's been a complete waste of time and energy.

      Not that it would make a difference if my rep were a Democrat. Nancy Pelosi is a piece of *****, as are the rest of the spineless Dems that vote for this bill.

    • Dimbleby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Done and done. Called and thanked Earl Blumenauer (OR) who will vote AGAINST. GO Oregon!

      /my kitty died today :(
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2"/my kitty died today :("

        That is the fault of the Republicans no doubt!
  • bosozuku, on 06/20/2008, -2/+26This is the most important political news of the moment.
  • scififan9009, on 06/20/2008, -7/+77When are people going to wake up to the fact that there aren't two parties anymore?
    • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7I can't see how it will be much longer. It seems everyday something else is going on that demonstrates this, and they seem to be making less and less of an effort to hide the similarities.
      • GRTWHT, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5It would be nice to believe that, but just look at the comments and diggs/buries happening here and you can see that the true believers are still the majority....

        It does seem there are more of us that don't buy the party ***** every day howeer, so I continue to hope for the future - just not the near future.
    • wilywondr, on 06/20/2008, -8/+2Compare Lindsey Graham and Russ Feingold if you do not believe their are 2 parties. We have a 2 party system. The Dems have been the opposition party for the last 30 years and have had to pick up some people that are Dems in name only in an attempt to get back into power. A more extreme version of this bill would have been rubber-stamped if the cons were still in control of congress.
      • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3"A more extreme version of this bill would have been rubber-stamped if the cons were still in control of congress."

        More extreme than 100% retroactive immunity for ALL conspirators, plus a persistent status that allows future conspirators to enjoy immunity as well? Simply at the whim of the administration?
        First, how would you prove such a ludicrous statement... and second, how could it possibly be any more extreme?
        • wilywondr, on 06/20/2008, -0/+11. The Democrats are the only opposition to this bill. Here in reality, when there is no opposition to a bill it will be more extreme than a bill that faces opposition. How many points would Boston have scored in that last NBA game if LA played NO defense(I know they didn't play much)?
          2. * see un-patriot act if you don't think this bill could/would have been more extreme if not for the opposition of the Democrats.
          3. Why do you think this bill was not passed already?
        • relic180, on 06/20/2008, -0/+31. They created the illusion of opposition. They don't actually oppose it, which is why they passed it.
          2. I think maybe you don't see just how extreme this bill is. Any corporation that violates the constitution gets immunity as long as they do it for the government. In the past and future. That's VERY extreme.
          3. Political posturing by the party.
        • Flashypoo, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Prehaps a neocongress would have slipped into the bill that he could remain President forever and dissolve the '08 elections.

          I wouldn't be surprised.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1@Flashypoo

          Yeah, regardless of the fact that what you suggest would have to come in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

          /facepalm.
    • Memitim, on 06/20/2008, -1/+22Most Americans don't care, they just like picking a side. Hell, most Americans are oorah about some sports team despite the fact that the majority of the players aren't even from that area and would leave in a heartbeat if offered something better on another team. It isn't about doing what is right, it's about picking a team and hating the other.
    • pablo82, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Don't blame me, I supported Ron Paul, Kucinich and Gravel- the only 3 candidates running in the 2 partys who weren't bought and paid for. Im just sitting back waiting for Obama to come in and offer more of the same, just so it wakes a few more people of our generation up. I really hope he surprises me, but I see no signs of it yet.
      • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1*cue response that you're inconsistent for supporting both Paul and Kucinich/Gravel because they're "completely opposite", completely ignoring the fact that they're all CONSTITUTIONALISTS which is of course their commonality*
  • rpfinley, on 06/20/2008, -3/+12Its fun watching all of the broken promises by this current congress, careful what you wish for.
    • FredFredrickson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Are you REALLY trying to say that the results of this would have been any different if we had a majority of Republicans in congress?

      Laughable, to say the least.

      They're the ones that pushed hardest for this to pass, after all.
    • poploserdigg, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2its going to be even more fun watching the Diggnorami's hearts get broken when they realize Obama is just another one of the clowns.
      • DiggGeek24, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1No they wont Obama could declare martial law, nuke iran and did would back him.
  • rzxc, on 06/20/2008, -1/+25I'd like to add a name to the list of people we need to remove from office. Rahm Emanuel. He's a sociopath and he's the leader of the neocon Democrats in the House. If you don't believe me, read the following article.

    http://www.politicsofextortion.com/index.php?optio ...
  • swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -3/+42This blogger, Glenn Greenwald, is probably the single best source for what's going on with FISA. He's been comprehensively covering the GOP's effort to amend it for over a year.

    He's set up an alliance between constitutionalist "Ron Paul Republicans" and progressives, as well as the ACLU, to fight infringements on our civil liberties. They are raising money to kick Bush Democrats out of office if they refuse to respect the Constitution. More info here

    http://digg.com/politics/Left_Right_Blogs_Team_Up_ ...
  • ADVIZR, on 06/20/2008, -16/+6Courtesy of the "Democrats"? That's a pretty ignorant title and doesn't give credit to the weight of the problem: the ENTIRE CONGRESS as a whole -- chiefly republicans. I like how this submission implies that it is the inherent responsibility of every single democrat to directly oppose and clean up the endless stream of ***** for which most republicans and the Bush administration are responsible. It would be nice if that were the case but that's not the way life works. Everyone of the same party does not think and act exactly alike.

    Obviously, many democrats are to blame, should you disagree with their voting. But that doesn't excuse the larger portion of republicans who are responsible. Do not forget that the Senate is basically dead even. Lieberman is an Independent Republican and currently McCain's little sidekick. The major voices of opposition are within the democratic party. Those voices can only do so much. Give them credit.
    • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7This is a back door deal brokered by Hoyer. They didn't slip ***** by him, he sold us out. And he is the Dem's leader. The Democratic Leadership sold us out.
      I plan to vote for Obama, but he has an obligation to speak up. He has demonstrated courage in politically difficult situations before, why not now?
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/20/2008, -1/+9The Democrats control Congress. They could stop this any time they wanted, as they did a few months ago (did you notice, the world didn't end courtesy of the terrorists, despite Bush saying it would?).

      The Democrats have shown their true colors. Time for the people to do something about it.
    • eddan, on 06/20/2008, -2/+0"Everyone of the same party does not think and act exactly alike."

      Unless they're Republicans and Bush... Amiright? Lieberman thinks differently from his former party, and you don't call him an Independent thinker. You call him "McCain's little sidekick."
    • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3"I like how this submission implies that it is the inherent responsibility of every single democrat to directly oppose and clean up the endless stream of ***** for which most republicans and the Bush administration are responsible."

      Well considering that was the campaign rhetoric they, themselves, used to get into office in 2006.....
  • theNazz, on 06/20/2008, -1/+41Talking about protecting the US Constitution is such pre-9/11 thinking ...
    /stabs eardrum with nearest pen
    • nosecohn, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7Right. Remember, "they hate us for our freedoms." So if we just get rid of them all, they won't hate us anymore. Good thinkin' Georgie.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+49/11 really did change everything
  • sphira, on 06/20/2008, -5/+29This will not stop until there is a purge, both republican and democrat.
    When people stop voting their little issues and vote for self preservation by voting for people like Ron Paul - (if their vote is actually counted)
    It will have to be overwhelming because they will pull every trick in the book to prevent that from happening -
    I kid you not!
    • Conspiracy20, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7You've said it all sphira.
    • BufordT, on 06/20/2008, -0/+12I couldn't agree more with the purging of the congress, but the problem is there aren't enough candidates like Ron Paul on the national, state or even local levels. It is a shame, but I really don't know what we can do about it.
      • sphira, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I agree -
        But I can't help but remember this 18 year old young man getting elected mayor of a Dallas suburb around here - He ousted an incumbent because people were fed up - and the town was much better off -
        So anybody will do as far as I'm concerned as long as it isn't them -- We can recover from anything else -

        What kills me is the demographic shifts like what is happening to by beloved birth state of Virginia though.
        Keeping the Southern states split is hard to combat -
      • Memitim, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Lottery for candidates much like juror selection and then democratically elect the positions from those whose numbers come up?
  • Mavital, on 06/20/2008, -8/+1"This bipartisan bill balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements"

    I don't have time, and if someone DOES read the entire bill, I would like to see if they are putting in tighter restrictions and more rules to ensure civil liberties are protected. This story cries out over and over how terrible amnesty is to the telecoms, but honestly I think our government should be held more accountable for the wire tapping then the telecoms. If this bill is placing more restrictions on what can be done, and then ensuring companies cannot be sued because of these "new restrictions", that seems only fair. What if someone said to you you could walk on the grass. But then they made a law that said you can't walk on the grass, and someone decided to sue you for walking on the grass 6 months ago. Not an apples to apples, I know, but I'm curious if this protection is for that reason.

    Having said all that, I think a blanket statement from the Attorney General is NOT enough to get a case dismissed from court. I think documents and intelligence need to be provided, and then the judge presiding over the case should make the decision whether it was done for the proper reasons. Regardless, I'm pretty sure any dismissal would be appealed all the way up to the supreme court, where it would be torn apart. We still have a pro-constitutional majority, for the time being.
    • swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8How is retroactive immunity from lawsuits over violating the 4th amendment NOT terrible? The problem with this bill is that it decriminalizes violating the law "if the President asks you to."

      RE: Accountability: One congressman, possibly Arlen Spectre, introduced an amendment to put the government in the place of the telecoms as the defendant in the lawsuits. Fair, no? It was shot down instantly.

      RE: Walking on the grass analogy. You got the timeline totally wrong. A proper analogy would be:
      1. They made a law saying you can't walk on the grass in 1970. Wait, why are we using an inane analogy? The actual issue is totally straightforward.

      1. They made a law saying you need a warrant to spy on Americans in 1970.
      2. George Bush told you to spy on Americans without a warrant, and you did it. People sued you for it.
      3. They made a law saying you could spy on Americans without a warrant, and that you couldn't be sued for spying on Americans without a warrant 6 months ago. Democrats stalled the law for almost a year, and now are about to cave and pass it.


    • dsa202, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Blah Blah Blah.
    • ssn697, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6"I don't have time, and if someone DOES read the entire bill, I would like to see if they are putting in tighter restrictions and more rules to ensure civil liberties are protected."

      LOL. That pretty much sums up America these days...
  • InfamousAtheist, on 06/20/2008, -4/+22Throughout history, governments trampling their citizens' rights has led to revolt.

    I'm ***** fed up with the spineless Dems and the downright evil Republicans destroying the rights and freedoms this country was founded on. If it would do any good, I'd utter a string of obscenities.

    Instead, I'm wondering how long the public will put up with this *****. Are we too apathetic to do anything about this garbage?
    • lazerus9, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5No
    • TheMoniker, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2It seems that way at present, sadly.
      • choppa1890, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3You really have no idea. I attended an Austin Ron Paul rally and there were so many people that you couldn't believe how the hell he lost. I deeply believe there might have been some cheating going on, seeing how he had so many supporters come from all accross Texas go and hear him speak.
        • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1If you haven't noticed the corruption at polls and highly biased coverage time in the mainstream media, you've been living under a rock or are in denial. Clearly there is "cheating" going on.
    • wilywondr, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8Every rep in the house is up in November. Do not let your congressperson get re-elected if they support this bill. Make it your job to be sure they are not re-elected. This bill is outrageous.
    • FredFredrickson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5As long as the celebrity news and iPhones keep being pushed on the public, they won't give god damned ***** about anything going on in the real world.
    • jbecker, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Dems are SEEMINGLY spineless. They are just as downright evil as Republicans.
    • janice92656, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1It's not that we're apathetic. It's hard to know what one person can do to prevent things like this from happening. I sign petitions all the time, but outside of that I honestly don't know what I can do to prevent this country continuing on in the direction it is headed.

      Maybe somebody could create a blog that tells us little people what to do.
  • TubeDigger, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4Yes sir, may i have annother?
  • Gump9005, on 06/20/2008, -2/+44REPUBLICANS=DEMOCRATS
    • inajeep, on 06/20/2008, -5/+9No. Republicans rape you while the democrats cry in the corner about it but do nothing to help.
    • Flashypoo, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7"We have a two party system. The Republicans, which is a party of bad ideas. And the Democrats, which is a party of no ideas."
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Who said that? That is a wonderful quote

        (yes, I tried Google)
    • brad3378, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1REPUBLICANS=DEMOCRATS=LAWYERS

      Fixed that for you.
  • DaniCaliforniaS, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2I would have loved to hear what Zefrank would have said. Make up things as we go along!!
  • yngtimmy, on 06/20/2008, -3/+19And you do realize that Bush is out in a few months, so the man with this power will be your glorious Obama...my point is is all BS and I'm tired of these partisan special interests games, and Obama is exactly like everyone else.
    • sylvanis, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Obama's "CHANGE" will come about when he has this power. What politician would vote down this power when it could be in the palm of thier hand.

      Bush/McCain/Obama....they'd vote for anything that would bring them individual power.
      • Knowltey, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Remember, Bush was liked enough to get elected twice. Also, he didn't mention that he was going to plan a war, or send this through, and all the other crap we hate him for, who says Obama won't turn out to be the opposite person than he was during the election?
  • TheMoniker, on 06/20/2008, -2/+10Ugh. What crappy news to wake up to. Thanks America.
  • snotrokit, on 06/20/2008, -3/+12Our Government has reached a level of arrogance where they no longer serve the public, they serve themselves. We can threaten them with our votes, but it only really matters if we do it the numbers that would threaten their election. All of us, each and every one of us needs to be almost evangelical in telling everyone that we know in our spheres of influence about this. But don't stop there, tell those around us HOW to dig deeper, HOW to find the truth behind the stories, the truth about the Main Stream Media.

    Lets teach them how to fish.
  • JimmySpaza, on 06/20/2008, -6/+22I thought so many of you Digg users said that all we had to do was elect Democrats and get rid of the evil Republicans and the Constitution would be restored, civil rights would triumph, government would skrink, blah, blah, blah.

    What happened? Are you ready to say that you were wrong and your alliegiance to the Democratic Party was misplaced?
    • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -2/+5Well Jimmy, I was a Ron Paul supporter and now I am an Obama supporter. My allegiance is to the person who is most likely to put a stop to these kinds of abuses.
      Pretty sure, no matter what, that ain't going to be McCain.
      Though who knows. At the rate he flip flops he might end up there.
      • deathsythe, on 06/20/2008, -2/+12Like Obama doesn't flip flop. You need to realize that your Obamessiah is just as much a politician as McCain - if not worse.
        • an0nymous, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5Did you actually read my first post? I'm asking Obama to act. And commenting that he hasn't.
          Matter of fact the whole article is a bit critical of the Democrats.
      • georgemason01, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Yet another election where the electorate is content to vote between the perceived "lesser of two evils".
    • wilywondr, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6@Jimmy
      Have you ever heard of the lesser of 2 evils? If you think cons oppose this bill you are full of it.
    • majortom1981, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3The democratic party barely has control of the congress. all it takes is two or three of them to go republican on an issue.

      Congress is pretty much even no matter what a republican says.
      • nakani, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Especially with Lieberman who is OBVIOUSLY thinly veiled Republican agent of Israel. They may as well just change his (D) to (R) in news stories!
    • dxgg, on 06/20/2008, -2/+7The only misplaced allegiance was to the individual Democrats...not the Democratic party.

      That said...damn this limiting two party system!
    • poploserdigg, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4Of course not - now there's a new savior in His Obamaness.

      And of course, he will do nothing on this ridiculous law, and the Diggnorami will justify it by saying "he knew it was going to pass and what could one person do?"

      And The Obama Administration will come into power in January and be thrilled this law is in effect.
      • Flashypoo, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4That's why I think he hasn't stepped up. He'll want the power when he's inevitably elected.
  • soot, on 06/20/2008, -2/+29Get Nancy Pelosi out. Get Harry Reid out. Why the ***** would they do this? They didn't just go along with it like cowards, they led the charge. What total failures they have been at every level.
    • deathsythe, on 06/20/2008, -1/+11People need to realize that EVERYTHING the president has done has been verified and voted on by congress- which is currently, and has been for a while, democratically controlled.
      • SuperVepr308, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2They tend to forget that when they go on their rants. Duly noted.
      • diggrnumber1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2what we really need is the power of recall and referendum. all it requires is a constitutional amendment, and who would vote against it?
  • amightywind, on 06/20/2008, -4/+4I am sure GDub would never abuse those powers. (grin)
    • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4That's what most Presidents do.....abuse powers.
    • sylvanis, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I'm sure that NO Politician would ever abuse ANY power they get.....

      it doesn't matter who....they're politicians....they'll abuse it. I firmly belive that Obama will abuse it...and that McCain will abuse it.
    • banderwocky, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1So...you actually do believe it is an abuse of power, but you're just being facetious...Where does abuse of power fit into "democracy" exactly? Is that the will of the people? In the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
    • Knowltey, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
      -Douglas Adams-
  • theelectricafro, on 06/20/2008, -1/+20Washington YOU'RE FIRED!
  • deathsythe, on 06/20/2008, -4/+19People need to realize that EVERYTHING the president has done has been verified and voted on by congress- which is currently, and has been for a while, democratically controlled.

    • GorfTron, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2There has been a fair amount of GOP blocking where Iraq is concerned.
      • deathsythe, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3The Dems have the majority - there is only so much the GOP can do to block or filibuster things.
    • stockgotti, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Not everything. This President legislates by executive order. Congress has nothing to do with that. I'm not giving Democrats a pass as I have a passionate hatred for most of them. But you can't let Bush off that easy because he's done a whole Hell of a lot that Congress had nothing to do with.
  • wilywondr, on 06/20/2008, -1/+6Any representative that votes for this needs to be removed from office in November. If they are going to let this administration and the telecom industry do away with the protections guaranteed by our constitution they should not be in public service.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -11/+14The Democrat controlled congress did it.
    The Judaical branch will implement it.
    Bush will be out of government is 6 months.
    But blame Bush....
    Call these new powers "Bush Powers"

    What is the lunatic left going to do on January 21, 2009?
    Don't think things can't get worse - America is about to learn this lesson
    • FredFredrickson, on 06/20/2008, -6/+7Republicans will push this 95%
      Democrats will push it 75%

      And you still buy into the fact that the Democrats are to blame. Wake up, retard. Both parties are doing us wrong.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3FACT:
        The Democrat Controlled Congress did it - not Bush OR the Republicans

        I have no idea what "will push" is supposed to mean - you think you can forecast the future? I don't think numbers pulled from your anus have much value.

        I don't play the party game - I never claimed one party is good and the other is bad. I think one party in control of everything is ALWAYS bad and that is what is about to happen this fall. If you think Bush is bad - just see how bad it can be when we elect empty shirt Obama just because he is a Democrat

        We are about to learn things can get worse - our only hope is for us to stop playing the party game but clearly that is not going to happen this year - we are in trouble and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Only good news for Republicans is the Left Wing Media can no longer blame them for all the problems after this November - the government will belong to the democRATS - heaven help us.
        • shakbhaji, on 06/20/2008, -2/+5The only reason this wasn't passed until now is because the democrats have been holding out. If the republicans had their way, the telecoms would've had immunity a long time ago. Both parties are to blame here, no doubt, but if anything the republicans are the ones that were ready to support this thing from the get go.
        • FredFredrickson, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3The Republians didn't have the numbers to pass this until they persuaded some Democrats to go along with them. That's why this passed, LVD. It wasn't a 51-50 vote, with the Democrats all voting to pass it. Do you even follow this sort of news?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3@Fred

          Now look at the House vote: 293-129.

          That would seem to say, based on your suppositions, that the Republicans persuaded one hell of a lot of Democrats to join them in the vote.

          Both parties possess equal parts of the blame here. ***** them both.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1shakbhaji - I see, no matter what