All of this spin on FISA needs to stop.

[Joe Fields]

Some of you should really listen to yourselves and think about this, before you corkscrew right into the ground, trying to defend the indefensible:

If George Bush was for it, then:

A) Is it legal?

B) Could it possibly good for the citizens of this country?

One other thing: The telecoms didn't spend 35 million dollars lobbying congress for protection last year on this issue for nothing. For them it was money well spent. They got what they want.

[liberalmuse]

1. Thank you.

It is always interesting to see people try to defend one man's vote while slamming another's. There's no way Obama can justify his vote today. I'm so deeply disappointed. That asshat McCain didn't even vote, not that his vote was needed, but what a chickenshit. Even though I'm peeved and devastated, it's a no-brainer that 1. I will vote this fall, and 2. It will be for Barack Obama. It seems a lot of people are making jokes about us naysayers, but I wish they would step back and think. Can you imagine if we instantly teleported here today from 8 years ago? We wouldn't believe what we were seeing, and would wonder how in the hell we got to this point. That's why I'm not going to pretend that what Obama did today was okay. You do enough of that, and before you know it, you're wondering how in the hell you ended up in Nazi Germany.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. and your solution?

I see an awful lot of people on a feeding frenzy- happy to have a whipping boy, a sin-eater, a scapegoat to vent their outrage on.

Is this a solution?

What is going on around here- outrage and anger and "it's over" garbage is good for us?

bull.

peace~

[Joe Fields]

7. My "solution" is irrelevent. It's what our leaders do that counts.

This is not a proud moment for the country, and if Obama was wanting to display leadership we can believe in, well...he missed the boat on this one. I have heard a few here say that his was just one vote, but if he had taken a strong public stand against this bill, then he could have made the difference. THAT would have been leadership. Now I'm not sure what we can believe in with him.

[bahrbearian]

23. Exactly , it would be nice to have a candidate with conviction ,right now.

[Bluerthanblue]

36. it would be nice to have

a LOT of things. But if you are looking for someone else to 'do' what you feel is essential, and your only
requirement is to criticize and complain when you don't get what you want, don't expect anything but disapointment.

Obama is a human being- and he is only ONE among several who voted on this bill- he has more at stake than any of the others, and we, ALL of us- cannot afford to lose this election. It isn't about what would be 'nice'- it's about the lives of many many people.


peace~

[Joe Fields]

39. A lot of irony in that last sentence of yours.

[Bluerthanblue]

44. no- not unless you are foolish enough

to think that a McCain administration will NOT mean death- certain death to a very large number of people both American and foreign.

FISA is nothing compared to the wars McCain will have us engaged in, and you can be sure that his tax-cuts for those who have more than enough will cost more and more people their lives.

the Constitution, no, more specifically the bill of rights, doesn't really impact dead people much-
The times ahead are not going to be easy to survive- they'll be impossible for many if the republicans win.


peace~

[Joe Fields]

45. That is not up to me so much, as it is up to the candidate, now is it?

Actions have consequences. What you you expect? He didn't have to do what he did today, but he did it. And it will hurt him. Don't blame the fans in the stands because the quarterback fumbled the ball.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. oh, I get it-

you see this as a spectator sport eh?

Why do you think teams do so much better when they play at home? THIS, - "DU" and the Democratic party is Obama's "home"- are you part of the home town crowd or not?

Are you part of society or do you think your only obligation is to sit in the stands shouting obceneties and talkin about 'your rights'- and how they aren't being defended???

this isn't fun and games.

goodnite
peace~

[LVjinx]

48. Crazy irony - kneejerk defending this and then accusing OTHERS of treating it like a game.

[Marrah_G]

51. When they are running the wrong way with the ball- yup I will shout.

[Joe Fields]

54. You just exhibited one of Machiavelli's patented moves.

Accuse those who disagree with you of the type of behavior that you display. Your assessment could not be further than the truth, and it is blatently disingenuous for you to even assert such motives. This is anything but a game, and it is MY assertion that the main argument for those of you who try and shut people like myself up, is that WE don't understand the BIG picture. That WE have to understand that this is how presidential politics is played (the triangulating, moving to center, not wanting to appear to be weak on matters of national security)

You are brimming with irony.

[Bluerthanblue]

57. well, Joe- your irony would be

helping to elect McCain in your quest to save the constitution- I'm not defending FISA by any means- It's bad law, in the control of a power hungry man. But if you can't see the consequences of what your continued assault on our candidate would bring, then you with all your fancy words, and high minded phrases, aren't as smart as this silly old woman, who has only a HS diploma, but a lifetime of hard earned experience.

You want to rant about FISA and the Patriot Act, and the myriad of erosions on our constitutional rights- hell have at it- I'll join you in the chorus, but if you think it isn't pretty obvious that your outrage, directed to one person in particular (among far too many) is pure and noble and superior, you need to do some introspection.

Obama isn't perfect- no one I know and respect has ever tried to claim that he was- as a matter of fact the only people who make that claim do so "disingenuously" in an attempt to destroy those who support him.

Direct your legitimate outrage about the erosion of the bill or rights less myopically - and I believe you'll find a lot of support here. Hide your dislike for Obama behind a FISA vote, and I'll call you on it- you call it Machiavellian- I call what you are trying to do projection- in the mean time, we need to elect a president- and it sure as hell better not be McCain.-
Constitutional rights won't matter for shit if he gets in.

in spite of all the frustration and anger, I do sincerely wish you and us all

peace~

[Joe Fields]

63. First, let me say that I can't stand McCain.

It is my belief that a McCain presidency is to be far more dangerous than an Obama presidency. I shouldn't even have to feel like it is necessary to say that.

But actions speak louder than words, and maybe you can show me what Obama has done or will do in the future to safeguard the constitution. So far, he is off to a rocky start.

I look at Obama/McCain as a Hobson's choice.

One other item not mentioned. Obama did himself no favors concerning his campaign. Imagine how difficult it will be for those volunteers going door to door, drumming up support for the candidate, when they are faced with a barrage of questions by people wondering why they should vote for someone that so easily gave up our constitutional rights. Obama has just made those volunteer's job a much tougher sell.

As for my motives: I have never put much stock into what people think about what I do or say, or why. I only have to answer to my conscience.

[Bluerthanblue]

64. I have no clue what a Hobson's choice is- and I'm pretty sure

you know I don't-

What you don't seem to realize though, is that when you work to destroy Obama, you are working FOR McCain.

If the American voters were as savvy as you seem to think- how have we had 8yrs of bush?

Good luck with your concience- I intend to make sure you don't have to face answering for your actions next Jan.

peace~

[Joe Fields]

65. You haven't answered my question.

All I'm hearing from you are more accusations. No further discussion needed, as it would obviously lead us nowhere.

[Bluerthanblue]

78. you didn't ask a question- and what's more you

contradict yourself here:

"It is my belief that a McCain presidency is to be far more dangerous than an Obama presidency. I shouldn't even have to feel like it is necessary to say that.

But actions speak louder than words, and maybe you can show me what Obama has done or will do in the future to safeguard the constitution. So far, he is off to a rocky start.

I look at Obama/McCain as a Hobson's choice.

Notice the bolded text- now, I'm not so ignorant that I can't find out what "Hobson's Choice" is, since you are too far above me to be willing to educate a lowly nobody like me-

Meaning

No choice at all - the only option being the one that is offered to you.


http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/183300.html

What other choices are there ever in a presidential election? If there is no choice (in your view) then how can anyone believe you don't see Obama and McCain as one and the same???

I agree with you on this point only. Further discussion between us would likely lead us nowhere. Not 'obviously'- but pretty likely given what has transpired here today.

:shrug:


good luck to you.

peace~

[Marrah_G]

50. I fear we may never see a real candidate with conviction in a General Election

[MarjorieG]

9. With right on their side, feel vindicated to act stupid about this.

Obama will address the abuses, but he has to get in first. If the vote were close, if the public understood this issue enough to reject the fear card, if there weren't some defensible aspect that really did help the security issue, Obama probably would have voted no.

Better see him elected so Mccain doesn't have this overreach.

[snowbear]

3. How mucha wanna bet they'll be bitchin' about something new by next week?

I don't mean the non-bitchers.. I mean the bellyachin' non-stop bitchers..

You are right Joe.

It gets OLD when they keep harping on the same damn thing thread after thread after thread. (( ))

[RNdaSilva]

16. Yep...

[bahrbearian]

27. Just move along nothing to see here .. except the lost of

your 4th amendment rights.

[Butch350]

59. You actually believe you have rights...Since when?

Don't worry the fourth amendment is still stuck there between the third and the fifth!

[AtomicKitten]

4. Well, hey, Congress isn't going to lobby itself, ya know.

The problem is that it passed big, was going to pass anyway, and IMO Obama made the best move under the circumstances. That in no way implies that the FISA was anything short of crap, but it was going down one way or the other. My pragmatic side is okay with Obama making a smooth move in a situation that was clearly a done deal. He can fix it when he moves into the White House.

[Joe Fields]

10. So then, what other "done deals" by this administration are you okay with?

[AtomicKitten]

30. I would have be okay with one to be okay with an"other," which I am not.

Sorry, but you do not have license to gratuitously misstate my position as a strawman on which to project your rage.

[Joe Fields]

32. It's a perfectly legitimate question, considering that you have stated

that you are okay with what happened today. I mean after all, it was a "done deal."

[AtomicKitten]

35. It's called critical thinking -- look into it.

On edit: I'm glad you've admitted your spin needs to stop. That's the first step.

[NattPang]

5. The spin is that one vote was going to make a difference in theory

and that it was the principle, i.e., symbolistic.

and just like a flagpin does not make you patriotic,
a losing vote doesn't restore your rights.

forget the battle for now
and try to win the war.

It is only in winning that there's a chance
that our rights will be restored.

Anything short of that
is what I would call spin.

[skooooo]

6. Good points, Nattpang!!!!!!!

[Joe Fields]

8. One man can make a difference. I've seen it many times in my life.

But we won't know now, will we?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

13. I'm agitated. I don't get paid for it, though.

[merh]

12. but you do try, don't you

:rofl:

Obama is still the dem nominee and he beat the clinton machine and wasn't 30 million in the hole.

BTW, how do you feel about raising money for HRC that went to or will be going to Penn that will make its way into Karen Hughes hands as she goes into business with him?

[skooooo]

14. heh

:rofl:

[Joe Fields]

18. still spinning, I see.

If you think what happened today is such a laugh riot, I must wonder about your motives to be here, other than to shout people with a backbone down.

[NattPang]

21. What gives you a backbone?

What have you done
to have earned this
for yourself?

[Bluerthanblue]

22. .....

.....looking forward to hearing the answer to this myself.


peace~

[Joe Fields]

24. That is a question that you should direct toward yourself.

[NattPang]

28. I never brought the subject up, you did.

I simply inquired.

[Joe Fields]

15. The HRC deal stinks like five day old herring.

It is another prime example of the wholly corrupt way that Washington does business.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NattPang]

17. I disagree.

I don't believe that the one person
that could have given you back your rights today,
wants you to have them.

That would have been George Bush.

[Joe Fields]

19. Are you saying you have no faith in Obama's ability to lead?

[NattPang]

20. Funny you should ask

Obama is Not A God - The American Prospect

"Obama speaks and emotes on par with some of this country's, even this world's, most gifted orators. For this, I am grateful. It feels amazing to shed some genuine tears over a political speech, to have some sense of what my parents meant when they talked about being personally invested in JFK's ideas, to actually believe in someone who has a flag waving behind them. When Obama smiles, it's as if a long-dimmed light has been fiercely illuminated.

But there is a danger in all this charisma. It distracts us from the reality, which is that Obama is a young politician, full of potential but also destined to make mistakes. He is human and, therefore, bound to fail at some of what he is so bravely setting out to do. We, a generation pumped full of self-esteem education, are uncomfortable with failure. Too often we want our mentors, our parents, and, I fear, our political leaders, airbrushed into perfection. Or on the other extreme, we revel in the demise of decent people. Reality television has primed us for 24-hour schadenfreude.

Let's not let Obama be our deity or our Britney Spears. Let's not hold him up to unrealistic standards, setting ourselves up for inevitable disillusion. And let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater when he shows his weaknesses. The loss is far too great to have an all-or-nothing attitude toward the man who would be king. It's not just his presidency that is in danger but our own sustainable civic involvement.
<snip>
A critical lens, not rose-colored glasses, will best serve us in the coming months of this presidential campaign. If we see Obama as a star, then we will be forced to watch him fall from such great heights and experience the darkness afterward. If we see him as a promising leader -- full of wisdom, charisma, and vulnerable humanity -- then we can walk the long, bumpy road ahead. As Biko Baker puts it, "As young progressives we really just need Obama to be accountable to us most of the time and the rest of time it's going to be up to us to push back and fight with him. Let's be honest, it's going to be our vote that gets him in the office.""
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obama_is_not_a_god

[Butch350]

61. Your kinda shallow - and don't see the big picture. Do-ya?!

[last_texas_dem]

88. Good point

What is odd to me is that there are people who would argue that the election of Obama could bring about a new era in politics, as many joined him based on seeing his leadership as effective, but argue that Obama's stance/vote on this bill would not have made a difference. It seems to me that taking a "less popular" stance on this issue could have been a test of Obama's effectiveness as a leader; by opposing this legislation, Obama, as unofficial party leader, could perhaps have swayed a substantial number of Democrats to reconsider their support of the legislation.

[bahrbearian]

29. I take you don't vote?

[NattPang]

31. I vote, But if I my candidate doesn't win

I keep keeping on.

[bahrbearian]

34. you mean you are complacent?

your candidate just switched his platform.

[NattPang]

40. No, the democratic candidate

did what he had to do.

The media was ready for the could be Muslim
who tried to get rid of our tools to fight
terrorists commercials that would have been
handed to them by the RNC and the 527
to be played for free.

Obama is young, but he's not stupid.

[Marrah_G]

52. And you are the spinmaster!

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

25. $35 million vs civil liberties activists, that's not a winnable fight

The average American has probably never heard of FISA or Telecom Immunity let alone know what they actually are. If the American people knew what was going on and were outraged about it, the telecoms could have given the maximum to every member of Congress and this crap still would have failed.

This wasn't a failure of leadership. All of the leadership in the world couldn't have beaten the telecom's big money. The only thing that could have beaten it was an active citizenry. We don't have that and so we get the government we deserve.

[Joe Fields]

37. yep.

Most Americans aren't involved, nor do they want to get involved. Some don't want to get involved any further than watching the Sunday propaganda shows.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Most don't even watch the Sunday propaganda shows

The Sunday shows are television for DC insiders and political junkies. Average Americans are either in bed or in Church when they come on. People may read a headline about what was said on them in the Monday papers but that's about it.

[Joe Fields]

42. You are right, although I did say "some", but no, not very many.

And I guess it is a good thing, considering the propaganda that comes forth.

[chill_wind]

26. Agree. Violations of FISA are classified as felonies. Spin THAT.

Memory lane....

Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Comey Testifies that the President Broke the Law

Marty Lederman

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-comey-just-testify-that-president.html

(see transcript)

FISA provides the following:

(a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

The penalty for violating this provision is up to 5 years in prison and/or up to $10,000. By the terms of the possible punishment, violations of FISA are classified as felonies.

GWB (and a whole bunch of other cronies -again, see testimony) is one very grateful SOB tonite.

[NattPang]

33. GWB shouldn't be so happy, as the possibility of pursuing

criminal liability
was not addressed
in this bill.

[chill_wind]

43. The bill essentially legalizes what was criminal. The telcom suits were our best shot at getting at

the truth, the players and the extent of the crimes.

Not now.


"The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html

[NattPang]

46. That is not an undebatable fact.

according to both John Dean and Russ Fiengold and others.

[Enrique]

38. Bush being for it has nothing to do with it being illegal

it was illegal because it violated specific statutes.

[Marrah_G]

49. Everything is upside down

I never thought I would EVER see Illegal Wiretapping defended here. Here......on DU.

The amount of sheep here is disturbing.

[Breeze54]

69. It's amazing, isn't it?

:puke:

[Joe Fields]

77. I never did, either, Marrah.

[Egnever]

90. says the sheep with no knowledge of the bill whatsoever

[berni_mccoy]

55. When Will the Wild-Eyed Nutjobs Here Stop Attacking Obama?

The truth of the matter is, most of the people like you haven't
1. Read the Bill
2. Care about the truth

because if you did, you would realize that the FISA bill does not
1. Destroy the Constitution
2. Kill Democracy

That is the moronic spin from your side.

[jonnyblitz]

58. the only wild eyed nutjobs I see are the apologists for this

SHIT such as yourself. your ilk has no fucking SHAME. :puke:

[Bluerthanblue]

60. shame will be your legacy

if you succeed in gettin McCain elected with all your hate filled outrage.

You need to work on your camouflage- your real agenda is showing.
and it's pretty ilk-y

peace~

[last_texas_dem]

89. You're fooling yourself if you believe numbers 1 and 2 on your list

apply to those defending Obama's stance on this issue.

[dailykoff]

56. If we all write letters to the North Pole

asking Santa to make it so, then it will be a GOOD bill and Obama will still be a GOOD guy and all the doom and gloomers will get a big lump of coal in their stockings!

:)

:crazy:

[Overseas]

62. No no don't stop we need TEN MORE FRESH THREADS on the topic!!

We need more and more and more NEW THREADS AGAINST OBAMA"S DECISION ! Keep them coming because your perspective is just so unique that you just couldn't possibly join in the seven other threads already discussing our honest objections to Obama's FISA decision. Those threads are open and waiting for you to share your thoughts with others who agree with you but no no no -- START A FRESH THREAD !! Because there's a bit of a nuance that the other TEN THREADS didn't say!

[Breeze54]

67. What skin is it off your back?

You need to chill out. Go take a walk or something. Gheesh.

[Skittles]

66. YOU KNOW IT, JOE

another question to ask is, "Would I spin like this if it was Hillary voting for it?" I would spin for NO ONE.

[Joe Fields]

70. Thanks, Skittles. The only way to realistically look at is, is that

big corporations influenced another vote. We, the people became irrelevent, AGAIN.

[Breeze54]

68. Thanks, Joe.

K&R

[Joe Fields]

71. Thank you, Breeze, for truly seeing things as they are.

:toast:

[Catherina]

72. They got what they wanted and more. So did the government

What the Democrats just fave Bush and future leaders, the Republicans hadn't been able to accomplish when they were a majority. The country is in serious trouble.

A friend of mine put it this way:

First, it established the precedent that the President can now make law on his own. All the stuff you learned in school about ‘how a bill becomes law’ pretty much just went out the window.

This makes it clear that if a President doesn’t like a law, he is free to just ignore it. No need to go through all of those messy democratic details of getting people to agree to change the law. The President can now cite this as a precedent anytime he decides he wants to change the law.

Second, it just established the precedent that if the President asks people outside his administration to break the law, he can do so. All he has to do is to say that he wants it. Years ago we impeached President Nixon for gross abuse of power in exactly this area. Nixon’s famous quote was ‘if the President does it, then its legal’. The Congress just ratified that principle.

Picture for instance a meeting between government officials and the officials of some company that’s being asked to do something that violates the laws passed by Congress and officially signed by the President. When the lawyers of the company point out to the government officials that what they are asking is illegal, you can bet that this case will be cited as precedent.

Beyond that we have the shredding of the fourth amendment with regard to Americans being secure from unwarranted searches. Again, you can count on this being cited as precedent for future encroachments on our rights. For instance, similar broad collection of all communication traffic in the national interest of stopping child pornography wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

The telecom immunity was only a small bit of this. And it is very, very telling that all along the Democrats in Congress were happy to go along with all of this without a whimper. The only objection they made was to the telecom immunity.

[Joe Fields]

75. To me, the ramifications are very frightening.

Why? Because there will, without a doubt be actions taken by local and state governments against its citizens, for the sole purpose of being challenged and ratified by the courts. Is it too far fetched to imagine somewhere down this slippery slope, there will be state border crossings, manned by the highway patrol or national guard troops, demanding personal identification and the stated destination, as well as the reason for travel?

[Catherina]

81. It''s not too far fetched at all.

The FBI already has a plan to "profile" Muslims

July 10, 2008 | The U.S. Justice Department is considering a change in the grounds on which the FBI can investigate citizens and legal residents of the United States. Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group. Agents would be permitted to ask "open-ended questions" concerning the activities of Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans. A person's travel and occupation, as well as race or ethnicity, could be grounds for opening a national security investigation.

Along with Muslims, political dissenters and corporate competitors. I'm looking at options overseas now. This is old Germany all over again.

[JuniperLea]

84. You are absolutely correct

Slippery slope indeed... and there are warning signs all up and down the road that these apologists are running on right now. Willfull ignorance... a horrible thing.

[vaberella]

76. Can you post the EXACT language from FISA that introduces

all of the problems your listed? Thank you in advance.

[Catherina]

79. Sure. Right after I fetch your fan and ice-cold mint julep n/t

[Breeze54]

82. ROTFLMFAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[calimary]

73. It's a shame. Because the only way to get through to these companies is through their

pocketbooks. If they get hurt financially, they seriously take notice.

And civil suits for damages have now been ruled out, as I understand it.

I'm just hoping that by the time we get around to "well, NOW we're in a position to fix it, so let's fix it", we'll suddenly find ourselves in "oh, let's just move on. We need to put this BEHIND us!!! There are other matters we need to focus on more! Let's not dwell on the past or go back and fight the same old fight again. Going back = bad. Moving on = good."

Sigh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6479824

[ProgressIn2008]

74. Thank you... I appreciate voices of sanity right now. nt

[sniffa]

80. All this FISA spam needs to stop

You'll go blind if you Fisabate too much.

[thoughtcrime1984]

83. If he wins the Presidency because he didn't get his ass whooped over a no vote, then

this damn FISA bill can be repealed in a matter of months. If he had voted no and got absolutely lambasted by the media as soft on terror, then some Indy votes would certainly be lost, and McCain's chance of winning would go up, which would ensure FISA lives for another 4-8 years. Big picture. This purity BS is gonna sink us again if we let it.

[rg302200]

85. Excellent rebuttal

good post

[butterfly77]

87. They are pretending not to know this...

and you are correct on this purity BS,this is what gets cause the dems to lose with certain voters because they come off as wimps..

[Lord Helmet]

86. I agree so quit spinning then.