Slashdot Mirror
Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
I have a feeling we're in for a big letdown on this one. I guess he will just skip the vote altogether to avoid the controversy.
I simply don't understand why the Bush Administration doesn't want to use retroactive warrants. Spy on whoever you want just make sure you submit the warrants to the FISA courts later.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
After claiming to be against immunity and against this bill, will Obama actually show up and participate in the voting? Or is he "too busy campaigning?"
Oh, wait. He supports the bill now. Can't you just fell the change we can believe in?
And on that first question, apparently Obama is currently campaigning in Las Vegas, although given the second point, maybe that's just as well.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Call and remind your representative that he or she has an oath of office and a public image to sustain, and voting for this bill cannot possibly be a supportive action for either.
Seriously, if this thing passes and becomes law, it should be the job of every /.er to write to their local newspaper and lambaste their representative for voting in support of a bill which violates every citizen's constitutional rights, and aids, abets, and forgives those who broke the law in ante facto.
Conversely, if a /.er's rep votes against it, that /.er should write in support of their representative's action.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Well, it's great that Dodd is filibustering this insane bill, but quite frankly I lost all respect for the guy when he supported giving a $300 billion tax-payer funded corporate bail out to Country Wide (who owns 10% of the mortgages in the US) because he's pals with the CEO. At least with Dubya the game is up and everyone knows him and his cronies for the corporate whores and oil lobby monkeyboys they are. With guys like Dobb, who posture around with a BS charade of integrity it's somehow worse. If you're going to be a festering piece of shit, please don't insult me or waste my time trying to convince me you're a white rose.
A-Bomb
As this bill was brought forth by the Democrats and expected to pass by a Democrat controlled majority why isn't this marked with a "Democrat" tag?
Yeah, must be that evil, lame duck Bush Administration using his monarchy powers to get this through with the Republican Sith... ]sic[
Because that would mean they're following the law. To quote a Bush Administration agent, "Badges!?! Badges?!? We don't need no stinking badges!"
That's their mentality.
Both parties are in favor of increasing government control. On one side, you have a party that's voting to increase power because it's what they want to do, regardless of what their constituents have to say. On the other, you have a party that secretly wants to increase power, but has more vocal constituents. So instead of just voting to increase power, they vote to increase power and say things like "it's an election year" and "we can't afford to appear soft on ."
There's *always* an election coming up. If you don't vote for people with a backbone when the chips are down, and keep accepting the excuses, nothing will ever change.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
People laugh at Jesse Ventura when he goes on Larry King and condemns both parties for exactly this kind of bill. But that's one ex-pro-wrestler who has Washington pegged PERFECTLY.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Sure, it's a new pair of pants, but they're really a lot like your old pair of pants. Two legs, a few pockets, belt loops, zipper, etc. Maybe you get a button-fly! Or a pair with some extra pockets! But, regardless, they're still just pants.
Call and remind your representative that he or she has an oath of office and a public image to sustain, and voting for this bill cannot possibly be a supportive action for either.
While we don't like it, the rest of the great unwashed have no problem with this because it's a war on terrorism and this is the way to fight those people. The only folks who'd have a problem are those sniveling cowards who believe in all of that Civil Liberty nonsense.
I have no especially strong feelings on whether telecoms should get immunity. They were asked to help their country and got some bad legal advice. So, give them immunity. They thought they were doing the right thing and were misled (as were many) by the administration. The people who should be tarred and feathered for this are in the Bush administration. They planned this and then initiated it. Why is no one trying to hold them culpable? Lets place the blame where it truly belongs, with the conspirators who planned this.
When you have elected officials, they learn rhetoric, idiocy, and how to play with the body politic. They rarely if ever campaign on what they truly intend to do. Now, in Greek democracy anyone could be elected through a lottery system for a one year term, based on regions of the country. It'd be awesome if we would institute something similar. No more pandering to lobbyists, etc. But oh no, that would be a democracy, and America doesn't want that.
It's very simple. Find out in which hotel the DNC has located their headquarters, then send in some guys disguised as Cubans (nationality, not Mark's relatives), plant some listening devices.....
I'm pretty sure they will try TO filibuster since they'll be speaking English.
"Try and"? Are we in third grade now? It's "try to", you illiterate slob.
... in a Democratic Party controlled Congress? I am not trying to play partisan politics, but it is absurd to think that the party that claims to be "of the people" would bow so easily to Big Business and a President that they have made no bones about despising. This is one of the most patently offensive laws to civil liberties that I've ever seen, and I'm just stunned that there isn't enough Democratic support to either strip the retroactive immunity provision or filibuster the bill. Isn't it the Republican Party's job to acquiesce to big business?
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Read the FAQ lately? Is this not clear enough for you?
* Global Poverty Act (S.2433)
* Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230)
* Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation
There's three, related to three very different topics, and all were an improvement in my opinion.
As for McCain-Feingold... he violates the spirit of it every time he catches a ride in his multi-millionaire wife's company plane. With respect to McCain-Lieberman, he both spoke against it to the press as the vote came up a few weeks ago, and then didn't bother to show up and vote one way or the other on the bill itself. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he wasn't in a contested race for POTUS nomination at the time.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
democrats=fascism lite
land of the free home of the brave
it would be funny if you werent bombing the crap out of innocent brown people around the world.
the germans had the excuse that they really could say "ich hab das nicht gewusst"
what is yours?
and I most emphatically include Obama, McCain and Clinton in that assessment.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
FISA only applies to calls made to or from foreign parties or under control of a foreign power. The F in FISA stands for 'Foreign'. Additionally, the whole process has always been under judicial review. Telecom immunity is important in this litigation-crazy country we inhabit. Companies should not be held liable for cooperating with the Feds. I know the slashdot stance is anti-business(except perhaps RedHat), but punishing them for following the law is ridiculous. The opposition is from lawyers and their lobbyists, not some principled stand by the lionized Democrats. Oh yeah, if you think they will waste money spying on you or Joe Blow up the street you are simply being paranoid.
Which is why I'm not a McCain fan - he's just out for the Presidency job. Of course, so is Obama, but most people are too dumb to see past the rhetoric. Has Obama ever had a major piece of legislation pass?
I met Dodd once. He was trying to sneak a relative into an event where I was interpreting for foreign dignitaries. The woman working security told him his guest did not have the proper credentials to enter the VIP area. His response was quick:
"But I'm SENATOR Dodds."
She wasn't impressed:
"Yes, I know that. And HE doesn't have the proper credentials."
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
If Obama votes to pass this, you know he is compromised.
If he skips the vote, you know he will not stand up for what is right in the face of intimidation by big business etc - which is almost as bad as the first choice.
If he votes the bill down, then he'll really be showing something...
Unfortunately I don't expect him to show much of anything when it really comes down to taking a risk.
He sounds great, and certainly is better than the other candidate(s), but anyone can get up and talk about freedom and healing, etc. It is an entirely diferent thing to stand up in front of the machine and refuse to play ball or roll over. If he cannot do this, then we're in for more of the same.
Lets get real. EVERY candidate that runs is simply out for the president's job. That is the nature of these beast. The question is, who is likely to make an improvement. At this time, it almost does not matter. Both of these will improve on the disaster that W has left.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Democratic is the adjective, as in the Democratic party. Some Republican did a study and found that dropping the -ic sounded worse, so they adopted it. Now if you're a Republican, fine. But I don't want anyone being mistakenly taken as a Republican in this day and age.
Whats surprising to me is that many riders and amendments that do the American people harm are slipped into bills all the time. But when has anyone slipped in a section that does the average person any good? How hard would it be to slip in a last-minute amendment that canceled the immunity? If billions (trillions?) of appropriatiations and Avg. Joe-screwing legislation can be slipped in to irrelevent bills, why is correcting it so hard?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Epic grammar fail.
A possible suggest would be "Will try to..."
sorry for being picky, but seriously!
Canada had this since 1996, when Alan Rock, a left wing joker, created a law which allows the Police to take, and do anything they want, with out fully telling the judge who is issuing the warrant.
Even if the Police in Canada just thought you might be guilty of something, they can act upon 'their feelings', and than get the warrant for the crime they say you committed. Or just fore go the warrant based on what they tell the crown.
If you are a firearm owner in Canada, the Police can enter your home, place of work, friend's homes, family's homes, looking for firearms 24/7.
This has happened in Canada more often than what is reported in the media.
Don't dismiss something as rhetoric if you know nothing about it. Obama actually has a very impressive legislative record. In less than four years the US Senate he's gotten three major pieces of legislation passed:
Google For Government (earmark and government spending transparency)
Counter Weapons Proliferation (loose nukes, etc.)
Ethics and Lobbying Reform (banned a lot of the lobbyist perks)
If you go back to the Illinois Senate the list gets much longer, so it's easier to point to his death penalty legislation as his biggest achievement. The outgoing Governor put a moratorium on the death penalty because of too many questionable convictions. So, the issue spent about a decade treated as a political hot potato on both sides. Working groups were formed and dissolved, but nothing got resolved.
Obama took on the issue and got a compromise bill passed by an overwhelming majority. The only way he could do that was to get the police unions and civil rights groups to agree on a fair set of procedures for things like interrogations in death penalty cases. Just imagine what kind of skill it takes to get agreement between cops and the ACLU.
Anyway, those are just a few highlights. I really have neither the time nor inclination to list all of the major legislation he's sponsored or cosponsored. But that should give you a sense of some things he's devoted his time to.
House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last weeks FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org. CBS News.
Why am I not surprised?
I called my senators; I've never called a senator's office before and I found it to be incredibly easy. Took less than a minute each.
I told them I was from their state and was calling to urge the senator not to support the cloture vote for H.R. 6304 regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that I urge the senator not to support the bill because it takes away rights from every citizen.
You can find your senators' phone numbers at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Obama has missed 42.7% of votes, McCain has missed 61%.
Source
The Hague? You can dislike Bush all you want, but he's done absolutely nothing that is an offense punishable by the ICC. Anyone who says "Bush is a war criminal" does not know nor understand international law.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
If this bill passes, isn't there a good chance that Bush will use a signing statement when passing it?
Can a future president use Bush's signing statements to null and void this legislation?
prez has root
Change I can believe in...well, he did change his stance on FISA...
:(){
"Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill"
Shouldn't that be, Dodd Feingold to try to Filbuster Immunity Bill?
There is no try
Plus, the administration never signed on with the ICC, AFAIK.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You asked the wrong question. What you should be asking is what would motivate the GOP to allow $95 billion in domestic spending to be attached to the war funding bill passed just last week. Bush had three separate veto threats for pieces of that war spending bill only a few weeks ago, but now he's willing to let the pork pass.
Pelosi and Hoyer sold the 4th amendment. I bet they're not even ashamed of it.
:(){
Actually, Obama claimed three pieces of legislation in one of his ads, and FactCheck.org debunked all three claims to varying degrees.
But a more careful review via thomas.loc.gov reveals the following:
110th Congress: 19 amendments to other bills sponsored and passed. All of these amendments (including parent poster's "ethics and lobbying reform" were passed by voice vote or unanimous consent.
109th Congress:
S. 2125, Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. Passed both Senate and House without recorded vote.
S. 3757, Named a post office after someone. House version passed both House and Senate without recorded vote.
A variety of other amendments to other bills were passed as well.
I didn't see any major pieces of legislation at all, and I must have missed the other ones the parent mentioned above (though I was only looking at legislation that became law).
As for compromise, Obama pales in comparison to his opponent.
If he skips the vote, you know he will not stand up for what is right in the face of intimidation by big business etc - which is almost as bad as the first choice.
No...If he is compromising it means that he too is getting something out of the deal. Backscratching.
That IS what politicians do. Argue. Debate. Compromise. Agree.
A presidential nominee who (as you put it) "will not stand up for what is right in the face of intimidation by big business etc" - is far worse.
That is just incompetent and a puppet.
"Look people! Here is your New and Shiny Leader! Wave to him! Now you wave back New and Shiny Leader. Good boy!"
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The congress is the root cause of all of this. They passed FISA, renewed FISA and now everyone is up in arms because the administration actually used the provisions of FISA to do what FISA intended. The telcos are caught between a rock and a hard place and to top it all off, the people responsible are now going to punish them by not giving them immunity from complying with a bad law that they passed.
While they are filibustering the immunity clause, maybe they could spend some time talking about repealing FISA or maybe not renewing it again. This is typical of our congress, instead of opposing something outright, they make it toothless and unworkable. Next time, it may be you or yours that are harmed. This time it is the telcos and whoever was spied on.
...to make it very clear to everyone that he isn't a political wallflower. He'd be stupid not to seize it, and he's not stupid.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Probably nodding off on the toilet or something, dreaming about the five planes he crashed in training and how the military let him keep flying anyway.
Blar.
Don't these politicians voting for the bill realize that these same powers WILL eventually be used to spy on them, for their opponents' political advantages?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Did you bother to find out if they voted for FISA? Imagine the irony of your Senator, who voted for this monstrosity in the first place, removing immunity for companies that were only following the letter of the law.
Amazing how little people understand the process of governance.
...calling him a liar for his 'change' slogan. You say nothing about McCain, but you do mention "Both parties are bad" meme.
Me thinks you are one of those Libertarians who just happens to vote Republican 100% of the time.
Your post may be a new species of Concern Troll.
Blar.
You're comparing Dodd's one bone-head move to Bush's infinite fuck-ups? And you're still throwing the redneck-killer-in-chief a few bones?
You're bitching at Dodd for claiming to be a 'white rose' but selling out to CountryWide. You seem to ignore all the lies coming from Bush and company regarding...oh...just about everything he's ever done in office. You play that off by saying "Everybody knows about him". Bush is still claiming he's a "white rose" too you know.
Silly partisan, IEDs are for kids!
Blar.
Status: Scheduled for Debate
* Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230)
Was a cosponsor, not author.
Status: Introduced
* Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation
Not sure what this one even is. A search on GovTrack.us turned up no hits.
So of the three bills mentioned, one might not exist, he only wrote one of the others, and neither of them have passed. That's some fine leadership there, Lou.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It's a bad law, but it is the law. The law allows the NSA to tap anything for up to 2 weeks, provide that they eventually get a warrant. That's the way the law was written, by a lawyer, in congress.
So, short of travelling into the future and back again, how exactly are the telcos suppossed to know whether the NSA is complying with the law? Also, since the FISA court is secret, when they travel to the future, the telco time-travelers aren't going to be told the results, so they really are screwed.
Don't let me discourage you from thinking congress will save the day.
Most Democrats did vote against the bill, 128-105, with only one Republican voting against and ten not voting. It's fair to point out that nearly half the Democrats in Congress, including many of their leaders, are also involved in this attempt to subvert the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, but to try and pretend that the Republicans aren't the greater offenders here is just wrong.
Attention moderators: if reading facts that contradict your opinion makes you want to flame someone, that doesn't mean he's writing flamebait, it just means you should be less flammable.
Perhaps his mistake was that he wasn't Rick James, bitch!
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Obama will vote for FISA. "Change" my shiny metal ass.
everything in moderation
Haven't you noticed that blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy hell-bent on preserving Slashdot group-think and suppressing intrepid conservative/right-wing opinions will net you an immediate +5 Insightful or Informative? It's the new Karma whoring.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I heard about a lady at an airline ticket counter who wouldn't give a VIP something he asked for. He looked at her and said, "Do you know who I am?"
Her response was to get on the intercom: "Security, we have an amnesiac at the ticket counter."
You really need to learn how to use thomas.loc.gov properly. Although, if the best you've got is to knitpick an ad, then it's no wonder you don't understand how to use a simple website. Honestly, the biggest complaint in that FactCheck page is that he's touting his accomplishments in the Illinois Senate. They debunked nothing; they just took issue with him claiming to have "passed" legislation (as is their policy) and not noting the Illinois Senate legislation separately.
Now, I do have to admit that I was mistaken on the Feingold-Obama Ethics Reform Bill (S.230)--it hasn't been passed yet. However, here are three major pieces of Obama's legislation passed into law:
Coburn-Obama Google For Government (S.2590)
Global Poverty Act (S.2433)
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation (S.1949)
It's funny really, for all McCain's constant bluster on earmarks it turns out that Obama's the one who's actually enacted legislation to help fix the system (S.2590). Of course, McCain was supposed to be involved in the Obama-Feingold Ethics Reform Act too, but he turned the first attempt into a very public, partisan car wreck. The resulting bill ended up being a watered down mess. Fortunately Obama and Feingold had the dedication to revisit the issue and revive the legislation.
As for compromise, it's sounds like you've just bought into the McCain image. The fact is that being senselessly antagonistic doesn't make one a maverick, and flip-flopping for political expediency isn't compromising. You can take almost every issue McCain is campaigning on and make him debate his past positions. He was against the Bush tax cuts and now he's for them. He supported comprehensive immigration reform and now he's against it. He supported campaign finance reform after his Keating Five scandal, and now he's running a primary campaign in violation of finance laws and has established state funds allowing donations of up to $60k per contributor. He claims to be environmentally conscious but has a lifetime score of zero from the LCV and just flip-flopped on offshore drilling. I could continue, but frankly I'm getting bored.
Look, maybe in the future you should be less focused on your candidate's hype and pay a little more attention to the substance.
"Actually, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution"
The Bill of Rights is nothing more than a name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. And amendments are part of the Constitution, so you're quite firmly wrong on that.
"The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant rights to the people, they provide a list of rights that the government should be unable to take away from the people."
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitution does apply to all citizens, and does directly enumerate their rights, thank you Mr. Constitutional Scholar. You're using the same old lame argument that segregationists used, and it's no more valid when you write it than they.
" The actual text is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "
You should read the actual text yourself. The first part lays out the reasoning for the right, but the second part guarantees the right. Even if the circumstances for giving the right have changed (the left-wing "but we have the National Guard now" argument), the right itself still isn't voided. The only way to strike a Constitutional right is the ammendment process. You can't simply have a judge go "oh well, times are different, this right isn't needed any longer". You simply cannot void a Constitutional right without actually changing the Constitutuion itself.
SCOTUS will likely rule on the individual right issue, and if experts are correct, is likely to put this foolishness about the 2nd being a "collective right" to bed forever. There are no collective rights. Rights are by their very definition for individuals.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Perhaps you're instead referring to his "present" votes, of which he cast about 130 total. Of course, if you knew anything at all about the Illinois legislature you'd know that his use of the "present" vote is entirely normal."
It may be allowed, but the truth is, voting "present" is just a way for a politician to avoid taking a stand or going on record.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
do you mean "try to"?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What frustrates me about this is that retroactive immunity isn't going to be protecting these companies from damages - since I don't think someone can put a $ price-tag on their privacy being improperly invaded - it's going to be protecting these companies from the full disclosure that the American public deserves.
How can anyone in congress think that's appropriate?
Oh good, he got the death penalty back in action in Illinois. That plus the way he's handling this (as I've heard, he's likely to vote for it "with regrets") are all I need to know to vote third party or write-in this year.
Obama is better then Dubya, but he's nowhere near what I'd like to see in a POTUS. McCain has gone off the hinges and shown himself to be completely compromised, but at this point I'm willing to risk him getting in to office because I think perhaps things need to get worse before Americans wake up and look for major reforms.
All domestic electronic communications is intercepted.
Cordially,
Kilgore Trout
Vote Cthulu: why choose the lesser evil?
Come on, do you really think there's a non-trivial number of people willing to take up arms against the government at this stage?
Non-trivial numbers: No. Non-trivial organization to make those numbers matter: Yes. Of course it will stay that way because anyone trying to organizer or participate in such a group instantly becomes a terrorist/enemy combatant. Not only will Big Brother bring the boot swiftly to your neck, but will do so without any inconvenient restrictions like Habeas Corpus or the Geneva Convention. Be prepared to be standing naked and wet in a very cold room in a government approved stress position while you explain how you are actually highly patriotic for your desire to utilize the second amendment. Also be prepared for your family to penniless and homeless when your "terrorist" assets are seized and no one will extend a helping hand to them without facing "material support" charges. Yes, that sounds Orwellian but all the laws are already in place for exactly that scenario. Go ask the Montana Freemen what happens when citizens with hunting rifles stand up to Uncle Sam.
We are all just people.
I need to learn how to use Thomas? Here's what I found out about your citations in less than five minutes:
109th Congress, S.2590: Half the freakin' Senate (47 senators) cosponsored this bill. Tom Coburn was the bill's sponsor. How does that translate into Obama being responsible for passing it into law?
110th Congress, S.2433: Neither it nor its House version (H.R.1302) have passed. The bill had been introduced in the 109th Congress in the House but not the Senate.
109th Congress, S.1949: Also did not pass. Obama is listed as its only cosponsor.
Not sure what this one even is. A search on GovTrack.us turned up no hits.
A search on google turned up 9,000. Are you saying that it "might not exist" because you hadn't heard of it before?
Some fine arguing there.
This bill is not a compromise. In the words of Senator Feingold, it is a "complete capitulation". see e.g. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Looking forward to a repeat performance of Dodd's speech. He laid it down pretty hard last time
It isn't known if this ruling will affect anything more than DC itself. ... Part of what makes this case is DC's status, not being part of any state, so that the governing body directly above the mayor is the US congress. The ruling could therefore not apply to Chicago and suburbs, the only other major suppressor of the 2nd Amendment.
However, they explicitly decided to rule on whether the 2nd enumerates and protects an individual right that is infringed by the DC law. While the direct application of the ruling may only affect that law, a decision that declares the 2nd is an individual, rather than a "collective", right would kick the props out from under the bulk of the state and local gun regulations.
Courtwatchers of all persuasions (including the anti-gunners) think they've telegraphed enough of their opinion that they're going to declare it's an individual right and that the only thing uncertain is the degree of scrutiny to be applied (i.e. how much public interest is necessary to make a law that might restrict gun owning/carrying pass constitutional muster and/or if that can be done at all.) If they're right, the Supremes are about to push over the first of more than 30,000 dominoes.
Stay tuned: They've told us they WILL release the ruling tomorrow morning in the session starting at 10:00 AM eastern time.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Lets get real. EVERY candidate that runs is simply out for the president's job. That is the nature of these beast.
Two words in counterexample: Ron Paul.
Sometimes the Presidency or the run for it is a tool for something else.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It would have the probable effect that people would simply ignore the government and get on with their own business. I find this preferable to the idolatrous, slightly more intellectual version of celebrity culture we have now.
Your attitude is remniscent of the Monty Hall problem that tons of people got wrong, and were vehement about it. Knowingly wasting a vote on a loser converges on the same effect as not voting at all.
Bush-Gore was different. Gore *almost* won, as the slightly weaker of two candidates. A little smarter organization and a little more electoral honesty might have been enough.
We're living in a skewed era whereupon the exiting Pres. is so unthinkably horrible it's throwing off our sense of comparison, because his successor will have tons of damage to repair.
If Obama is smart he'll toss a couple of bones to the Old Boy network to prolong his grace period, and then throw the nation a couple of beneficial surprise policies that at least partially unravel the gordian knot we're in.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I tried my own Google search just now, and turned up less than 500 hits. (You must've not enclosed your search in quotes.)
The first hit is a press release from Obama's office, stating that President Bush signed the law into effect. So one of the three bills you listed made it out of committee, passed a floor vote, and was actually signed into existence. I stand by my original comment: that's some leadership there, Lou.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I love Russ Feingold. If I were in his area I would vote for him every time.
Russ, if you ever want to relocate to Florida to show us what a REAL politician looks like, you've got my vote.
She basically thinks that class action lawsuits against companies being sued for spying will tank the economy and endanger government relations with companies that assist in the "War on Terror" (notice how that's capitalized, as if it's a mere fabrication). I call bollocks and bullshit on that one.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Is it?
The Hague conventions were followed even by Hitler during Barbarossa. He refused to authorise http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm/ explosive bullets even though Stalin was using then all along.
It was only in 1944 he authorised explosive bullets.
The Hague prevents torture of any kind of any armed combatant. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war/ unlawful combatants "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" because they are still covered under GC IV Article 5.
Hmmm.. so that just makes Bush a War Criminal as he is the C-in-C of armed forces.
Or are you claiming Executive Privilege to move him to an alternate timeframe where Bush is president & not president at same time.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
DISCLAIMER: I posted the same letter in Salon.com
Dodd is a Great Man. But he is all alone in this weakling-democrat led House & Senate.
The Democrats fear that not passing the bill will make Bush 'allow' another terror strike to happen and that the Democrats will lose this presidency that they think they are going to win.
What they have forgotten is they have already lost the battle of minds.
The people elected them to throw out Bush/Cheney.
Nancy Pelosi rode to power shrieking that she will show Bush who's the boss. The moment she was elected, she switched sides and said impeachment is off the table, thinking that her seat is 'safe' and that nov 08 needs to be won next.
What she forgot was that Americans love people with boldness and spine. Not people like Pelosi and Obama.
After all when Republicans were a minority during Clinton years, they made such a ruckus, impeached clinton for telling lies [which killed no one], and brought the government to a halt.
The democrats were given a majority by the People specifically to do the same.
But the democrats have betrayed the People.
This many democrats switching sides at such short notice for very little money is suspicious. I wonder what did the illegal spying by Bush reveal about the private lives of Democrats such that they were "persuaded" to change their votes.
Now, you can fool some people some of the time. Not all the people all the time, which is what Pelosi is trying to do.
This Nov i recommend the People throw out Democrats once and for all and ensure McCain and the Republican party are elected by a HUGE margin.
After all the democrats did NOTHING for the people. They deserve NOTHING in return.
As Henry Clay would like to say: "Quid Pro quo".
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Remember the good ol' days, when you had to actually worry about bodily functions during a filibuster?
I really think there needs to be a bit more flexibility in rating -- maybe at least a 1-10 scale...
There are times when a +5 insightful just doesn't say it...
Your attitude is remniscent of the Monty Hall problem
Not at all. Voting isn't about "picking the right door". It's about selecting who will represent you in a democratic republic (that alas is also a plutocracy). Your attitude is about "picking the lesser of two evils". I refuse to do that any more after voting since 1972 and only being happy about my choice one time.
Knowingly wasting a vote on a loser converges on the same effect as not voting at all.
If you don't vote at all, you're considered apathetic by the corporate-owned media and the corporate-owned politicians. If you vote for a loser, you're making your displeasure with the status-quo known.
Does Barr get no press coverage because he has no chance of winning or does he have no chance of winning because he gets no press coverage?
In 2000 the Green Party nominated Ralph Nader as its presidential candidate, and the Libertarian Party nominated Harry Browne.
The Greens could not have won the election, as they weren't on the ballot in enough states to win the Presidency even if they had won every state they were on the ballot in. In contrast, the Libertarians were on the ballot in 49 of the 50 states.
The corporate media ignored Browne and slobbered all over Nader.
Barr has no chance of winning because he gets no press. Nonetheless, I will vote either Green or Libertarian (maybe Constitution party) if the candidate is on the ballot in anough states to win the election.
There are only three ways to "waste" a vote:
- stay home
- Vote for a candidate who mathematically has no chance of winning (Nader in 2000)
- Vote for a candidate whose interests are opposed to your own
If you are against staying in Iraq, a vote for McCain is a wasted vote. If you think Social Security is stupid (I don't) a vote for Obama is a wasted vote. If you smoke marijuana or hire prostitutes (or are a prostitute) a vote for either McCain or Obama is a wasted vote. If you are against the buying of American politicians by rich foreigners, a vote for either mainstream party is again wasted.Actually, worse than wasted.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
lol! That's a great story, if it's true, I tend to believe it though...
Oh god, you're a truther. No wonder you're fundamentally headfucked.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Oh please stop throwing mud on Bush.
Dodd is a hypocrite. And so are all you Liberals. Dodd aims to undo damage to his image [sleeping with Countrywide] by filibustering the Immunity bill knowing very well that it will not succeed. If his filibustering had any chance of success, he would have backed out. He knows the winds are changing away from Bush and hence he wants to win the upcoming election by pandering to the Liberal crowd without doing them any advantage. There are numerous ways individually for Dodd to stop the bill. Eg., Why didn't he put a "Hold" on the bill? That way the bill is effectively dead.
Bush never was a hypocrite. Did you even read Bod Woodward's "Bush at War?" Bush never wanted to attack Iraq. And he was right about one thing: Americans would soon move to World Series and others, while terrorists never stop thinking about ways to hurt.
And he was right about the long-drawn out battle needed to win against terrorism.
Yes, made questionable judgements, generally was of low intelligence, but past 7 years we never had another set of towers collapsing.
Obama made a motion of opposing the immunity bill and once he realized that if he opposed it seriously, the bill would not pass, he started to support it unconditionally.
When have the republicans wavered like this? Bush and Cheney always have said that if anyone needs to be punished it should be the president and not telecoms which only did what the president ordered them to do.
Do you have any idea of the fear during those dark days? Its not NSA wants to listen to your stupid cellphone fight with your spouse. And if they do the law punishes them for it. During WW2, we did worse. We trampled on rights of every citiZen. This time it is far better. We don't see muslims locked up in detainment camps and like.
Liberal idiots always have been cowards. How come you guys were willing to support PATRIOT Act in 2001 and you oppose it now? Aren't you all hypocrites? When you are feeling safe, you attack the laws, immunity etc., conveniently forgetting you supported all those measures soon after fear overcame your "Liberal" feelings after 9/11.
Why don't you go preach Geneva conventions to those terrorists who attacked us? Are you afraid?
And please stop quoting our Founding Fathers and their preach of equality. They did not grant voting rights to blacks and women until much later.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I like that word truther. Never heard it before. Has a nice ring to it. Very creative of you. Ah... a truther is someone that gets their information from 'loose change' which has been 'thoroughly debunked'. Okay, I'm game. Tell me how modern physics can be 'debunked'. Explain how a steel structure pancaked to the ground at free-fall speed without help from controlled termite explosions. Time to show your shining intellect. I'm waiting... or is parroting the word 'truther' all you can do?
Sorry, I signed in anonymously by accident. This is my real name BTW, not and 'anonymour' like fishwithawanger. I like that word truther. Never heard it before. Has a nice ring to it. Very creative of you. Ah... a truther is someone that gets their information from 'loose change' which has been 'thoroughly debunked'. Okay, I'm game. Tell me how modern physics can be 'debunked'. Explain how a steel structure pancaked to the ground at free-fall speed without help from controlled termite explosions. Time to show your shining intellect. I'm waiting... or is parroting the word 'truther' all you can do?
Your premise is so idiotic that it needs no "debunking"; your postulates do not reflect the real world and so attempting to discuss anything with you is a waste of time.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
It's okay, I didn't expect you to refute the laws of physics: a steel framed building cannot free-fall to earth without controlled termite charges. The debris from the towers were carted off to be scraped before any agency had a chance to examine the evidence. No doubt, you think that 'two small pockets of fire' from the jet fuel could melt the fortified steel supports specially designed to withstand just such a strike. That's not very smart. Thanks to you, I was able to see the updated version of Loose Change on youtube. It's more compelling than ever, and the really lame and weak efforts at debunking out there are just sad. Why are they showing an animation of the plane that hit the pentagon instead of the three recordings that were taken at the Sheraton and two other establishments. What is on those tapes that made the FBI confiscate them before anyone could see them? Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, and reaffirming what I already know.