Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support?

Posted by kdawson on from the now-we-will-never-know dept.

We discussed telecom immunity yesterday ahead of the House vote. It passed by 293 votes to 129. Only one Republican voted against the bill; Democrats were evenly split. It now goes to the Senate. Reader Verteiron points out that Glenn Greenwald has up a post titled "Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill." It says that Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway. I couldn't find this on Obama's official site. Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?

55 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.

  2. McCain is owned by the telecoms by analog_line · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.

    1. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by Psion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any readers who live in his district should give him a call and voice their opposition to the bill, reminding him we need hope and change from his office.

      The rest of us ... call your senators and tell them to vote no.

      Don't just grumble and complain here, make your voice heard where it really counts.

    2. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would, but like the other residents of the District of Columbia, we don't get a say in the matter.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by stinerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can always have your shadow senators crash the party and demand the floor.

    4. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.

      McCain voted for telecom immunity the first time around, so it would indeed be pretty hard to imagine him not voting for it now, especially with him ramping up his pro-administration rhetoric more and more, lately. His campaign has issued multiple statements that McCain wholeheartedly endorses telecom immunity. Here's to hoping Obama actually votes against this, and the Senate does something to block it -- although I doubt it, since the Senate is split evenly (49-49) between Democrats and Republicans, and most of the Democrats don't have the spine to be seen voting against something that's PROTECTING US AGAINST TERRORISTS OMG.

    5. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by stinerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      To the gentleman who modded me "troll":

      DC has shadow senators which are elected just as US Senators are, but are not recognized as such by the United States.

      For your edification.

    6. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did they really? Because there was a lot of discussions surrounding how the administration thought they had the authority to do it.

      I'm no constitutional authority, but nowhere in the Constitution of the USA does it give that power to the executive branch. And the Constitution is a limit on what government can do. It doesn't seem like it today but that's how it was written.

      If they knew, you would think they wouldn't have bothered writing legal opinions and such to do it.

      It just as possible any "legal opinions" were written to cover their asses. "See we wrote these to show we believed what we did was legal."

      Would you want el Duce, Hilter, or Stalin to have the same power? How about Pol Pot? Idi Amin?

      Totally irrelevant. Nothing this administration has done is remotely close to those people and going after the telecoms has no relation to any of it either.

      It's very relevant, not even the NAZIs did everything at once. Instead they slowly whittled away. Hitler wasn't even given all the power he had until after the Reistag fire. And going after the telecoms will show they can be made to pay if they do anything illegal.

      Would you prefer a government willing to go all the way when those people decide to invade?

      What people invading where?

      Or how about when your shopping at a mall and terrorist decide to blow it up for 72 virgins.

      I'm more concerned about the Christian Talibans And Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists who want to dictate how I live, if I don't live the way they dictate I'm stoned to death. Or how they are trying to get rid of science in school and teach Creationism, ID, instead. I still recall having an elementary school teacher in a public school forcibly apply a ruler to children's hands and arms, including my own, because we wouldn't say the pledge of allegiance with "under god". In a public school.

      Falcon
      --
      Should there be a Law?
  3. It is not blanket immunity by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Informative

    This does not stop law suits. It gives telcos who have written requests from the government, dated after 9/11/2001, that state the president authorized the specific wire tap to not be liable.

    1)The telcos still have to go to court and file papers
    2)so many people were violated that there will be many many suits
    3)they have to have written proof that the president authorized it (not likely given the fact that Bush wanted to not be caught)
    4)there is evidence that Bush had been doing this domestic wire tapping before 9/11
    5)A judge still decides if the proof provided by the telcos meets the standard

    1. Re:It is not blanket immunity by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      6) Lawsuits lost because of this law may be appealed and this law will hopefully be found unconstitutional (because it is).

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    2. Re:It is not blanket immunity by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spin in however you like, no matter how you look at this, the Democrats caved. Pathetic.

    3. Re:It is not blanket immunity by Compholio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      6) Lawsuits lost because of this law may be appealed and this law will hopefully be found unconstitutional (because it is).
      Even after they take out the retroactive immunity? That's the only unconstitutional part I've heard people talking about.
    4. Re:It is not blanket immunity by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's no such thing as gratuitous Bush-bashing. Every little bit helps.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    5. Re:It is not blanket immunity by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spin in however you like, no matter how you look at this, the Democrats caved to a bill overwhelmingly supported and started by Republicans. Pathetic. There we go - fixed.

      I don't know if that's a swipe against Democrats in general... but at least about half of them stood up and said no.
      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    6. Re:It is not blanket immunity by neomunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone could die and all it would do is make me even happier. That's what Burgess Meredith thought, until he broke his glasses.
  4. Again. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't think of anything profound to say. I hate to be the bearer of hopelessness, but I think that the US is too far down the road to being a police state. There is no way this will get reversed. I don't see this thing being defeated in the Senate. There are too many powerful lobbies behind it. Sorry.

  5. No more $ for Obama; time for a General Strike by maynard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.

    This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.

    1. Re:No more $ for Obama; time for a General Strike by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why anyone thought Senator Obama was different is beyond me. Maybe it's just his incredible charisma and oratorical skill. He's a product of Chicago politics yet people act like he's the second coming. I'm sure I'll get modded down for this. Please note for the record that I have consistently said that both sides were dirty as hell. I'm a registered Independant who wanted to believe that someone different would come along. Obama isn't that someone. Neither is McCain. They are both politicians plain and simple. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

    2. Re:No more $ for Obama; time for a General Strike by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for.

      He's only running for president, he ain't president yet, and it's out of his hands. If you're in his position, you've got the two options:

      1. Oppose the bill, giving McCain talking points and opening a rift in the Democrats, on account of the fact that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a majority of Democrats support the 'compromise.' Even with his opposition, the bill will still pass the Senate, and he will have handed the Republicans red meat for no gain whatsoever.
      2. Support the bill and live to fight another day. Politics is the art of the possible and occasionally you can't win. You just have to listen to his argument on why he doesn't like it and if you think he's a liar, and he DOES secretly want to listen in on your phone calls, than you probably shouldn't vote for him either. I don't think this is the case; if you read "Dreams from My Father" on living in Suharto's Indonesia you get a visceral sense for how he really doesn't dig police states.

      The simple fact of the matter is that Presidents, be they Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon or FDR, can and do routinely break the law and violate the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, and the only thing that really brings that to a halt is getting them out of office. So worst case, you only have 4 years of tyranny.

      Of course a lot of people don't seem to mind tyranny as long as gay people five states over are forbidden to marry, but that's a separate issue.

      Of course, as others have pointed out, this law just formalizes Bush's arrangement for his successor, so who would you rather have running such an empowered Justice department? Neither is best, but no strong majority of Americans choose "neither," and no amount of righteous Jefferson-quoting seems to change that. The Democrats did the math and they don't lose as many votes over this as they'd lose if they handed Bush another veto, again accomplishing nothing. I don't question their commitment for a second, it's just impossible to get anything past a President without 2/3 majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  6. a flaw in our legislative system by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway.

    This is just another case where multiple issues are stacked into one bill, forcing legislators to either support something they don't want or vote against something they do want. Yes there is supposed to be a solid connection between all the parts of a bill, but legislators can't vote yea on one line item and nay on another and often time the connections between items on a single bill are tenuous. Tagging unpopular items to otherwise popular bills is one of the more common forms of corruption in our legislative process.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:a flaw in our legislative system by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It has been posted on /. before, but you might be interested in the Read the Bills Act.

      "America was founded on the slogan, "No taxation without representation." A similar slogan applies to this situation: "No LEGISLATION without representation." We hold this truth to be self-evident, that those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have not represented their constituents. They have misrepresented them. And since Congress has repeatedly committed "legislation without representation," strong measures to prohibit these Congressional misrepresentations are both justified and required. To this end we have created the "Read the Bills Act (RTBA)."
      --
      We are all just people.
  7. Immunity by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, as much as I don't like seeing the telco companies getting of completely, I must admit I blame the government more than the companies themselves.

    It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:Immunity by tshetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government may have been the ones that asked, but the phone companies did their bidding, they though it was a good idea and went through with it. Only Qwest denies the requests, IIRC.

      I always hate the comparison...but 'i was just following orders' is not and never will be an excuse to do wrong.

      You say no, tell people what was wanted of you and keep saying it is wrong.

      This isnt some 3rd world shithole where this deal took place.

      There were phone calls and meetings between business men and US government officials. No one was going to be beaten, families raped, or killed for not following orders of the government.

      The worst threat anyone in the administration or government had was to TRY to threaten a loss of government contracts. I could also see planting of stories in the media possibly but not really likely...

      There was no down side to saying no to questionable requests. NONE.

      What the hell ever happened to Question Authority?


  8. So if the AG stipulates it's legal, it's legal by maynard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?

    This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.

    The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.

  9. Not if he can help it by torstenvl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not if he can help it

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

  10. Time for Paul & Libertarians to join a coaliti by maynard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.

    http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689

    ActBlue appears to be attempting this type of Libertine/Liberal coalition. I've donated.

  11. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spin in however you like, no matter how you look at this, the Democrats caved. Pathetic. Caved? You say that almost as if the primary job task of a politician is to represent their constituency instead of doing political favors for wealthy special interest groups that contribute to their campaign coffers. I don't know how things work where you live but, in America, that's just not how things are done!
  12. Here is Obama's statement on the FISA bill by maynard · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

    He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.

    If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.

    If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with that.

  13. No single candidate can save you... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the thing. I look at a lot of Obama supporters today and I see in them a lot of the same things I saw in myself when I was big into the Republican Party.

    The moral of the story is that you can't buy into any single party's message, and that you need to make either political party work hard for your vote. Nobody gets screwed over by a political party more than its most loyal supporters...

    We need to get past the game that we are being worked towards, where we see Democrats and Republican as enemies, and re-learn to appreciate each other as citizens. We need to tell ourselve that it is as ok to be a redneck with his cars up on blocks (that's me), as it is to be a gay couple getting married, that a man has as much right to own rifle as he does to burn the flag, that, we together have natural rights that encompass not just the bill of rights, but beyond them. And, we need to understand that when someone else is trying to get us caught up in a civil war of even a political sort, they are only doing so that in the cause of protecting us from these imagined fellow citizens as enemies, that they are taking the rights of everyone.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:No single candidate can save you... by Blackhalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "a man has as much right to own rifle as he does to burn the flag"

      The way the U.S. government is going, I suspect that in due course, a man will have neither of those rights nor many others. The publics apparent view, that we only have the rights enumerated in the constitution, is appalling.

      On the one side you have the Democrats working to take away second amendment protections and bolstering copyrights to corporations by eliminating fair use and public domain, while on the other side you have the Republicans working to take away those pesky privacy rights and freedom of speech.

      Neither of these parties seem to represent the public in general and always they strive to expand government powers. It's a lose-lose.

      --
      "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  14. Civil vs Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Something to keep in mind. On Olberman last night a constitutional law expert basically said that this law procludes the telcos from civil liability for their actions. This is obviously bad and stupid. However it doesnt proclude them from criminal liability. The problem is no criminal case will be allowed through the justice department under this administration. The only chance of that happening would be for a new administration to make it a priority. Now, simple question, what are the chances of a McCain administration doing so?

  15. Don't be so quick to judge! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obama is fighting to remove immunity.

    Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...

    1. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by General+Wesc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...

      Ummm...the only? The article you quoted has Reid saying he'd fight. Conyers fought it. Nadler fought it. Feingold fought it. Now that it's going to the Senate, Leahy and Dodd will likely lead the charge against it. (My not-paying-much-attention understanding is that Dodd's been pretty amazing about this stuff for some time now.)

      There are a lot of Democrats putting up a decent fight. Just not enough. (And to be Fair and Balanced about it, there are some Republicans doing the right thing too, including our usually-hated Senator Arlen Specter.)

      Pelosi, however, is made of fail.

    2. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by neomunk · · Score: 4

      If you're not going to vote for either main party, could I convince you to either vote Green or Libertarian? In my personal opinion, I believe that voting for a nearly mainstream '3rd' party sends the most effective "middle finger" to the ruling cabal.

      Personally, the Green Party platform is something I can support, they even support the kind of feminism I can get behind (the equality kind, not the men are pigs kind). Having said that, the more support we can get to the major '3rd' parties (I hate that term if you can't tell by the quotes), the more of a message we can send that the 'bipartisanship' that only seems to come about when screwing the populous is no longer acceptable.

    3. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Pelosi, however, is made of fail."

      Pelosi is shrub's little bitch now, because she knew about the White House's plans for illegal detention and torture back in 2002 or 2003 and didn't raise the bullshit flag. Her career is the reason Bush hasn't been impeached and locked in Gitmo.

      Bitch can go to Gitmo, too, as far as I'm concerned.

    4. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by Khaed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pelosi is one of the reasons I can't respect the Democratic Congress. She's an utter failure and a moron, and there are so many candidates for Speaker that they should have looked at before her. She is basically an affirmative action choice, and a poor one at that.

      But that's just my opinion.

    5. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are overlooking the largest reason she is speaker - money. She was an enormously successful fundraiser for the Dems, and she was imbibed hardball machine politics like mother's milk from her family in Baltimore.

      So many other democrats owed her they HAD to vote for her when she threw her hat in the ring - they owed her literally and figuratively.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "IMHO there is only one way we can help Obama be in a position to make good with his promise to remove immunity.

      Elect him president."

      Revealing your fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. As a senator, Obama could put a hold on the bill, do a REAL filibuster (think Strom Thurmond), or use parliamentary tactics. His leadership won't stop him, because an internal fight right now is the last thing the Dems need.

      As President, he would be faced with a bill that has ALREADY passed, and....what? He can't retroactively veto it. He can demand Congress change the bill, but Presidential demands are variable in power - is he really willing to burn up that much clout over something that, now that he is in power, will be SOOO attractive to use?

      If he cared about that provision, he could stop it now, instead of mouthing platitudes in January 2009.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really doesn't make me like her any more, but rather, less. That basically means she bought/bribed her way to being speaker.

    8. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by uncqual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voting Libertarian (esp. for U.S. President) is not a vote for the Libertarian candidate (after all, no Libertarian candidate for POTUS has any chance of being elected).

      Instead, a vote for the Libertarian candidate is among the clearest messages one can send to the Dem/Rep parties of where there is a pool of voters they can actually attract if they adjust their approaches (or at least pretend to).

      A libertarian voter should be realistic -- the best they can do now or in the near term is sway the views/actions of the mainstream candidates by voting for the Libertarian candidate.

      Send a message to the losing party (Dem or Rep) in November by voting Libertarian. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for libertarian principles, not for whatever idiot the Libertarians picked this time around.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    9. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why exactly is Bob Barr an "idiot?" I'm asking because I've looked at his positions, and, while we aren't going to agree on everything, I fail to see anything disingenuous much less idiotic.

      Somebody here considers you insightful so please do elaborate on what's wrong with the party's candidate.

  16. Read the bill by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304

    EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:

    http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

    Title II of H.R. 6304 is in substance the same as the original telecom immunity provisions of S. 2248, with only a few inconsequential changes. Most critically, it still prevents the court from ruling on the legality of the telecomsâ(TM) assistance in warrantless surveillance.

    This may not be immediately evident on first read since the structure has changed considerably: the provisions for so-called "retroactive" immunity in the original billâ(TM)s Section 202 have been combined with the so-called "prospective" immunity from the original Section 203.

    But the substance of this unconstitutional bill is still the same:

    Cases Will Still Be Dismissed Based On A Permission Slip From The President.

    As before, cases against telecoms that provided assistance "in connection with" (p. 89:20) the Presidentâ(TM)s warrantless surveillance program âoeshall be promptly dismissedâ (p. 89:2) so long as the AG certifies to the court that they got a piece of paper "indicating" (p.90:10) that the surveillance was "authorized by the President ... and ... determined to be lawful" (p. 90:12-13), i.e., the piece of paper that we already know they got, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report.

  17. Scapegoats? by Xelios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Bush Administration are the real criminals in this case, why aren't they being held accountable? Everyone is gung ho about crucifying the Telco's, what about the people who ordered them to do the spying?

    While I don't agree with what they did, I can understand why the Teclo's agreed to the situation. The Bush Administration probably assured them that were the program ever exposed, they would be granted immunity, and in the mean time they made a fair bit of money off the illegal activities of the government. Both groups should be tried for their actions, but people should be much more upset with the government over this.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:Scapegoats? by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because a way of getting to the Wnauts is through these lawsuits.

      Do you really think W is fighting this out for the telcos ?

  18. True BUT by snarfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.

    1. Re:True BUT by snarfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice try. I know that in Republican ideology everything bad is Clinton's fault. But don't just make stuff up, please.

      See "Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11 "
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?fta=y

      From the story:
      The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companyâ(TM)s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

  19. What's special about 9/11/2001? by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about 9/11/2001 is legally relevant? Ie, what makes wiretapping (or whatever it is being called) okay after that date?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  20. Re:Change we can believe in by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 5, Funny

    You see, Google & Obama combined their slogans. It now reads, "Change no evil"

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  21. McCain by General+Wesc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?

    Sure have. Apparently, we shouldn't grant immunity to the telecoms--no, wait, I mean we should grant immunity to the telecoms. Of course, the wiretapping was legal anyway, though on second thought maybe it wasn't.

    So there you have it: John McCain's stance on wiretapping and telecom immunity. hope that cleared things up for you. :-)

  22. Vote Roll Call / Breakdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Official House Roll Call for H R 6304
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

    Breakdown of votes by state, representative, etc.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

  23. Going to continue getting shafted or... by Stew+Gots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (1) Obama turned down federal financing the other day.

    (2) He is totally reliant on private contributions to carry the campaign to the White House.

    (3) It is the internet fund raising that has brought in huge dollars for him.

    (4) Stop being adoring fans and start thinking like empowered citizens

    (5) Get on Reddit, Digg, twitter, Facebook, etc.: NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS until Obama proves leadership on Telecom Immunity

    (6) Learn what it feels like to have real power.

    1. Re:Going to continue getting shafted or... by owlstead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do think it is more the American people that are to blame. You wouldn't even vote for a president if he would have a slight blush on his face, because it doesn't look "presidential". Do you know that most people in my country wouldn't know the wife of the president? She could walk right through Amsterdam and only draw a few looks.

      That said, I do think that at least Obama is to be believed when he says he wants change. Maybe that's naive, but we'll have to wait and see. Keeping the current status quo is the stupidest thing to do. It only benefits some already rich people and literally disregards all others.

      When I see the circus surrounding your elections, do you really expect in depth analysis and questions? That won't hit the "whoo!" crowd. You'll have to be behind the scenes to do that kind of thing. Besides it not hitting the right brain centers, it would also be very tiring. Thinking uses lots of energy. Energy you need for looking spiffy - if you look that, you've already lost.

      I could never be president, I sleep too irregular for that :) One day with eyes black from sleep deprivation and I would be mincemeat.

    2. Re:Going to continue getting shafted or... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm... Israel talked to Hamas. If the people that are at a real threat from the group talk to the group, then perhaps you need to rethink your diplomacy stance.

  24. Re:Revolt by TerranFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is where the 2nd Amendment comes into play.

    This is why the current weapons laws are completely backwards. The weapons that are illegal are exactly the ones we need to protect democracy, and the weapons that are legal are exactly the ones we should ban.

    For instance, there is no reason for handguns to be available. They are not tools of war so much as of murder.

    Antitank weapons, RPGs, and heavy-caliber machineguns, however, we should have. You can't arm a rebellion with the "Saturday night specials" used to rob take-out pizza restaurants.

    I know that at first glance this sounds absurd, like I'm trying to write satire -- but I'm not. It's true that I'm not sure that I'm entirely serious, but I really do think that the logic is there.

  25. Obama Policy, etc.... by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.

    Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

    Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications

    Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards

    Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy

    How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers

    I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.

    People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.

    That's fine.

    Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"

    Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.

    I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.

    I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.

    If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.

    This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.

    Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.

    For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!

    I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.

    Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).

    he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"

    The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,

    --
    Tweet, tweet.