Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 156

• 0%

  joey-evans3 months ago

  Sure, why not? Afterall, who cares about the Constitution anyway? It is only a goddamn piece of paper, right?

  JOEY EVANS

  Reply

  34 Replies

  • 0%

    dandt16123 months ago

    Well said JOEY EVANS!!

    Reply

    12 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM2 months, 4 weeks ago

      The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801(b)(2)(B)) on territory under United States control.[1]

      H.R. 6304: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

      To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        capecoralM2 months, 4 weeks ago

        It appears many here have not even read the bill.

        From the Bill

        (b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

        (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

        (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

        (3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

        (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

        (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./...

        Reply

        10 Replies

        • 0%

          capecoralM2 months, 4 weeks ago

          more...This is not a domestic program

          (d) Targeting Procedures-

          `(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to--

          (A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

          (B) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.

          2) REQUIREMENTS- A certification made under this subsection shall--(A) attest that--

          (i) ...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that are reasonably designed to--

          (I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and...

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM2 months, 4 weeks ago

            More...This is a Foreign Intelligence Collection program...Not domestic. It requires a court order as well from the FISA Court...It is NOT A DOMESTIC PROGRAM.

            (3) ORDERS-

            (A) APPROVAL- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) contains all the required elements and that the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are consistent with the requirements of those subsections and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall enter an order approving the certification and the use, or continued use in the case of an acquisition authorized pursuant to a determination under subsection (c)(2), of the procedures for the acquisition

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              capecoralM2 months, 4 weeks ago

              (a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-

              (1) IN GENERAL- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is conducted within the United States.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
            • 0%

              Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

              Exactly.

              Which is why FISA dictates that any domestic spying on Americans requires a warrant be applied for and signed by a judge up to three days after the spying starts.

              This was wisely written to prevent just the type of illegal spying the Bush admin did with the illegal help of some of the telcos. The Bush admin had several years to ask Congress to make any changes to FISA that they thought were necessary, but they did not. Why? Obviously, they were satisfied with secret and illegal spying on political enemies in America. They properly applied for warrants when it was legitimate during that same period.

              High-crimes and misdemeanors. Thank you for more evidence supporting the fact that Bush/Cheney should be impeached.

              Reply
        • 0%

          walden32 months, 4 weeks ago

          CC-

          Don't be ridiculous. If Hillary or Obama were president and ordered every single phone call, email and Internet search to be logged and analyzed you would be going out of your gourd.

          You defend domestic spying on Americans because you are a Republican first and a Republican enabler second.

          "The NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth...

          The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans â;; most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews."

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05...

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

            Who knows what the heck the admin is using this data for. All I know is it is illegal, the admin has lied about worse before, and I am sure that there was political spying ala watergate. These are the same watergate people, just they learned from the mistakes of the Nixon admin and others how to cover up their illegal and nefarious attacks on our constitution and rights.

            Reply
          • 0%

            injest2 months, 4 weeks ago

            Waldon

            CC-

            "Don't be ridiculous. If Hillary or Obama were president and ordered every single phone call, email and Internet search to be logged and analyzed you would be going out of your gourd."

            Can't say for CC but I would be laughing hysterically at the incredible stupidity, nativity of someone who thinks "every single phone call, email and Internet search COULD be logged and analyzed"

            Do you have ANY idea how many E-Mails are sent out each and every day?

            Do you have ANY idea how many Internet searches are done each and every day?

            Do you have ANY idea how many phone calls are made each and every day?

            How many people would be needed to do that?

            Lets say something is found, a message had a flag. Now the person who found it will need to contact their supervisor through a phone call or email and tell them about the flag, which will generate another flag that about the first flag and so on.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              walden32 months, 4 weeks ago

              Bud - there are splitters in the switches of all the major telecomms. The government gets to tap into every bit of data flowing. They then use computer programs to search for certain words and patterns in order to narrow down the haystack.

              When you want to begin to get informed Google James Bamford. I'll get you started.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bamford

              The NSA isn't supposed to be used domestically in the first place.

              And you don't care.

              Reply
        • 0%

          jordan112 months, 4 weeks ago

          The bill is supposed to clean up the unfettered powers given bush previously. At issue, is the protection of those who broke the law previously, giving them retroactive immunity from civil prosecution (the phone companies). Criminal charges may still be filed against them, BUT it goes without saying that bush will pardon them before he leaves, thus burying any liability they have for trashing the Constitution.

          Reply
  • 0%

    buckncindykill3 months ago

    Sure, why not? Afterall, who cares about the Constitution anyway? It is only a goddamn piece of paper, right?

    Yep, Obama agrees. He signed it too.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      ecotourusa3 months ago

      "Yep, Obama agrees. He signed it too."

      that's exactly why this girl will not be voting for either participants of the clown show. (mccain/obama...2 sides to the same coin!)

      Ron Paul people-- wake up! even if I write him in, I will not be responsible for the next 4 nightmare years if one of them (mccain/obama) end up in office.

      http://www.campaignforliberty.org

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        GHOSTWHOWALKS3 months ago

        I really didn't expect these spineless puckered ends of a glutenous Maximums do do any thing but ntake care of their special interests.

        I'll cast my vote for the only person who stands for the Constitution and Liberty. Go Ron Paul.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          ecotourusa3 months ago

          I'm with you GHOST!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Will13132 months, 4 weeks ago

            me 2

            Reply
        • 0%

          wtagg2 months, 4 weeks ago

          Make that 4 proud votes to attempt to return this country's government back to its rightful size and scope.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            ecotourusa2 months, 4 weeks ago

            will and wtagg, did you join up on the campaign for liberty site??

            http://www.campaignforliberty.org

            Reply
      • 0%

        ecotourusa3 months ago

        You can get the vote breakdown here:

        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s...

        and, you can tell your senators how you feel here:

        http://www.senate.gov/

        I already told my spineless senators (martinez/nelson) my thoughts.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          ecotourusa3 months ago

          libs-

          YOU'RE FUNNY!

          Reply
        • 0%

          Mdiar2 months, 4 weeks ago

          Ouch. Kit Bond doesn't surprise me at all, but Claire McCaskill voting for its a bit of a surprise. Seems some people want to be voted out of office!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Mdiar2 months, 4 weeks ago

            Okay, so no, McCaskill won't be losing her seat the next time its up. I have to wonder about other Senators in the country though.

            Reply
        • 0%

          wtagg2 months, 4 weeks ago

          The real irony is that those areas that would be consider more of a target to terrorists voted against the bill, on average.

          My reps will not be getting my vote come Nov.

          Ironic that it is the dems that are voting for less government in our lives. I might have to consider changing parties if this trend continues. That's scary.

          Reply
    • 0%

      skeptic2712 months, 4 weeks ago

      Does anybody have a list of the senators who voted for the bill?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        ecotourusa2 months, 4 weeks ago

        see my comment above, skeptic

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          skeptic2712 months, 4 weeks ago

          Sec 803(a)(1) So who assures the intelligence community's request for assistance is legal?

          Sec 803 (a)(2) All such requests and assistance will remain secret.

          SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

          (a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

          (1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

          (2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

          (3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

          (4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

          Reply
  • 0%

    injest3 months ago

    Seems one of Obama's catch phrases is ""Don't be hoodwinked. Don't be bamboozled,""

    Anyone else thinking this is a Freudian slip?

    As reported by the Chicago Sun Times on Friday from South Carolina:

    "Don't be hoodwinked. Don't be bamboozled," Obama told crowds several times during the day.

    Feb 21, 2008

    March 10, 2008bama's speech on VP talk: "They are trying to hoodwink you"

    Obama, responding to the charge that he's long on rhetoric, short on substance. "Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama told voters. "'I have a dream' â;; just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' â;;just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' â;;just words. Just speeches."

    February 20, 2008

    "Don't be hoodwinked. Don't be bamboozled," Obama told crowds several times during the day.

    January 25, 2008

    Reply
  • 0%

    walden32 months, 4 weeks ago

    Anyone that voted for this is a traitor. I do not use that word lightly.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      ecotourusa2 months, 4 weeks ago

      agreed. and if any of us vote these traitors back into office, we're just as responsible. see how your senator voted:

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s...

      and, then tell them how you feel about their vote!!! Be a real American!

      http://www.senate.gov/

      Reply
    • 0%

      antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago

      Give me a break. The telecoms were asked to to this by the government as a matter of war time national security, and the cooperated. The people who broke the law was the agents who asked the Telecoms to do it.

      The only ones who are crying about it are trial attorneys.

      Treason to vote one way or another? BS. Complete BS. Their is a political reality, a veto proof senate block, which Obama and the dems actually know is there, and there is no reason to let trial lawyers, like you are studying to be, profit from suing telecoms for what the Cheney regime asked them to do.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        walden32 months, 4 weeks ago

        How would you feel if your bank released your banking information to me?

        The telecomms broke not only their own privacy policies on which their customers have an expectation of being enforced, but they also violated the law.

        Think about it, why would they be seeking immunity if what they did wasn't a violation, duh?

        Treason to not defend the Fourth Amendment. Our representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution and what they did was eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.

        The purpose of a lawsuit is to engage in discovery. Without discovery we have no way of knowing who is spying on whom for what purpose; like if political enemies being spied on.

        If they were would that matter to you?

        Reply
      • 0%

        jordan112 months, 4 weeks ago

        The telecoms were asked to to this by the government as a matter of war time national security, and the cooperated.>>>>

        They knew it was un-constitutional. Matter of fact, QWEST refused. And by the way, 'war' has NEVER been declared. It's just a word bush likes to banter about. What the telecoms did was against the law. What bush did was against the law. I'm afraid some people have the misconception that it's okey dokey to break the law. It isn't. And obviously they know that, or they wouldn't have asked for immunity. duh.

        Reply
• 0%

  libsRfunny3 months ago

  Another Democrat campaign promise tossed aside.

  Reply

  11 Replies

  • 0%

    Bacalao3 months ago

    Why not, they are politician. And they are only slightly better than the Republicans.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      injest3 months ago

      "Why not, they are politician. And they are only slightly better than the Republicans."

      Did the republicans lie to you on this?

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

        > Did the republicans lie to you on this?

        Of course they did, they are Republicans.

        They said the domestic spying was a patriotic thing to do. They said it was related to 9/11 and a whole pile of other lies.

        FISA at the time covered any types of terror spying that was necessary, and what little updates were needed, could have easily been done in a few weeks if the Bush admin had asked for them.

        Instead, the Republicans in the WH broke the law and lied about it because they were domestic spying on their political enemies, hence the need to break the FISA law which would have required they record (still secretly) who their targets were.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          mrbs2 months, 4 weeks ago

          theres nothing domestic about it .it all applys to overseas calls.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            ecotourusa2 months, 4 weeks ago

            naive...next will be the implementation of a federal id card.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              Teech2 months, 4 weeks ago

              Federal id card? If that, with my passport, will flash me through airport security lines, I'll sign up for one today! I'm already in every data base on the planet anyway and I no longer have anything to hide. Privacy? What privacy? That went away as soon as I got credit cards, bank accounts, a cell phone etc. etc. etc.

              I'd volunteer for one if it were available.

              I'm probably on the wrong side of this issue, but I just don't see how it can hurt me.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                ecotourusa2 months, 4 weeks ago

                I maintain: naive rationale

                Reply
          • 0%

            Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

            > theres nothing domestic about it .it all applys to overseas calls.

            Yep, except for the part that applies to domestic calls and wiretapping.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              mrbs2 months, 4 weeks ago

              show me the lines that allow for unrestricted domestic tapping

              Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude3 months ago

    Relax. It didn't bother you for the first seven years of the Bush administration when 'Pubes did it. Besides, what would you be saying if Obama hadn't gone along with it? Exactly...You're totally FOS and you know it, libsr...LMAO

    Reply
  • 0%

    djn3nunez32 months, 4 weeks ago

    They're playing 'good cop' 'bad cop' and the American people are getting fleeced.

    Reply
• 0%

  unome23 months ago

  The dream that was America is over.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    truthiness3 months ago

    the dream ended in 2000 when the supreme court violated the constitution to interfere with a state choosing its electors, this followed by the congress failing its duty to impeach the SCOTUS for said offense, thus making themselves accessories. therefore all three branches were involved in a conspiracy to violate the constitution and defraud the electorate. no more United States of America now we have something else... the American Empire.

    Reply
  • 0%

    ecotourusa3 months ago

    will the nightmare ever end???

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      GHOSTWHOWALKS3 months ago

      Not as long as idiots who can't be bothered to actually find out the truth keep voting for anything but the same.

      Reply
• 0%

  Bacalao3 months ago

  Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill "unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial."

  While I may not "have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.". I do have OBL on the fast track. If you need his # its 0- then ask the operator for the Pakistani embassy. they should be able to get him for you in very little time.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    Jaydee403 months ago

    I hear the shrub has his email address.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Mdiar2 months, 4 weeks ago

    Kit Bond has just lost any chance he ever had of getting my vote. Oh well... never had much chance for it in the first place. I may forgive McCaskill of her offense in this.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Teech2 months, 4 weeks ago

    "unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial."

    If Al Qaeda delivers pizzas, I'm f*cked!

    Reply
• 0%

  truthiness3 months ago

  and you thought this was your country.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Jaydee403 months ago

    It was a nice idea,,,,

    Reply

• HanymanComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

  • 0%

    obiefrommuskogee3 months ago

    Give up your cell phone, don't accept any cookies from web sites, and don't do any financial business online.

    If you don't accept the cookies and the web site doesn't work, who cares. That's a business loss to them.

    An economic boycott will work.

    Reply
• 0%

  HateKoolAid3 months ago

  Though 9/11 was one of the more deadly terrorist attacks committed on U.S soil it was far from the only one. The U.S has suffered attacks by fringe groups from Puerto Rican nationalists setting off explosives on capitol hill in the early 1900's to McViegh blowing up a federal building. The difference is that this administration is the first and only one to use a terrorist attack, a tactic which will never succeed in toppling our government, as an excuse to literally tear up the constitution in order to hide nefarious activities by those in political power.

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 0%

    injest3 months ago

    HateKoolAid

    "as an excuse to literally tear up the constitution in order to hide nefarious activities by those in political power."

    Apparently you never heard of the 1996 anti terror act.

    http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/legal/po...

    The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act

    Presumed guilty, secret evidence can be used

    Permanent resident aliens arrested under this law have to prove they should not be held in jail before trial.

    First Amendment protections weakened

    The law lifts a 1994 Crime law restriction prohibiting the FBI from investigations based on speech or beliefs

    Presidential powers expanded.

    The President can label organizations -- without any appeal or review -- as "terrorist", and criminalize fundraising for humanitarian aid even remotely related to such groups

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      injest3 months ago

      Constitutional protections eroded.

      The law further restricts the Bill of Rights' habeas corpus protections for state prisoners.

      And guess who wrote this

      S. 390 was introduced February 10, 1995 by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. H.R. 896 was introduced the same day in the House by Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and Rep. Dicks.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        doggammit2 months, 4 weeks ago

        Sure thing injest - and good of you to remind us that there has been plenty of collusion regarding loss of privacy and rights coming from both sides of the political play field. 1996 was a harbinger - though anyone who lived through Nixon and Reagan could see where the state was heading long before. The infrastucture for a full blown surveillance state has been building slowly for decades. 911 provided an opportunity to turn the intestines of covert inquiry outward. It is now an electronic exoskeleton of sorts and we the people are caught in the a cage built of fiber optics and microwave chicken wire. Technocracy has replaced democracy.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          injest2 months, 4 weeks ago

          doggammit

          "though anyone who lived through Nixon and Reagan could see where the state was heading long before."

          Hum? Depends on where you place the demarcation line.

          Surveillance in one form or another has been heavy since WW2.

          Echelon More information about ECHELON is available and being constantly updated at: http://www.echelonwatch.org

          Echelon is a system used by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept and process international communications passing via communications satellites. It is one part of a global surveillance systems that is now over 50 years old. Other parts of the same system intercept messages from the Internet, from undersea cables, from radio transmissions, from secret equipment installed inside embassies, or use orbiting satellites to monitor signals anywhere on the earth's surface.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            injest2 months, 4 weeks ago

            The world's most secret electronic surveillance system has its main origin in the conflicts of the Second World War. In a deeper sense, it results from the invention of radio and the fundamental nature of telecommunications. The creation of radio permitted governments and other communicators to pass messages to receivers over transcontinental distances. But there was a penalty - anyone else could listen in.

            The system was established under a secret 1947 "UKUSA Agreement," which brought together the British and American systems, personnel and stations. To this was soon joined the networks of three British commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Later, other countries including Norway, Denmark, Germany and Turkey signed secret sigint agreements with the United States and became "third parties" participants in the UKUSA network.

            Reply
      • 0%

        Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

        Which was the excuse used by the Republicans gutting the 1996 anti-terror bill, which might have prevented 9/11 otherwise.

        Sword cuts both ways, sadly.

        Reply
  • 0%

    rightfromwrong2 months, 4 weeks ago

    9/11 was an inside job....physics don't lie and there were far too many coincidences for the Administration not to be at least complicit in the attack. It was all about "OIL"

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth can be an act of treason"

    Reply
• 0%

  Jaydee403 months ago

  The US government has been toppled for years, the American public is just to damn bullheaded to admit it. There was a reason for Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

    Between the military-entertainment complex and the Federal Reserve, and between the Supreme Court activism and Diebold voting machines, what do we the people actually have any control over anymore?

    Reply
• 0%

  mmrhe3 months ago

  The reason this passed is because deep down inside the American people are afraid of being attacked again and are willing to give this up.

  The Brits do it as I understand so forgive me for saying this is not as big a deal as some on this thread believe.

  Let the attacks begin....; )

  Reply

  10 Replies

  • HanymanComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

    • 0%

      rightfromwrong2 months, 4 weeks ago

      good quote!!!

      Reply
    • 0%

      Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

      Who was he again??

      Reply
  • 0%

    Sabretooth3 months ago

    Hmmm, i had no idea America was so full of sheep. Do you think your ancestors would be proud of you today?

    On a brighter note...the more freedoms you give up the less the terrorists have to be envious of. Once you have nothing left you will have won...sort of...best of luck with that.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      doggammit2 months, 4 weeks ago

      It's called a Phyrric victory...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

        Should be called a Cheney Victory.

        Reply
  • 0%

    injest2 months, 4 weeks ago

    mmrhe

    "The reason this passed is because deep down inside the American people are afraid of being attacked again and are willing to give this up"

    The reason this passed is because ultimately what this is all about is phone traffic through American "switches" AKA Switch boards, remember old movies with phone operators plugging one wire into another hole to make the connections.

    Today that is done in a satellite, nodes and hubs and America owns a lot of em. The Dems "b1tch" has been that a call from Yemen to Iraq goes through an American "switch" therefore you must have a warrant to tap.

    It's completely bogus, they played this card for political gain, Bush didn't cave and rather than explain in real truthful words what this is al about the Dems caved AGAIN!

    Now, does what happen make more sense?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

      No one is beyotching about foreign calls. No one. The topic here is about domestic spying.

      Bush did not cave because he knows he or some persons from his admin as well as a select group of cronies could go to jail for these high crimes and misdemeanors.

      4th amendment brother. It`s on the books. So is domestic spying law under FISA which requires a warrant and tracking of who is spying on whom and for what purpose.

      I`m sorry to hear that you miss the former Soviet Union so much, may I recommend Burma. We real Americans want to keep our freedoms and privacy, thank you very much.

      Reply
  • 0%

    unome22 months, 4 weeks ago

    I would have to say that mass murdering over three thousand American citizens and blaming it on religious extremists is indeed a big deal.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago

    Nah, the reason this passed in because a right-wing media gives a pass to the illegal domestic spying of the Bush admin and the telcos while playing up the security issue, which was never an issue to begin with since FISA allowed for that.

    No, the reason for this is because we are too lazy or busy to investigate the real story and our govt is up for sale. The telcos CEOs got their millions, used more of our $ to bribe the Congress into covering their arses and Bush`s, and we may never know the truth if Obama does not win and sick an untainted Justice Dept on them telcos.

    Reply
• 0%

  aniokly3 months ago

  It is a big deal to the Obama supporters, because he said he would never support a bill that granted immunity to the Telecoms. Then the Telecoms spread the bounty around to where they all got an average of $8,800, apiece in donations, and the bill passed. I know you thought he was different. Sorry. He is what Uncle Jeremiah said he is, a politician, and Uncle Jeremiah has known him for 20 years.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    ecotourusa3 months ago

    mccain is the other side to the same coin...

    go here and join the campaign for liberty!

    http://www.campaignforliberty.org

    Reply
  • 0%

    doggammit2 months, 4 weeks ago

    Once of those rare occasions I will agree with you ani - but also note that you fail to call attention to what ecotourusa has posted immediately below. Failure of partisans to see how both sides of our duopoly are involved up to their necks is not a responsible position. This is not a "football" issue - not as long as all Americans are legally bound to deal with the bipartisan and universal consequences.

    Reply
• 0%

  liberal-with-a-gun3 months ago

  Damn, might as well move into a glass house, with a loudspeaker on top of it.

  I love how the Dems are just letting this go, to further their candidate's future election, by making the current administration look as bad as they can(as if it isn't bad enough already)

  Gotta go practice my goosestep now

  Reply

  11 Replies

  • 0%

    Tcaros2 months, 4 weeks ago

    The democrats are messing up. Here's how. They should have blocked this bill instead of caving in. They need to go after Bush and the illegal activities hard. This is the way they will win in November. If they continue to play lightly and hope to get our votes they will loose by looking soft.

    Dems need to stand up like Senator Reid and Senator Leahy. Both did the best they could to fend off this outlandish legislation.

    Reply

    10 Replies

    • 0%

      antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago

      Well, not that political reality has anything to do with anything, but there is a VETO PROOF senate republican block who are smashing this bill through.

      Obama and the dems could not prevent this bill if they had wanted. They tried to pass amendments, and were defeated.

      You want change? Vote out the 12 senators targeted by the DNC, and send money to Senator Landraou from Louisianna, who has been targeted by the GOP.

      Its about politics, comprimise, and winning. It is NOT about inriching trial attorneys, who had drawn up all manner of billion dollar lawsuits against Telecoms who did what the Cheney regime asked them to do.

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        Mdiar2 months, 4 weeks ago

        The Dems could of stopped this. Figure out how the legislative system works. All they had to do was stop this bill; they could have easily enough as they hold more then enough seats to do that.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago

          wrong, the senate dems to not have a fillibuster strength majority, and do not have a veto proof majority. They tried every way they could in the way of ammendments to the bill, and were VOTED DOWN.

          YOu are incorrect, dems could not have stopped this.

          And who benifits financially if they did stop this. If you were a dem senator, and the state you represent and empolyees of the telecom like MCI were going to lose BILLIONS to trial lawyers, who had Billions of dollars of class action drawn up, hoping for a feeding frenzy, what would you do to protect your state? Feed MCI to the trial lawyers? For doing what cheney and the fbi ASKED them to do?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            Mdiar2 months, 4 weeks ago

            Uhhh... if the Republicans can filibuster, the Dems can to. You see, the numbers of Republicans and Dems are about the same. The only difference is something can be vetoed by the Republicans because the President is a Republican. The Dems can't break a filibuster... but on this, that works to the Dem advantage. Without Dems, the GOP would NOT have been able to garner enough votes to pass this. You fail to understand how the process works and that a bill can be killed just by refusing to vote.

            Now, your other argument? I agree. I disagree with your statement that Republicans can smash crap through. The Dems can stop what they want to stop if they act as a unified group. Because it takes more then just the minority party, the Republicans, to agree with something to get it to pass. The Dems aren't veto proof, however. That requires 67 Senators. But the veto does not apply to this case at all.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%