What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
458 Comments
- Ouze, on 01/09/2008, -4/+253When you think about it, that's as appealing as "no cockpunches if you elect me".
There should be no warrantless wiretaps no matter WHO we elect. - Calann, on 01/09/2008, -5/+205I'd sure like to have a President who will follow the Constitution.
- ordig, on 01/09/2008, -5/+123How about no immunity for telecoms that cooperated, so we can file a giant class action? then I will be impressed.
- corevette, on 01/09/2008, -53/+145that's very funny since you voted for the patriot act.....
some people would call that a flip-flop - logicalnoise, on 01/09/2008, -7/+86because if he doesn't then "he's not supporting the troops".
- actorboy, on 01/09/2008, -15/+83Stupid question. You need to think beyond "Iraq wrong". Try logic instead:
Q: Why do we want to end the war in Iraq? A: Because American lives are being lost in an unjust war.
Q: Why would you approve funds to buy armor and weapons? A: Because American lives are being lost in an unjust war.
Our men and women are over there and presently cannot come back. Let's try to keep them alive until we can bring them home. - dukeeeey, on 01/09/2008, -9/+59he also voted for the extension to the patriot act
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
"USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 - Title I: USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act - (Sec. 102) Repeals the sunset date for (thus making permanent) the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, with the following exceptions. Provides for a four-year extension (through December 31, 2009) of provisions: (1) granting roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) where the Court finds that the actions of the target may thwart the identification of a specified person; and (2) authorizing the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to apply for a court order requiring production of tangible things (including books, records, papers, and documents) for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations." - br0ck, on 01/09/2008, -4/+53"Let's look closely at the Patriot Act. During his campaign for Senate, Obama did join civil liberties advocates, librarians and most Democrats in the country in blasting that Bush-backed law. Clinton voted for the original Patriot Act in 2001, but both she and Obama opposed the original reauthorisation of the bill in 2005. Obama then joined a bipartisan group of senators put their foot down in early 2006 and secured several changes to protect individuals from unfettered government peeking at their personal records. Clinton was not part of that effort.
Despite the group's victory, Republican leaders sought to limit debate on the Senate version of the bill so that Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold would be disallowed from offering his plan to make the protections in the new Patriot Act even stronger. Obama backed Feingold, voting against the motion to cut off debate. Clinton voted for it. And when the reauthorisation finally passed, Obama expressed qualms about the measure but ultimately supported its new limits on scarily murky "roving wiretaps". Clinton, as it happens, opposed limits on roving wiretaps when they were proposed during debate over the first Patriot Act. (On the right side of that vote, amazingly, was Fred Thompson.)"
From http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/not_a_cont ... - kurtwinter, on 01/09/2008, -9/+57While he doesn't have the libertarian charm of Paul or the resolute qualities of Kucinich, Obama is highly electable and very easy to support. In November, I would not hold my nose to vote for him.
- Joscarfas, on 01/09/2008, -18/+63I guess he keeps funding the troops for the same reason many other Democrats do. You see if they don't fund the troops, not only they will prevent them from getting what the troops need, but they will also be accused of many other things including being Anti-Americans.
By not funding Bush's war they are not funding the troops. - Jynx97, on 01/09/2008, -3/+40I am not an Obama guy, but I agree that following the law is a start.
- audaciousgenre, on 01/09/2008, -0/+31FTA:
In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No." - myxyplik, on 01/09/2008, -4/+32I don't know about Ron Paul, but Obama's technology paper states he wants a central database as a "necessary tool to fight terrorism". (Download it from his website.) Read: he wants to keep tabs on American citizens. A police state will just as likely happen under Obama.
- Coven, on 01/09/2008, -3/+31We both know fully well that the Bush admin will leave the troops there to rot all the while screaming "The Dems are killing our troops by not funding them! They hate america first and love the terrorists! 9/11 9/11 9/11!!!!! *foaming at the mouth*"
- alphasixtyone, on 01/09/2008, -3/+30kucinich
- alphasixtyone, on 01/09/2008, -16/+42I really wanna like Obama. his speeches have this hope in them, but when I look at the actual issues and his voting history and his policies, I'm pretty unimpressed. I don't really see how he is any different than clinton. Any obama supporters wanna tell me why I'm wrong. No ***** about hope, change or courage. just objective facts and comparisons
- Coven, on 01/09/2008, -5/+31Of course you mean Dennis Kucinich. Or Mike Gravel. Right? Ron Paul is NOT the only decent candidate out there.
- PawnsOfJoshua, on 01/09/2008, -1/+27For my part, I would much rather have a politician who is willing to say "I felt this way about a certain issue, but in light of new evidence, I have changed my opinion and will now vote with what I feel to be right." I don't think there is anything wrong with somebody changing their mind - and the more important the issue the more important it is that people be willing to do this. By criticizing politicians for changing their opinions, you pretty much send the message that in order to get elected or re-elected, you have to stick to your original ideas no matter how bad or erroneous they turn out to be. A lot of factors can influence a decision, and we expect politicians to provide answers to critical questions on the spot. If we as a society are going to do this, then we should also be tolerant of these people changing their minds and actually commend them for having the courage to say "I was wrong but I want to fix it now."
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -19/+44Obama and Ron Paul - are these really the only 2 candidates who wish to free us form the police state? If true, then these are the only 2 viable choices.
- uptown, on 01/09/2008, -8/+33Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm - manstein01, on 01/09/2008, -0/+24Was about to post, but now there no need. Well said.
But we should not have to ask our presidents whether or not they will follow the constitution. It is sad that this is even an issue. - inactive, on 01/09/2008, -4/+27Your ***** has been smacked down repeatedly. Just give it up.
- martoq, on 01/09/2008, -5/+28It's like saying: "I take care of ma kids!"..."Motherf-er, you SUPPOSED to take care of your kids" -Chris Rock
It is a sad state when this has to be promised. Obama '08 - inactive, on 01/09/2008, -3/+26Its the states job to trample on your individual rights when they believe the trampling is the best thing for their state, community, you, whatever. I mean, you have heard of these things called "laws" that limit what you can and can't do right? Ron Paul's position is simple. America is such a diverse country that there is no one size fits all law for many issues. Those issues should be regulated at the state level so they can best fit the needs of the community. You think that is stupid?
No offense, a lot of people fall for this. Abortion is fake issue. Its there to distract ignorant people from the fact they are paying 40% of their income in taxes to a system that threw them overboard 40 years ago and using the money to kill people that have actually been born. Anyone who is passionate about abortion, ie that is their only issue, on either side, is essentially someone the government considers 'assimilated'. They can tie up your brain cells with that issue for the rest of your natural life while day in and day out, you pay taxes to support dictators who have never even used the words "individual rights" in a sentence together. - pintomp3, on 01/09/2008, -2/+23as a constitutional scholar, he should have never voted for it in the first place. of course then he would be labeled some kind of maverick like kucinich and won't be a "top tier" candidate.
- Makaveli604, on 01/09/2008, -3/+23Uh, I hate to say this: Didn't Ron Paul vote against the patriot act? /offtopic
- Draxius, on 01/09/2008, -4/+23Don't let the dems fool you, Vietnam was ended by cutting the funding. They simply don't want it to end, they are going to control Washington because of this war, why would they want it to end?
- vade79, on 01/09/2008, -1/+19Kucinich too.
- mllawso, on 01/09/2008, -4/+22If I had to choose one phrase that pissed me off the most, it would be "flip-flopper" and all its derivatives. God forbid someone change there mind once they realize they were wrong. People who use the term "flip-flop" would have us believe that you should support every decision you've made; even if you now know what a horrible choice it was.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -12/+29lol get over it. You sir are an idiot. Basically you're saying "my candidate did something stupid but I'm going to disregard it because everyone else did it" .........We need a leader, not a follower.
He didn't read it just like everyone else. Now it is trampling over your constitution and you could give a *****. - Jordan117, on 01/09/2008, -7/+24Well, you're in luck. Obama was a constitutional law professor. At Harvard. For ten years.
Plus, his students liked him! - inactive, on 01/09/2008, -1/+17Well, it's an improvement over the last jerk.
- exomni, on 01/09/2008, -7/+23In other words: "I will keep the oath I affirm on inauguration day"
Wow! Isn't that special! - SavageBlackCat, on 01/09/2008, -8/+24No - by not impeaching him you're supporting the war.
- raoulduke87, on 01/09/2008, -4/+18yeah, but why do we need assault weapons?
- Mercedes383, on 01/09/2008, -1/+15Correct, I looked it up. He actually kicked up a stink about most politicians not actually reading it before voting and introduced legislation to give a 10 day grave period before voting to prevent a bill rush like the patriot act.
- Neiby, on 01/09/2008, -8/+22Sure, we may forgive him for the first vote, but he should have known better by the time this second vote came around to extend it. Explain that one.
- tbikkle, on 01/09/2008, -2/+16start here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
which stances leave you unimpressed? especially relative to clinton. - inurb, on 01/09/2008, -11/+24Too bad he voted to re-authorize the patriot act. And he also wants to re-invoke the assault weapons ban.
- theuniversal, on 01/09/2008, -25/+38Why do Ron Paul supporters think they have a monopoly on the proper interpretation of the Constitution? Don't you know that the Constitution itself says that's the job of the courts? You boast on endlessly about how you're all about "freedom" yet you don't flinch at the fact that Ron Paul has no trouble with state legislatures trampling on individual rights when it comes to abortion. It's amusing that you criticize others for being misinformed when your own take on government, the Constitution, and on the positions of the candidates is about as sophisticated as a Disney cartoon.
- SACubeMonkey, on 01/09/2008, -10/+22Is it bad that any time I see a comment with Ron Paul in it now I automatically thumbs down?
- warlokaz2004, on 01/09/2008, -0/+12well FISA is accomodating to begin with -- you listen in anyways, then they meet at their leisure up to a week later, and if you've 'found' anything anyway, THEN they give you a retroactive warrant, good for what you already found. I remember when folk were debating this "Bush should go to the FISA Court/Bush doesn't need to go to the FISA court" all I could think to myself is "How is a retroactive warrant Constitutional?" Its like a cop finding drugs in your house and arresting you, and while you are sitting in jail getting a 'retroactive' warrant.
- Patrikimo, on 01/09/2008, -3/+15You really think Bush would pull out the troops over something silly like lack of money? He didn't bother to get them more armor before when they needed it, what makes you think he'd care about them now? The honest truth is that if congress stopped funding the war he'd start pulling money from domestic bases and he could probably continue to scrounge until he's replaced. It's a lot of lives to gamble with especially when you know Bush has been so cavalier with them before.
- TexanRudeBoy, on 01/09/2008, -13/+24That's a great reason....... Democrats are funding the war to keep their political positions, much better than using their power to stand up for whats right......wake up man, they're two heads on the same snake.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -3/+14What's more important, your convictions or your image?
- cephelo, on 01/09/2008, -1/+12Dr. Paul is a representative, Feingold is a senator. Out of the entire 100-member Senate, Feingold was the sole vote against the USA PATRIOT act. There were a few other members of the House that voted against it.
Tidbit: Feingold also voted against the war from the start, one of 23 senators to do so, and has not voted party lines on any war funding since. - inactive, on 01/09/2008, -39/+50Get over it, yes the bill was rushed in to congress and they should have debated it more but EVERYONE except for Feingold voted for it.
- TenebrousX, on 01/09/2008, -0/+11Obama is a Senator - only the House can bring impeachment charges
- amgamer23, on 01/09/2008, -4/+15Yay Feingold!
*is a Wisconsinite* - dagnome1984, on 01/09/2008, -0/+11Well if the American pubic is too idiotic to look at what matters than there is no point in having the election anyways.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 460 discussions
