What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
74 Comments
- badqat, on 11/13/2009, -3/+61I think history has shown Bush had nothing to worry about along those lines. Status quo.
- michaelpinto, on 11/13/2009, -1/+33The problem is that Telcos contribute huge amounts of money to political campaigns, so everyone owes them.
- acroyear2, on 11/13/2009, -3/+31In other news, Bush worried future presidents won't act like Bush. Says he's confused.
- m3arvk, on 11/13/2009, -2/+29That Bush broke the law, spied on Americans and then retroactively made it legal doesn't seem to be of any importance.
- ohplease, on 11/13/2009, -1/+18Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody invites you to said parties.
- twiztidsinz, on 11/13/2009, -0/+15"Smaller less intrusive government would be a historically conservative ideal, not a liberal one."
And yet... we have Bush (R) to thank for the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping. Conservatives loved him... - GalacticXenu, on 11/13/2009, -0/+13Good thing Bush didn't need to worry; Obama is quite pleased to have that power at his disposal.
- ajwinder, on 11/13/2009, -2/+15First off, it's the EFF, second, they're hardly radicals, third, Mukasey isn't even in office anymore, fourth, the EFF's involvement was in a court of law, not in some sort of lobbying capacity, and finally, the EFF is funded by private donations, as are most non-profit groups.
And for my personal question, what the hell compels people like you, who have no understanding of a given issue at hand, to react with such vitriol to any piece of news that seems to go against whatever you've decided to support? - JordanTW90, on 11/13/2009, -2/+13Now isn't the time to worry, we know Obama won't do it.
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/13/2009, -1/+11Please tell me which liberties that the Obama administration has done away with?
- algaeturd, on 11/13/2009, -1/+10Anyone here ever study history?
Governments TAKE power from people. They don't give it back. Not even during regime changes or political party changes.
Power is taken from people and eventually, in time, if the people have sacs, they take it back when they realize it'll never be given back to them.
THAT is what government is about and has always been about.
Say what you want about Obama. I knew he wouldn't change it back...doesn't excuse anything but let's not forget the guy that brought the Feds directly into your home via the phone and your email and how he lied about it for 5 years before someone blew the whistle. - ParadiscaCorbas, on 11/13/2009, -3/+12It would take something really impressively frightening to swing the country en masse far enough to the left that the warrantless wiretapping would be undone with the country's overwhelming support.
- dissolutionman, on 11/13/2009, -4/+13Well, there's another thing he was wrong about.
Unfortunately. - ajwinder, on 11/13/2009, -1/+10Jesus, I mean, that's grand irony when someone with no command of the english language (or hell, even punctuation outside of the period character) tries to call someone else a terrorist.
- chockster, on 11/13/2009, -1/+10"Any true American especially any New Yorker or any one who had friends or family in the Twin Towers or the Pentagon"
No, no, no. ***** that. Personally, I did not have anyone I know die in the Twin Towers, but I have friends that did, and I do live in New York. And go to hell if you want to use our city as an excuse for ***** over the rights of the rest of the country. I know it's a very old slogan these days, but "not in our name". You have no right to speak on my behalf. - stuffradio, on 11/13/2009, -0/+8Wait, I'm confused.
- Tenoq, on 11/13/2009, -0/+8Sounds like a good reason to ban those kind of contributions. Or at the very least, legislate to make them public knowledge. Say what, any political donation over $10k must be declared? At least then you'll know who is sponsoring your candidates, and whose interests they'll REALLY be serving.
- DarkShroud, on 11/13/2009, -0/+8Are you sure about that? Obama did vote in favor of this bill.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6Won't work, sadly. Just in the same way contribution limits by individuals are worked around by political action committees and so on, trying to solve this problem by applying bandaids wont fix anything. As long as there is a huge pool of money being collected and redistributed at a central source, there will always be leeches trying to get a slice.
We've already seen bribes become less direct as restrictions grow. From legislation creating general rules that benefit only a few without specifically saying so to perks given to relatives and friends rather than the actual person to be bribed, the American political system has a highly advanced form of corruption. It won't be stopped by sweeping mandates to 'end bribery' by limiting contributions. - antigravity, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6Before the election:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
after election:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_DOJ_backs_ ...
Which law did Bush not break? I think a President should have short term power to due what is needed, then after say 3 months then you need congress to make it law or not. - numb, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6And now we have Obama (D) that loves them too. It's not just the (R)'s either.
- chang3, on 11/13/2009, -2/+8Actually it's called the 22nd amendment!
- holychicken, on 11/13/2009, -7/+12To the LEFT?
Smaller less intrusive government would be a historically conservative ideal, not a liberal one.
Although, I suspect you call yourself conservative and the bulk of people I have met who call themselves conservative have no idea what the term actually means. - wkenri, on 11/13/2009, -5/+10It appears the only difference between Bush and Obama is skin tone.
- inactive, on 11/13/2009, -2/+6Well obviously all this anti-terror legislation didn't work anyway, we had Hassan carrying business cards with "soldier of Allah" printed on them, trying to contact Al-Queda online and otherwise just acting like a weird ***** around all his colleagues and co-workers and even THEN no one decided to give this guy a stern talking to.
- snafflepaffle, on 11/13/2009, -1/+5I do.
https://secure.eff.org/site/Donation2 - raskolnikov2089, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will after a time give way to it's dictates."
-Federalist #8
It's inevitable. I don't know why Bush was worried, when have you ever known a politician of whatever stripe to voluntarily cede power? - Stingwolf, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4If he didn't break the law, then why did they have to pass a -new- law to cover up what he and the telcos did?
- dalittle, on 11/13/2009, -3/+7Bush should worry. When it finally is removed he will probably spend the rest of his life in a cell with cheney.
- Dundasbro, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3And I can appeal to the historically conservative ideals of Ancient Athens for my political compass, its all arbitrary. Stop clinging to a name, cling to your ideals.
- ParadiscaCorbas, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3You'd be mistaken.
I'm not conservative.
The warrantless wiretapping was put in place by the conservative right-wing Bush administration, and further to the right would be wingnuts -- ergo, swinging away from them would be moving leftward. - illepic, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4@MrFunStuff: Right, these things that have already been removed from us. I agree, it sucks. Can you give us NEW issues we should be concerned about?
- Bartboy919, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3i think the civil rights movement begs to differ.
- txballer, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3No need to worry, President Obama heard him even before he made that statement. *dramatic music*
- evilresident, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3we'll be waiting a long time probably, kungfu.
- MrFunStuff, on 11/13/2009, -2/+4Barack Obama voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/obama-sides-r ...
Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY - AlwaysTurning, on 11/13/2009, -3/+5No worries. We know Obama won't revoke that immunity...... aaaaahhhhhh chc hchchcchchchange mother *****!
- saranagati, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2and their ability to read aloud.
- Hiwnes, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2I wish. I've never seen such a blatant example of an ex-post facto law (which laws, btw, are explicitly illegal under the Constitution).
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
It doesn't get more explicit than that! - algaeturd, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3Fortunately for them, America is full of uneducated people who only raise their ire when a black man takes office. A white man can ***** this country in the ass for 8 years, take it within an inch of its life and people are sitting around watching TV with smiles on their faces.
Put Obama in there, and they're reaching for their guns because 'he's different.'
Right. - nextekcarl, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2I'm pretty sure Toman12 was trying to make a point. At least I hope so. People sometimes forget that these sort of things always get justified by the sort of things Toman12 said, but eventually they always get twisted from a seemingly good intentioned use to one that serves an entirely different purpose. That is a slippery slope that we can't afford to cross.
- gfryesc, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3yeah, where is the digg and msnbc outrage about Obama continuing Bush's foreign policy?? Bunch of hypocrites. Perfect example, just this past week, nobel peace prize winner Obama sent 40k more troops to afghanistan. why are they there? to protect the poppy fields, that's the whole reason. Without the poppys the entire economy of afghanistan would fail, and then where would the country be.
- merlin99, on 11/17/2009, -0/+1I'm inclined to treat anything the Bush administration says with utmost caution
- HonoredMule, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1The solution is to make campaign funding a central pool and candidacy a publicly 'earned' position with no cap. Contributions may be made that apply toward running for candidacy but must be publicly declared, and all candidates are only allowed to use their equally-divided portion of the central funding after that. The candidacy period is long enough that everyone will forget what happened prior to the campaign, and no campaign expense may be funded out-of-pocket or from 3rd parties.
Corporate influence will still have a window to put candidates in the running, but cannot stuff the ballot with shill candidates because there is no limit on the number of candidates, only a baseline requirement of public support. Once in the running, a candidate can only win by a successful appeal to the public, and his only wiggle-room is with how creatively or effectively he uses his share of the funding.
Potential contributors can still claim tax deductions, but cannot earmark the funding for any particular party or individual. I wouldn't be surprised to see the vast pools of campaign funding dry up quickly, but it doesn't actually take millions to tell people who you are and for what you stand. In worst case scenario, some tax dollars would have to be redirected to maintain baseline funding standards, but that would be a tiny drop in the balance sheets.
This would be a real fast way to fix the two party system, too, since outside candidates would be on far more equal footing. You might even see potential involvement of well-educated middle class visionaries. Mind you, none of this would ever happen, because it totally disassembles the entire "old boys club" that rules the roost. - Samueul, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1I don't think he has anything to worry about for the next three years at least....
- absaroke, on 11/17/2009, -0/+1The political ideals axis is more complex than a straight line left to right or vice versa. Personal liberties, individual rights, freedom of choice, those are not conservative or liberal issues - neither of the two major parties seems to much care about individual rights these days. And that really sucks. Just look at this case...corporate protection trumps individual rights. Nice to see that the Constitution has been expanded to protect the rights of corporation over the rights of citizens. :(
- evilresident, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1MrfunStuff: How are those 'taking away' when they were already done with your other administration?
- theNazz, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Those telco companies paid the White House a lot of money and contributions to get that immunity passed. We the people elected a guy who helped make it happen (despite stating that he was against the immunity).
BushCo has nothing to worry about because Obama wants to move forward... - saranagati, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2actually i think it's more that we had been getting ***** worse and worse for 8 years and the only thing containing are absolute ***** anger about it was knowing that he would be out of office prior to any major change taking place. Then someone comes by offering all the changes we wanted while doing the exact opposite, gets elected and now we realize that we have another 4+ ***** years we have to put up with it before someone will hopefully come around and actually fix the problems.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is