Pretty disgusted right now:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06...taps/index.html

You got your wish, Bush. Hell, you got more than you asked for on this one. Quite the little "compromise", ain't it? Giving your Attorney General the power to essentially wipe out all lawsuits that were investigating just how far you and the telecos were gutting the Constitution.

Yeah, nice compromise.

What an under-the-table conniving little fucking deal Steny Hoyer and the Democratic leaders pulled on this one. This is exactly akin to someone robbing a bank, getting caught, and then re-writing the law saying that it is now legal to rob banks. The only logical conclusions that can be drawn are this:

The cowardice of the Dems. knows no bounds, despite the fact that their stance on this issue was fully supported with higher approval than when they cave and capitulate to Bush and the Republicans on so many issues, all because they seemingly don't want to "stir the pot" and be labeled as "soft on terra" in an election year. If that's truly the case, that's unbelievably fucking pathetic. No surprise that Republican voters actually give higher approval ratings to this Democratic majority Congress than Democratic voters do:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...release_web.pdf

I used to believe that their complete lack of spine was the rationale for them caving to every major National Security issue like torture, illegal wiretapping, and Iraq, I'm now much more inclined to give credence to the following spelled out by Jonathan Turley last night on Countdown:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2113454...274098#25274098

Top Dems. were a part of this, and have colluded with the Bush Administration as part of the Gang of Eight (Rockefeller, Pelosi, Hoyer, forget the last Dem.). They were involved, period. And they would have likely been held accountable just as much as Bush and the GOP for their complicity in the illegal wiretapping. Whether or not they were "pressured" into it by the times and momentum the Administration had combating terrorism post-911 is wholly fucking irrelevant. They should have stood up for the principle, and caved like the little cowards that they are.

And by the way, if this second conclusion is the case, which I'm more inclined to think it is now, I owe Q5 an apology. Some time ago I believe he argued that the hands of the Dems. were just as dirty on this one as Bush, and I disbelieved him. Ugh, how things come full circle.

The last logical conclusion is perhaps even scarier but nonetheless more infuriating - the Dems. are doing this to keep this kind of sweeping Executive authority on warrantless surveillance for themselves should they win the White House. If this is indeed the case, that should infuriate you longtime Bush supporters and give you a bit of a pause as to what exactly our Congress is doing in order to get this Administration and the telecos off the hook for their prior illegal activities. It should scare you fucking straight.

So actions to be taken by me, and perhaps yourself:

1. A pushback has begun, and the coalition that's being created is a very interesting one involving various progressive, civil libertarians, and former Ron Paul internet fundraisers. You can see the first ad that's been created and will be displayed in the WaPost against Steny Hoyer here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#postid-updateA6

The group is called Strange Bedfellows, and by a small coalition of bloggers have already raised $285,000 inside of 72 hours. You can contribute here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

The action of this coalition is simple - targeting the little turds who supported this bill, including vulnerable Democrats who are fighting for re-election.

2. The Mrs. and I have officially registered as Independents. We are no longer Democrats, and will now give more weight to the BEST candidate instead of one who has a particular party affiliate. Honestly I was already leaning this way because of how fucking sick I am of this corrupt, spineless Democratic Congress. Plus I already vote this way locally regardless - I've voted for numerous local Republicans and will continue to do so if I see them as the better candidate.

Does this mean I won't vote for Obama? Hardly. There's no Republican running for President that even remotely appealed, outside of maybe a few qualities in Ron Paul. And while I'm also incredibly pissed off at Obama for also supporting this horrible bill in the House:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/20/155839/542

(you jackass, Obama)

His negatives still do not even hold a candle to the negatives I see in McCain personally. I'll save that rant for another day, however. Just wanted to share some thoughts on the FISA shenanigans.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

...lame duck

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...lame duck

What do you mean?


And JB over at Balkinization has more on the third conclusion I had:

quote:

What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill? The answer is simple: Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office. Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway. So, in short, from Obama's perspective, what's not to like? Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade. Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill. So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy. It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions. If you really care about civil liberties in the National Surveillance State, you have to recognize that both parties will be constructing its institutions. The next President will be a major player in its construction, as important if not more important than George W. Bush ever was. That President will want more authority to engage in surveillance, and he'll be delighted for Congress to give it to him officially. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

Again, if this is Obama's rationale, it should give the GOP supporters a bit of pause.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

1. by all measurements this guy should be the lamest lame duck POTUS in the history of the universe.

2. the Dems are afraid of him and their own shadow?

3. Karl Rove is most definately behind this i can assure you.


i don't know, you can either believe that or believe whatever it is you've invested yourself into this entire time, but i hope you realize the Dems lied to you

that's pretty disappointing, but i cant say im totally shocked.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo 1. by all measurements this guy should be the lamest lame duck POTUS in the history of the universe. 2. the Dems are afraid of him and their own shadow?

As it would appear, yeah.

quote:

3. Karl Rove is most definately behind this i can assure you.

Gotta admit that possibility didn't cross my mind, and I'm usually the first to jump on Rove being the bogeyman on everything. Not that I would entirely doubt it, but those rumors haven't been circulating amongst the pissed off bloggers much at all.

So what's your speculation about Rove here? Think he has dirt on some of the Dems. or something along those lines?

quote:

i don't know, you can either believe that or believe whatever it is you've invested yourself into this entire time, but i hope you realize the Dems lied to you

That was essentially what I said in my post. And I am doing my part to hold the Democratic leaders responsible for this.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Too bad there isn't a viable third party...

___________________

Yeah, I was pretty sad to read this

What a cop-out, regardless of the motive behind it. So much was made of the whole lawsuits and privacy issue, but now to just dust it under the rug like this?

Weak.

___________________
Paul

the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well.

this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL!

f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well. this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL! f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that?

You're going to reach a bit out of bounds on this one if you want to start swinging the words "political opportunism" and "not a man of principle." While I'm certainly upset with his stance on this, his actions are a far cry to the shit your party's candidate has done recently. He's flip-flopped more times than Kerry, and the summer's just starting.

As for campaign financing, tell ya what, when McCain actually abides by campaign financing rules like a "man of principle" was supposed to do (hint, the FEC is looking into his financing during the primaries as well as his wifey flying him around - that's a no-no), then I'll join the griping about Obama going back on his word and opting out. Otherwise McCain has absolutely nothing to bitch about.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well. this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL! f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that?

Oh, and the Republican government is such a good example of good governance the last 7 years. If McCain wins the presidency (which he won't), we'll be the laughing stock of the world...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You're going to reach a bit out of bounds on this one if you want to start swinging the words "political opportunism" and "not a man of principle." While I'm certainly upset with his stance on this, his actions are a far cry to the shit your party's candidate has done recently. He's flip-flopped more times than Kerry, and the summer's just starting. As for campaign financing, tell ya what, when McCain actually abides by campaign financing rules like a "man of principle" was supposed to do (hint, the FEC is looking into his financing during the primaries as well as his wifey flying him around - that's a no-no), then I'll join the griping about Obama going back on his word and opting out. Otherwise McCain has absolutely nothing to bitch about.

i'll be out of bounds when and if McCain opts out of public financing. then you'll have a point.

everyone knows, as well as you, that campaign financing during national primaries is f**ked up beyond belief. it's a system essentially with no rules and little accountability at this time.

it's the general election that matters the most and an oppurtunity that Obama couldn't resist. you can't say with any certainty McCain would do the same. he won't.

and about the FISA law, are you any closer now in thinking that maybe it was the right thing to do? if somehow you're not. if for some reason, which i can't help but think anything but selfish and il-informed reasons, you still think what Congress did was the wrong thing to do, don't you think every defence you put up for the current Democrat leadership was a total waste of your time?

the Democrat leadership you've been defending care nothing, will say anything to you to get power. read my sig if you think i'm playing. the Clintons should have been a huge red flag, do you honestly think Obama is any different? hell no.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-21-2008 at 23:27