Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama “Undecided” on S. 1959

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:11 PM
Original message
Obama “Undecided” on S. 1959
Senator Barack Obama is “undecided” on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959), according to a statement released from his Washington, D.C. office.

“Senator Obama has not taken a position on S. 1959. Should the bill be considered by the Homeland Security Committee, he will carefully evaluate it, as he does with all pieces of legislation,” an Obama spokesperson wrote to The Indypendent in a Dec. 13 email.

Obama’s office wanted to clarify his position on this bill after my previous Dec. 10 blog update reported that some constituents receiving email responses from Obama felt that his letter indicated support for the bill. Several people have posted Obama’s email letter on blogs, often adding in their own personal reaction.

link: http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/14/obama-undecided-o... /

This is a golden opprotunity for Obama to stand up and show leadership. C'mon Obama, kill this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. WHAT???? HOW CAN YOU BE UNDECIDED ON THIS??? Fucking politician.
Fuck Obama. And fuck Hillary too, because she'll probably vote for this as well. The Triangulator and The Undecider. Doesn't Obama have an opinion on anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. why don't you actually wait for Hillary to vote
or take a position before you condemn her for something she hasn't done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'd like to hear if the rest of them are undecided on Homegrown Terror..
This is why all this focus on who did what decades ago drives me insane. Kucinich is the only one who has spoken out against it? Well, not surprised, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. I have the homegrown militias in mind.
True, we don't hear about them much anymore, but there are more of them now than there were before. How do we know that they're not "the enemy from inside"? How do you think they'll react when either a white woman or a black man is elected? Real change is often bloody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. How do the rest of our candidates stand on this?
I couldn't be more opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. They should all be strongly against it.
I believe Kucinich is the only one who has come out clearly against it. He voted against it in the House.

Obama get the chance on this one, since it is in his sub-committee. He gets the say on whether is will see the light of day.

If Hillary were smart, she'd come out stong against it, ans force Obama to step-up or look bad.

If Obama were smart he'd kill it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. What is it the proponents of this bill are saying they hope to achieve by its passage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Funneling a bunch of money to study centers.
And learning to recognize how someone becomes radicalized. It's not necessary or practical, yet it only had a handful vote against it in the House, less than 10, IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I think only SIX voted against it -- I just don't get it. And this "reasoning"
behind it is just dumb.

Thanks for the explanation. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. That reply sounds like a canned comment from the office.
I don't know if this is an obscure bill or an important one. It's entirely possible that Obama hasn't reviewed it with his staff yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Obama not taking a position?
well, knock me down with a feather. The King of Voting Present in the Illinois Legislature being Undecided? Who woulda thunk it? :shrug:

Great political courage you got there, Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. I just don't like they way he works..
does he think that if he skips votes and doesn't take p ositions that it'll keep him from being critized? Instead.. he attacks those that took a stand. He is so far down on my list of candidates right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. He's licked his finger and he's waiting for a windy day
He needs to see which way the wind is blowing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
12. Gee will that be vote number 141 he skips
this is a very very decisive person isn't he. He can't make up his mind on 140 bills this year..he skipped them. And I haven't heard one damn word from any of the so called debate moderators about it....but they sure as hell sock it to Hillary. ARE THEY AFRAID TO ASK OBAMA ANY REAL QUESTIONS other than what he was going to wear for Halloween.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Tweety has decided that
Obama should be the nominee and he has a free pass on everything, while Hillary catches hell for every thing. After Ken Starr got done I didn't think there was anything left to try to smear Hillary with.

DU is more and more like free republic. Totally loony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Your candidate will probably vote for it
seeing how she is leans Repub-lite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
15. Hopefully, Obama takes a stand a/g this bill nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. Well, sorry to say, he is completely wrong., I'm not being critical of him. This is a huge
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 01:45 AM by autorank
lapse. Let's hope it's poor staff work or simple misunderstandings.

Here's the rap and constructive suggestions.

The bill creates a standard that associates people with "violent radicalization" whose statements on the internet are so strong that they "facilitate" violent radicalization. I hope he doesn't know what he's talking about because he'll change his mind in that case. If he truly favors it, he'll suck on Constitutional rights.

The first bill is a definitions and study bill. When that's over, they'll come back and start making crimes of this, including "facilitation." The hearings were very brief, the witnesses limited and largely incoherent, and CYA Harman kept hurrying things along because they had to go vote. Nice, Congress is assured that their votes are counted.

In any event, if you like Obama, get to him and tell him to pull back and think about it.

btw, DU and other forums like it would be screwed. The liability of having a group of strong willed, intense posters would probably too great. Also, the minute Congress can shut down their constituents, they will. This bill and HR 1955, the House version that already passed are, I suspect, really about Congress not having to answer for it's nonsense. They've received millions of angry emails concerning their vasrious derelictions. They just don't want to hear it anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Good Point, Autorank...Shut down the Netroots...because thy don't want to hear us anymore.
NO more angry e-mails and diatribes and "Action Alerts." They've been signaling their displeasure with us since they won in 06...but the ghost of what could have happened if Lieberman had been tossed out is haunting them. Don't want anymore angry activists out their challenging them in their elections. Challenging them as they help Bush shred our Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out...that's what's wrong with this Bill which will probably be passed in some secretive way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. It'll probably be passed right out in the open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Glad you concur.
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 11:32 AM by autorank
I am always suspicious about 100% agreement by these characters. But then the obvious point arose -
we re a nuissance to them, in the way, pointing out their obvious failings. Rather than use that as
terrific, free consultation, they move to shut it off. Their time is just about up. When the full
story of the polar cap melting down every summer gets out and just some of the implications, there
will be some real anger. That's an easy one to understand. MSM is doing a terrific job of covering
that up but the rest of the world knows.

So, ya know...what they want is ...


Image
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Seems like it sets up a HUAC type group.
It doesn't criminalize anything, but sets up a way of branding and labeling people so they can be harassed and black listed. The government need not do anything. The sheeple will do it for them.

That is not to say that they won't follow up with something truly oppressive.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. That is in place now, good one!
The House and Senate versions of this bill define 'violent radicalization' and implicate anyone with passionate views.

It you write a passionately worded indictment of the administration, accuse them of negligence, etc.,

and someone sees that, someone you don't know, and acts violently,

then you can be implicated for that person's actions because you inflamed them.

The bill is now just a definition of terms the terms, a structure for study, and then legislation.

But YOU ARE SO RIGHT, they can do a HUAC now that the definition of violent radicalization in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. par for the course, licking his finger and holding it up to see which way the wind blows.
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 05:31 PM by MassDemm
he has no conviction, only political maneuvering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. which way "wind blows" kind of applies to many of our Candidates Running...doesn't it...
sadly.... :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC