digg

Join DiggAbout

REID: Obama Would Revisit FISA/Spying Bill if Elected watch!

youtube.com — While Barack Obama confused and even angered many of his progressive supporters by voting for the FISA domestic surveillance "compromise" bill, granting immunity to the telecoms who helped President Bush's program of warrantless spying on Americans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says FISA policy would be "revisited" if Obama is elected Presiden

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Surferess, on 07/23/2008, -11/+151FISA sucks! It did make me mad when Obama voted for it. I felt betrayed.
    • fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -22/+3Unfortunately for you, you do not represent the average American voter. I'd be willing to bet that Obama gained more supporters than he lost from that move, mainly from the center.
      • bluezinc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16I'd be willing to bet you are wrong.
      • Pyehole, on 07/24/2008, -1/+17I disagree. In my opinion, the ones that are actually aware of the issue are more likely to be upset by his position.
      • TheKorn2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16No way; Reid wouldn't be talking about FISA if it was a net gain. Reid is talking about it because it's caused a measurable drop in support.
      • mummbleswers, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3Pyehole - exactly his point, the average American isn't even aware of this. I live in a major metropolitan area and any time I have brought this up people act like they have no clue what I'm talking about. Even people on these forums don't know what the hell they're talking about (not all, just some). They're just repeating talking points. I still have no opinion on the matter and that's my fault, but I refuse to ***** on someone until I understand all the facts - and the fact is, I have never read the bill in its entirety. So for me to criticize something I have never studied would be a bad show on my part.
      • sodade, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4I only hope you are wrong, but deep down, I worry that you are right. If so, we ***** deserve the police state.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -3/+0" the ones that are actually aware of the issue are more likely to be upset by his position."

        Most people with a brain who are aware of the issue recognize that FISA puts more limits on the president's wiretapping authority than would be there if there were no legislation at all.
      • utexas112, on 07/24/2008, -4/+0Mummbleswers, I wholeheartedly agree. Most of the haters on this form have no idea why they hate it, other than other people hate it, so they should, too, hate it.

        I posted a comment about FISA on yet another (shocking, I know) article about Obama's alleged "flop" on the matter.

        The point is most people don't realize the good things that the 2008 amendment does, such as requiring probable cause again to wiretap citizens, whereas the previous legislation had been "interpreted" to permit tap-first-ask-questions-later (e.g., never) searches.

      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -3/+0utexas112: another problem is that there's no way for a senator like Obama to know exactly what the NSA is doing. That's why it makes sense for him to take another look at the program once he assumes office. Legislation can try to pre-emptively prevent abuses, but the 1976 FISA bill obviously failed to anticipate whatever kind of ***** Bush was pulling and it's impossible to know ex ante whether the current legislation is also bulletproof. Legislators are essentially working in the dark here. It's similar to SEC laws - they can pass laws that make Enron-style ***** illegal after the fact but it's impossible to prospectively anticipate every workaround that Wall Street is going to figure out.
    • mdoverkill, on 07/24/2008, -5/+36You should feel betrayed. He's a constitutional lawyer. Obama, of all people should know better. But then again he was bought and sold a long time ago.
    • TonyLocNE, on 07/24/2008, -12/+3Felt? So you think its OK now?
      • bluezinc, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9"Felt" doesn't indicate that he feels differently, genius. If he said, "I used to feel betrayed". THEN you would have something to pick at in your petty whining.
      • TonyLocNE, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2How do you figure it doesn't? the word "felt" is past tense and indicates that he presently doesn't feel the same.
      • Colesif, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7So it is incorrect to say 'I felt sad when my dog died'? He was merely describing his emotional response when he heard that Obama had voted in favor of the FISA bill.

        Don't be a grammar nazi if you suck at grammar.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/24/2008, -3/+19He lost my support after FISA and I'm a cross-over repub. I'm also disappointed with his wishy-washy support for opening investigations into Bush's various criminal activities. Obama seems content to just let these guys walk off scot-free. I would have thought that one of his priorities would be to put the DOJ's house back in order and to begin prosecuting those who betrayed our trust in govt and made such an open mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law..
    • soot, on 07/24/2008, -9/+1"FISA" sucks? FISA is the court you should be rooting for if civil liberties is up your alley.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -10/+2This is what I don't get about all the people who are claiming "OH NOES FISA IS TEH DEATH OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!" The only think objectionable about FISA is the retroactive civil immunity (and note: it does not establish retroactive CRIMINAL immunity). What FISA says is if you want to wiretap, you gotta get a warrant. How happy would all these anti-FISA be if there was on such legislation and the president could argue that such searches were limited only to the 4th Amendment "reasonableness" standard or whatever arbitrary standard the Supreme Court sets (which would almost certainly be a low one, given the current make up of the court)?

        Thank God Obama is the one calling the shots here and not random Diggers who know jack ***** about how the law works.
      • soot, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Exactly right. Retroactive legal immunity is a legitimate argument, but there's nothing wrong with the FISA courts. All domestic wiretaps went through the judicial approval process prior to being carried out. At least that's how it went before Bush misused them.


      • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4He obviously meant the FISA -bill- sucks (not the court which has been bypassed over and over) - and it does. The ACLU has a good run down of the problems:

        http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...
    • KJSatz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Actually FISA is the Act.
      • MaynardsTool, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) established FISA courts. Those courts are the rubber stamp that makes it legal to do all of the dastardly things that our government does it its own citizens. I think it's legitimate to refer to anything that falls under its purview (read: anything the government doesn't want us to know its doing to us) as FISA (insert-whatever-it-is policy here). I really believe that FISA, beyond being a necessary act for certain things like legitimate espionage, is a mindset that the government has gotten into that allows it to be so passe with our rights.

        Section 313 of the PATRIOT Act... look it up, you'll ***** your pants.
    • damonic, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9As a previous financial contributor and Obama precinct delegate, the Obama campaign called me to ask for more money. I made it VERY clear that I will not donate because of the way Obama voted on the FISA bill. I'm sure the caller never told him why...
      • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't be so sure - my brother de-subscribed to his mailing list saying FISA was the reason and he received an email from the campaign trying to explain their bogus position on the matter. He definitely knows he screwed the pooch on this vote.
      • InetRoadkill, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Obama's lead in electoral votes has diminished against McSame over the last week. It seems his effort to be all things to everyone is not working as well as he hoped. I guess when you try to stand for everything, you really stand for nothing.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/23/2008, -18/+169So....we should believe Obama will be against FISA, based on the fact that he voted FOR it?
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/24/2008, -19/+4Reid and Obama are lying dogs....and YellowCakeWalk, I could never dig you up even when you are right. Sorry. I dug you down for being you.
      • plimpton777, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8ZOMG! That's the same reason I dugg you down!
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2plimpton777, same for you. Down down down.
    • bluezinc, on 07/24/2008, -19/+6I was pissed, but I've calmed down and I've seen that this is politics. Right before an election people are bound to make decisions based on vying for votes and power within congress. It's the nature of the presidential race. I think it was completely misguided of him to think that's what the voters want, but also he was trying to avoid McCain claiming that he is "soft on terror".

      Once Obama is in office I have confidence that he'll repeal this *****.
      • Iztikeit, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4I hope you are right but Obama is going to have his hands very full.
    • KyleGoetz, on 07/24/2008, -8/+17He did vote for stripping out the immunity provisions, but when that vote failed, he was left with a choice: pass the law as it is, or deny funding to police officers. Caught between a rock and a hard place, with one having his base call him a traitor or having the people he needs to attract a cop hater and terrorist sympathizer, he took the position that he had to take to get elected. You may call it politicking. I call it pragmatism.

      When he gets elected, he may do something about FISA then. However, if McCain gets elected, you'd better believe there's no way McCain'd do anything about it.
      • NorthMass, on 07/24/2008, -6/+10That's why we cant vote for either of them! We know Mccain won't, and we just "hope" Barack will. Screw hoping for change, im going to vote for real change and vote 3rd party.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -7/+5Thank you, Kyle- it's about time someone tried to point out the hypocrisy of bashing Obama for the FISA bill. Obama voted against it three times before finally voting for it- he fought hard for an acceptable version of the bill and was denied every time. And, like you said, if he hadn't voted for it this time, McCain would've been bashing him as a "cop hater".

        McCain, on the other hand, DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10Obama's camp promised to filibuster any bill that had immunity. He did not do this in the end.
      • mdoverkill, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4The bill is unconstitutional, there is no discussion to be had.



        Killface '08, at least he cured global warming.
      • Egoist, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Wasabi, if not voting is your main criticism, how can you support someone like Obama who voted "present" more than any other standing Senator?
      • rpgmaker, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I can't believe people is actually excusing Obama. Voting for the FISA puts him on the same lot that he loves to criticize. McCain didn't even voted for the bill so no one would call Obama a terrorist sympathizer.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3@egoist because there are specific strategy reasons for voting "present" rather than an up/down in the Illinois Senate. Again, these questions have been addressed multiple times on all major news outlets.

        @mdoverkill If it's unconstitutional, then it will be soundly struck down by the Supreme Court (doesn't excuse its passing, though)

        @jameskong15 They couldn't get enough to filibuster to avoid an invocation of cloture; thus, no filibuster was even possible

        Come on, guys. Mdoverkill's argument is at least passable, but the other two comments are quickly refutable by anyone with a modicum of knowledge of current events.
    • timidlikerivers, on 07/24/2008, -8/+9Obama is just using Kerry's tactics.... He voted for for before he will vote against it. Simple as that.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5No, not as simple as that. He voted against it, THREE TIMES, before he voted for it... because to vote against it would've been denying funding to cops.

        If you want to blame someone, blame the politicians who insisted on using unrelated riders to make sure the bill passed.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Let me get this straight: you've never changed your mind on an issue? Way to go! You know who else was like that? Bush: I'M mister INVADING president IRAQ that's I'M not INVADING such IRAQ a I'M good INVADING idea IRAQ!!

        I'm not saying anything about FISA here. I'm just attacking this idea that flip flopping is categorically a Bad Thing.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3"I'm not saying anything about FISA here"

        Actually, you are. You're sitting here asking, "you've never changed your mind on an issue?" on a topic about Obama's flip-flop on filibustering any FISA bill with immunity. Bringing it up on a thread about a speciifc issue then pretending like you're not talking about that issue at all is nonsense and flat out disingenuous.
    • kcapxis, on 07/24/2008, -4/+8He shouldn't have the opportunity to revisit it. If he doesn't have the patriotism necessary to recognize that his very continued existence as a representative of the People is an absolute affront to what we as a country stand for, then he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town for his ignorance as well as his idiocy. His original vote for FISA constitutes nothing less than an absolute and intentional abrogation of his sworn oath at best, and treason at worst. I'd honestly rather see him and the rest of them put on trial for their lives over this than allowed to continue running for President or other offices.

      Nothing will get better until We the People start demanding that a violation of a sworn oath be seen as the felony that it is, and more important start recognizing that working against the citizens of the United States on behalf of a corporation should constitute treason. It's no different than selling us out to a foreign nation, and as such should be treated exactly the same.
    • Synova, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Yeah good thing we didn't give these companies immunity so that when he revisits the law we can throw them in jail. Oh wait...
    • albinoMithos, on 07/24/2008, -0/+52+2=5 doesn't it?
    • chuckDontSurf, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Do over!
    • catcher6250, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Yes we should. Unless you want to vote for McCain who isn't going to do *****, and will support the bill even more. Do you?
  • skewl, on 07/23/2008, -10/+84I'm a Democrat but I'm pissed off about this.
    • maximumpotato, on 07/24/2008, -10/+2hey! you stole that comment from the youtubes!! verbatim!! i feel as though i am implored to point this out seeing that i care about stupid stuff like this!!

      Sazzylilsmartazz (1 week ago)
      I'm a Democrat but I'm pissed off about this.

      • bratterscain, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Maybe you should sue for plagiarism if it's that big an issue.
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I'm an American and I'm pissed off about this.
  • kathcom, on 07/23/2008, -44/+39Obama was pushed into an untenable situation with the vote-- he couldn't vote either way without drawing fire.

    I believe that if he becomes president, he will revisit this. If he doesn't become president, the damage is done anyway and would have been done with or without his vote.
    • Marumekomu, on 07/24/2008, -12/+25A*pol"o*gist (#), n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution
      • kadio, on 07/24/2008, -3/+12You guys dig Marumekomu down, but he's right. Obama should NOT have voted for FISA. I don't know understand what he had to lose by standing for his principles? Hand jobs from the phone companies?? Even Hilary voted against it. I support Obama, but I won't forget or apologize for his vote on FISA.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2The definition you gave isn't an insult, in case you were trying to do so. You basically said "you're an apologist because you're defending Obama." Wow, what a zinger you have there.

        I have a definition for you: pragmatism -- the doctrine that truth is the practical efficacy of an idea. Idealism gets us nowhere. Recall that Bush's idealism is what got us into Iraq.

        Idealism: the devotion to moral ideals. Not good ones. Not bad ones. Just blind devotion to what you believe is right without any other evidence to support it.
    • mdoverkill, on 07/24/2008, -2/+27If he was going to draw fire from both sides, he still should've done the right thing. He should've stood up and said

      "This Bill goes against everything the 4th Ammendment stands for, therefore I cannot support it. End of discussion"
      • bluezinc, on 07/24/2008, -7/+1You're right, he should have. However, I believe he was ill-advised by those around him and that it wasn't completely his fault.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2"However, I believe he was ill-advised by those around him and that it wasn't completely his fault."

        How familiar that sounds throughout that last 8 years.
      • bluezinc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Ugh, eat me.

        For the last ***** time, Obama in no way = Bush. It's not even a comparison.
    • Pyehole, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8Yeah, guess who learned their lesson on untenable situations and how to vote on them and then voted against the FISA bill.


      Hillary.
      • davewashere, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5To be fair, she is no longer a presidential candidate and therefore does not need to appease anyone other than the people of New York, who have voted for her overwhelmingly each time she's ran for senate. Obama shouldn't have voted for the FISA bill, but I also understand that to win the election he needs to pander to the moderates and undecided voters, who have been molded into terrorist-fearing cowards by 7 years of masterful fear mongering from all 3 branches of our government.
      • Pyehole, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You don't think Hillary is planning on a future run for president?
    • Hellman109, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11So he should have voted against it if 'both ways' were to get him in trouble.

      If Im screwed either way, Id rather take the way I want to go.

      And a person as president who cant stand up for themselves? yeah good one there!

      Presidential hopefuls should NOT need apologists, it shows they are weak.

      PS: both main candidates suck
  • JohnUSeed, on 07/23/2008, -25/+20Too little, too late. I won't vote for somebody to stop something they helped start. http://www.votenader.org
    • JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -8/+18Nader? pff, please...
    • GrandmasterB, on 07/23/2008, -12/+10If Nader would've bowed out in 2000 we would never be in the situation we are now.
      • Laorir, on 07/23/2008, -6/+10*shrug* I'm not a big fan of blaming someone else running for another candidate losing. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who voted for Bush.

        Personally, I blame people who are willing to vote for the "lesser of two evils," instead of "wasting their vote" on third party candidates for the current state of America. I applaud the third party candidates who run and give the people a better option than the Republicrats.
      • OffPiste, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5True, so true.
      • TonyLocNE, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5If Al Gore would have bowed out in 2000, we wouldn't be in this situation..

        Two sides to this coin here Harvey.
    • wonderworm, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I know you think you are helping the country with your vote, but the sad truth is, a vote for Nader is a vote to continue the oppressive neocon regime and continue an oilman, corporate controlled, war-profiteering agenda that very possibly could begin WWIII under the hands of a dumb, stubborn, mean old man named McCain.

      Now ask yourself, do you really want that!!???
      • Laorir, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1That's the most retarded argument ever. A vote for Nader is not a vote for the Republicans. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
  • mousers1968, on 07/23/2008, -8/+30So why wouldn't Reid revisit if McCain unfortunately won? Reid is something else.
    • ouzome, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10My question exactly. He is my least favorite senator of all time.
    • reddanny, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3Because McCain could veto new bills that Obama wouldn't.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Does Congress somehow lose the power to overturn a veto if McCain is elected?
      • wonderworm, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Dave, it's very hard to override a VETO unless your party controls BOTH houses of congress with an overwhelming majority, which the Democrats do not have.

        Now if we can all do our parts to cause a MASSIVE LANDSLIDE of DEMOCRATIC elected offices this November, then congress can trump any McCain veto.
    • exomni, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Reid didn't say HE'D revisit it, he said it would be revisited.

      McCain would veto any legislation that revisited FISA, while Obama would be open and supportive of such bills.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1So let's just hope that Obama gets in; otherwise Obama will just be another face who helped McCain get these powers.
  • Paramnesia, on 07/23/2008, -11/+20Dugg out of pity for the hopeful

    • kuantan97, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3You're better than me. Buried for farcical optimism.
    • Codes02, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Buried because at this point, Obama has proved that like most other politicians, he'll ***** whoever to get some power.
  • Plasmatica, on 07/23/2008, -20/+66Way to try and sway disgruntled voters. If only he could...oh, I don't know...not have voted for it in the first place? What a weasel. This is your so-called hero? This is your hope and change? You're all suckers.
    • Jhiaxuz, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2It was either vote for it and get put in front of a firing squad or vote against it and be smeared as a flip flopper and be put in front of a firing squad.

      Simple catch 22 that he, for some reason, got himself into. As a Canadian, I was hoping for Kucinich or, hell, even Gravel to make it further up the ladder since they were wildly entertaining and to the point. Now, I just don't really care about the candidates. I do hope Obama wins but just for the sake that McCain does not.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -6/+3He DID vote against it in the first place- three times, to be precise.

      If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the politicians who attached unrelated riders to the bill so that it'd have to get passed. If Obama hadn't voted for the bill, he would've been labeled a "cop hater" because someone attached police funding to the bill.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4His camp said he would filibuster any bill that had immunity, but he didn't. You can spin it however you want, he didn't support telco immunity, but then he did support it by voting yes on it, no excuse can cover that up.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2No he could have come out against the bill *and* the fact that there were riders attached for the purpose of passing the bill that had nothing to do with the bill in question.
  • rewinn, on 07/23/2008, -20/+17We have to be adult and recognize that Obama voted for the slightly-changed FISA bill to neuter it as an election issue.

    And then we have to MAKE D@MN SURE that it gets repaired in the next Congress. We The People must lead, and the politicians will follow.

    In 2009, we can cheerfully expect the remnants of the Republican Party in Congress to support FISA reform, out of fear that President Obama is spying on them.
    • Laorir, on 07/23/2008, -6/+17"We have to be adult and recognize that Obama voted for the slightly-changed FISA bill to neuter it as an election issue."

      Sorry, I don't buy it. If he's going to make policies off of what he feels will get him elected, then he's no different than any other politician in D.C.
      • ouzome, on 07/24/2008, -6/+11exactly. you don't vote against your beliefs just to get elected, well I guess Obama does.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3If you want to get elected, you sometimes have to vote against your beliefs. It's a pragmatic issue: Assume you can do 100 units of good as President and only 25 units of good as a Senator. If you vote against your beliefs to move from Senator to President, you gain 75 units of good through your advancement. If voting against your beliefs causes less than 75 units of harm, then the only morally correct (under utilitarian theories, upon which our country was founded--John Locke, anyone?) choice to make is to vote against your beliefs in order to become President.

        Sure I would have loved for him to vote against it. But that would have given McCain a much greater chance of winning in November, allowing him to rise to the presidency and appoint Supreme Court justices (e.g., to replace Ginsburg since she's getting up there in years) and overturn Roe v. Wade, strip habeas rights for prisoners, and continue the Neocons' laissez-faire business philosophy.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5If he'd voted against it, McCain would now be saying that Obama "hates cops"- because there was a police funding rider attached to the bill.

        I guess Obama could've done what McCain did- not vote at all. Of course, McCain is very good at not voting- if you never take a stand, you won't piss anyone off. What, exactly, are we paying McCain for, again?
    • LukasSmith, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3He voted for slightly changed FISA because he thought people would care less if he did?
      You say he is the smarter Candidate?
      I think not.
    • hdhock3y, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Maybe he should have been an adult in the first place and not made the correct decision.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1If you couldn't get it fixed this time what makes you think that the Democrats are going to care anymore, if you put them in to a majority, than they do right now?
  • Dewhead, on 07/23/2008, -26/+64Wow, I can't believe some people believe this. Obama will vote whichever way he thinks will get him more political power. He doesn't have a single conviction or a belief that he will stand by.
    • jimmyb3, on 07/24/2008, -5/+16That's an exaggeration, but I also believe Obama is just another politician with his finger in the air checking the wind's direction.
    • exomni, on 07/24/2008, -6/+4Being a politician isn't about only casting votes. Obama worked to get immunity stripped out. FISA was going to pass anyway, a vote from Obama wouldn't change that, he had to vote "yes" to not be seen as soft on terrorism, or uncooperative with bipartisanship. The vote meant nothing on whether or not the bill would be passed, just on his political future. Now that he has done the wise thing and extended his political future, he can continue to fight as he had for the principles he believes in.
      • jameskong15, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Obama's camp vowed that Obama would filibuster any bill with immunity. He didn't do this. He was against telco immunity before he was for it and voted it into law.
    • hdhock3y, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Because they want to keep lying to themselves thinking Obama is different, when really he is not.
  • Lynx55, on 07/23/2008, -13/+21I think he will revisit it. If you remember correctly he said he had hoped he could change parts of the bill before it signed sealed and delivered. Besides guys, remember you are not going to find a candidate who will be 100% in lockstep with everything you want in a candidate for pres.! Everyone wants different things...it would be impossible. But for me, Obama has only disappointed on FISA....one thing. I certainly am not going to with hold my vote based on that. It would be beyond silly.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/23/2008, -5/+12So his vote to extend the Patriot Act wasn't a disappointment? Duly noted.
      • NorthMass, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8And his vote to reauthorize spending for the Iraq war... twice.
  • thepoliticalcat, on 07/23/2008, -15/+28I believe Obama will revisit this bill, and I believe that Reid (who is famous for backroom deals) made exactly such a deal with him. Other than FISA, Obama's positions agree with mine more closely than any other candidate (or would-be candidate), and I'm happy to support him. I also believe that he CAN be held accountable, unlike the current administration's crooks and liars.
    • VKMO, on 07/23/2008, -7/+11I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if there'd already been a deal, as you mentioned, between Reid and Obama on revisiting FISA.

      And while this was a disappoing vote on Obama's part, even if he never made good on it, he'd still be a LOT better candidate than McCain -- who has no misgivings at all about FISA, about the war in Iraq, about repealing reproductive rights... the list goes on.
    • rex84, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2Now that's some hope you can believe in!
    • BikerDude69, on 07/24/2008, -5/+6You probably believe there are fairies who leave money under your pillow for teeth, a fat guy who brings presents around the world, too, don't you?
    • ouzome, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4Harry Reid is one of the biggest liars in politics. After he gave Rush Limbaugh hell, and Limbaugh auctioned off all the signatures for millions of dollars, Harry Reid took credit for the money Limbaugh raised for military families! Only in Harry Reid's world.
    • holyv, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0*****.

      He can take his centric crap to the place wherever lost candidates go. Tell him to say hi to collin powell.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/23/2008, -13/+54Hey Harry, if the bill was so *****, then why did you, Obama, and the rest of your cohorts vote in favor of it in a ***** landslide? Election purposes, you say? Wanting to appear tough on terror to pick up some votes, you say? Great...***** great.

    ***** on the American people for political gain....hmmm, where have I hear that one before.

    Buried, in hopes that doing so will give Harry Reid a stroke and make him a burden on his family.
  • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -10/+33He voted for FISA before he'll vote against it.
    • donte, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Seems to be the trend these days for all politicians (see Patriot Act or war in Iraq). Vote for it and then give it a verbal beating later on (while still not putting your votes where your mouth is). This is not change. It's just another cookie cutter politician with a more likable image.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -7/+3He voted against it THREE TIMES, in hopes of a better version of the bill, before he voted for it. If he hadn't voted for it this time, McCain would now be calling him "soft on terror" and a "cop hater" for denying funding for police.

      Screwed if he did, screwed if he didn't.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2McCain's going to call him that anyway so what's the difference? Does truth somehow magically matter in politics now?
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You know, I really hate the trend we've been seeing a lot of lately- "all politicians are liars", "both parties are corrupt", "they've both been bought".

        We get the government we deserve. If you don't expect better of your candidates, you'll never GET better candidates.
  • airwalke, on 07/23/2008, -16/+19I was pissed off like the rest of you are, but some need to realize the politics of the situation. Up until the latest vote, Obama and a number of democrats opposed the bill. Because the former law they had in place expired in a few weeks, they voted to extend it to eliminate the "weak on terrorism" attack that the republicans were sure to attack them with this fall.

    Of course, he could've taken a stand and said "no", but Obama realizes that we paranoid internet users do not make up the majority of the voting base in November. Remember, a person is smart, but people are stupid. We might be right, but over a hundred million people in this country still do not see it our way.

    He will revisit it once in office. Oh God please let him revisit it...
    • fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -6/+5That is exactly right. The center is far more important to him than the liberal/libertarian internet crowd. His job is to get elected, not stick by his hardcore base and get hammered in the general election for it.
      • OffPiste, on 07/24/2008, -5/+5Awesome! So we getter another liar in the Whitehouse!
      • fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2When was the last time that we elected a President to hadn't lied at some time?
    • nihil, on 07/24/2008, -6/+11So much for Obama being an agent of change. Unless you think voting based on political expediency is "change."
    • hdhock3y, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7So he's just like any other politician.
    • arvvvs, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1He'll let it expire quietly.
  • iBeej, on 07/23/2008, -14/+32*****!!! Obama was saying the same thing before he got the nomination. So he got it, voted for FISA, and now he "promises" to revisit it? SHENANIGANS OBAMA (Say that 5 times fast)
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/24/2008, -12/+3I think thew listed Republicans in the house and Senate should be put on a traitors list to be considered by the national convention, then execute those who violated anti-slavery laws, deregulated the mortgage system and sought repeal the constitution. Hang them all on the cherry trees by their collective traitorous necks for all to see.
  • 22magnum, on 07/24/2008, -13/+27What a load of *****.
  • robodork, on 07/24/2008, -13/+18this is gonna be buried and nobody will see it so i can announce I LIKE TO LICK PEANUT BUTTER OFF MY BALLS
    • ouzome, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7you mean you like your dog to lick peanut butter off your balls?
      • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Maybe he's really dexterous or a yoga fanatic?
    • exomni, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I'm sure you can't even reach your balls with your tongue, so I have to assume you meant you like to lick peanut butter off your dog's balls.
    • kokoshka, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5I believe him.
  • roho76, on 07/24/2008, -13/+33Why the ***** should we believe this douche bag? Has he ever told the truth? I can't think of any time in particular. Please someone educate me on this guy, cuz I don't care to look anything up on him.
    • UltraDavid, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3He opposed a bill he thinks is unconstitutional, and that's why, as Senate Majority Leader, he allowed it to come to the floor. What's the prob... mm-hmmmmm...
  • albinorhino101, on 07/24/2008, -13/+45*****, I can't believe any Obama supporters on Digg actually believe he'll do this.
    • jimmyb3, on 07/24/2008, -8/+25Believe it - they have imbibed the Kool-Aid, and will eat every piece of BS Obama serves up and ask for seconds.
    • UltraDavid, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Nah, man. We might have had our fair share of that Drink, but we survived, it's the morning after, and things are getting clearer. Even with continued Democratic control of the House, filibuster-proof Democratic control of the Senate, and Democratic President Obama, I think we all recognize that things like FISA will never be overturned and no one will ever hold the Bush administration accountable.

      Sucks to say, but... whaddaya gonna do.
  • BikerDude69, on 07/24/2008, -9/+17I agree with albinorhino101 . Do you really think he is going to do anything to reduce or limit his own powers? NO! This guy is a tool, people. It sucks so many of you think he is a savior of the nation, because he is most certainly not. he saviors of the nation have already been dismissed. Paul, Kucinnich, Gravel, etc. They are the only ones who care. The others are just puppets.
    • exomni, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2***** reply button. Use it.
      • BikerDude69, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I wasn't ***** replying to him, I was ***** agreeing with him and making my own statement.
  • TonyLocNE, on 07/24/2008, -9/+25Why do you even have to re-look at it? He NEVER should have voted FOR it in the first place.
    Obama is also in favor of permanently reauthorizing the assault weapons ban.

    Obama is not for the people, he's for perpetuating the status quo
    • Iztikeit, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9Obama is anti-American. He is not a big fan of the Constitution, contrary to what he might lead on. Read his book and you will know what I'm talking about.
      • TonyLocNE, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1The Audacity of Hope or Mein Kampf? I understand he authored both..
      • Iztikeit, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"I just want to give, give, give so much money to those schools"

        As if money is the problem in America or even "the education system".
    • migshark, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Assault rifles are completely different.
  • OffPiste, on 07/24/2008, -12/+5US Election Truths 101:

    Democrats vote for the Democratic candidate.
    Republicans vote for the Republican candidate.
    Nutjobs vote for the Libertarian/Green/Constitution/Ron Paul party.

    The people who decide the election EVERY election cycle are the ten million independents that actually believe politicians are honest and truthful.

    Thus Obama and McCain lie to them to get elected.

    Obama is certainly against FISA, NAFTA, Pro-gun control, Pro-Abortion, and Pro-Illegal Immagrant, Pro-retreat from the GWOT. But he sure as hell won't convince the independents to vote for him if they believe he holds those beliefs. Thus he lies and says he really is a moderate and independent like they are.

    McCain is no different.

    So congrats America, you get another liar in the Whitehouse.
    • Iztikeit, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Your politicians aren't liars? Can I move in with you?
  • rex84, on 07/24/2008, -9/+19I think that with some of the people on here, if Obama took a dump on their momma’s faces, they’d spin it and say he was trying to help her grow daises.
  • stevensj2, on 07/24/2008, -7/+21Whats with this "I'll do ______ *if* you vote for me" *****?

    And someone else saying it for him?

    Let Obama make the right decisions initially to earn our vote, not betray us and beg for it on conditional promises.
  • skyz, on 07/24/2008, -6/+12i don't believe it
  • ahoyhoy1, on 07/24/2008, -9/+29Obama stands for change...changing things he voted for.
  • dustyshadow, on 07/24/2008, -4/+8A president can't change it. Only Congress can so this doesn't matter.
    • kuantan97, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1It's actually unconstitutional and therefore null and void. He can simply refuse to enforce it.

      But I wouldn't hold my breath on it.
  • RRJackson, on 07/24/2008, -7/+14Uh, yeah. And OJ will revisit Nicole. Once you've done something horrible a trite indication that you might reconsider it in the future just adds insult to injury.
  • blacklilyninja, on 07/24/2008, -9/+1oil companies made 250 billion in profit last year.


    ... wtf and why exactly are we paying so much again?

    This to me sounds like we need to stick it to the oil companies hard.
  • Dibou, on 07/24/2008, -6/+13Obama votes against it ONLY because he thinks it helps him politically. He tells his supporters he'll revisit it to keep his sheep inline and they'll follow him.
    What Obama will ACTUALLY do in office is anyone's guess because we have no idea what kind of person he really is. Well actually, we have an idea, and it is not good.
  • Metasquares, on 07/24/2008, -5/+12And why can we trust him this time?
  • kittenman, on 07/24/2008, -5/+14Bull *****, if he really wants to "revisit" the bill why not just vote no!?
    • zephyear, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1because the gop would be "OBAMA WEAK ON TERROR OBAMA WEAK ON TERROR OBAMA WEAK ON TERROR"
    • radiofrequency, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4Because Hussein Obama is a typical overtaxing, gun-grabbing, sleazy, spineless coward in more pockets than lint.
  • gblab, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5I'm not sure whether I should be more disgusted by the actual vote for this catastrophe of a bill, or by the hand-wringing spectacle now that it is signed into law.
    If Democrats knew that it was a bad law and needs 'revisiting', then why the heck would they vote for it in the first place!?
  • Infowarmachine, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6fool me once, shame on .. well a fooled man cant get fooled again
  • chiefbttlwshr, on 07/24/2008, -7/+5"I didn't support FISA. I think it was an unnecessary evasion of our constitution."
    WHAT? Evade, as to escape or avoid, and what is this past tense *****?
    It IS a blatant VIOLATION of the constitution.

    And one more thing: Is Reid speaking on behalf of Obama, because I haven't heard Obama say anything like this, not even through a spokesperson.

    Vote Barr, not McBama. They are both big government, just a different type.
    • utexas112, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Wrong... the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizure.. not all. The authorities may enter your home and search it pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. The authorities may wiretap your phone pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. Where would you expect to have more privacy?

      • chiefbttlwshr, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Nice try though.
      • chiefbttlwshr, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I see now. As a young, up and coming ambulance chaser you are using the Chewbacca argument. Very clever. I wish I was a young prick just out of law school that knew everything like you.
  • LordSkywalker, on 07/24/2008, -7/+16***** Obama. He's big government, just doesn't look as old or dumb as the rest of em.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12Not surprising he gets Reid to do the sniveling bit for him... he's a pro.
  • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -11/+685% of the posters on this thready don't seem to understand what happened here.

    Before this bill, Bush argued that he could bypass the old FISA because it placed unconstitutional limits on his Article II powers. Like it or not, he had a colorable legal argument. Not a very strong one, but one that he could skate by on for two reasons:a) plenty of courts were likely to buy it and b) it was damn near impossible for plaintiffs to get standing to challenge it in court. So people were pissed but there was nothing anyone could do to compel the president to get warrants.

    Then, when people started suing the telecoms, they got scared and no longer wanted to play ball with the president. That's when the president agreed to compromise: he would accept and obey legislation that establishes a warrant requirement IF it granted retroactive CIVIL immunity to the telcos (note: the new FISA does not give them CRIMINAL immunity, nor could it without running afoul of the ex post facto clause).

    So what we have is a compromise. The president's program is being overseen by courts now, which is a GOOD thing. People who are pissed about the civil immunity provision need to ask themselves whether they'd prefer to live in a world where the president is obeying limits on his wiretapping power or a world where the president can do whatever the ***** he wants and if you don't like it you have to file a lawsuit that will drag on for ten years and will likely be rendered moot as soon as the next president takes office and stops the wiretapping program altogether.
    • utexas112, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0Finally logic prevails over blind bashing in a FISA comment.

  • amightywind, on 07/24/2008, -7/+5Another case of "I voted for it before I voted against it." B. Hussein Obama will say anything to string his idiot constituents along, and they still believe him! Harry Reid is perhaps the worst Senate Leader in history. It really doesn't matter if Obomber gets rid of FISA anyway. It isn't like he or his liberal buddies would use it. The muslim world is giddy because they know this man will betray the US. But if an attack occurs on Obama's watch, he will be lynched.
  • pinchduck, on 07/24/2008, -4/+10News Flash: Politicians are whores.
  • artwork, on 07/24/2008, -4/+5For all those people who *think* Obama will revisit the bill in the future: Did you also think that Obama would vote for it? If not, how do you know he will do what you think in the future?
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3The kool-aid is strong, man. They just trust him. God knows why, but they just trust him.
  • loganro, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7This proves that Obama is a hack and liar.
  • nontoxyc, on 07/24/2008, -7/+16OBAMA=EPIC FAIL
  • chamberlanderic, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4I liked when a politician tell you what the other politician will do.
  • robodork, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1i can stretch so far...
  • Mailboxhead, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0May I ask what brand you use? I've found Peter Pan to be the best myself.
  • BradOFarrell, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1Obama only voted for it because the previous security act was about to expire, filibustering on this improved, but still imperfect act, would've resulted in a lapse of security. He could've easily avoided the problem by not voting on it at all, but he did what he felt was right. The media spin that he's trying to pander to the center and the right is ridiculous. He chose between the lesser of two evils, with intent to fix it later, if he can.
  • wildone71, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2A chicken in every pot!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.