backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 166 comment(s) - last by sinful.. on Jul 11 at 7:37 PM

FISA Amendments Act heads to the White House

The United States Senate passed bitterly contested surveillance law updates Wednesday, sending the FISA Amendments Act on its way to the White House where it is expected to become law.

The bill, passed 69-28, redraws important aspects of the United States’ aging surveillance law; its revisions will grant the government increased leeway in some areas and curtail its power in others. Its most controversial provision would also grant telcos like AT&T retroactive immunity from the throng of lawsuits they face, all of which complain about their role in integrating a secret, government-sanctioned wiretap into the country’s communications infrastructure.

After an identical version of the FISA amendments act passed the House of Representatives late last month, the bill’s opponents – spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union – launched a spirited, last-ditch offensive to see its telecom immunity provisions removed. Those efforts, the most notable of which included a revision that would have increased the difficulty of immunity’s requirements, ultimately failed due to a quick Senate rejection.

Further complicating matters was an edict from President Bush, who promised to veto any FISA legislation that failed to include an immunity provision.

There are currently about 40 lawsuits against American telecommunications companies concerning its wiretap program, all bundled together and sitting before a single U.S. District court. They will likely be dismissed if the bill’s criteria – which its opponent consider weak, and both sides predict will have little problems reaching – is met.

“This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning,” said President Bush, speaking in a brief appearance at the White House’s Rose Garden.

“The president broke the law,” stated democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, one of the bill’s opponents.

Its supporters carry a different tune, however. “This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters,” said republican Sen. Christopher Bond.

A number of political commentators noted democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s party-line-breaking vote in support of the bill, a move that he justified as unfortunate but necessary.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act,” he noted, referring to a stopgap measure that expired last February.

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary.”

Both the EFF and ACLU vowed to continue their fight in court, shifting their focus to challenge the immunity provision’s constitutionality.

“It is an immeasurable tragedy that just after its return from the Fourth of July holiday, the Senate has chosen to pass a bill that betrays the spirit of 1776 by radically expanding the president's spying powers and granting immunity to the companies that colluded in his illegal surveillance program,” said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston.

“This so-called compromise bill represents a shameful capitulation to the overreaching demands of an imperial president. As Senator Leahy put it in yesterday's debate, the retroactive immunity provision of the bill upends the scales of justice and makes Congress and the courts handmaidens to the White House's cover-up of its illegal surveillance program.”

“This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant,” said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. “This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

Both groups intend to challenge the bill, in the words of the ACLU, “as soon as President Bush signs it into law.”

The bill’s other provisions passed largely uncontested, included provisions that would prohibit government invocation of war powers in order to supersede surveillance rules, and allow the government to secretly eavesdrop for up to a week without a warrant, provided a warrant is obtained within a week.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

About the photo....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 10:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
So is that the new "SMART" phone?




RE: About the photo....
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Get Smart was hilarious.


RE: About the photo....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 12:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
I loved the TV series... Have not watch the movie yet. Any good?


Democrat-controlled House & Senate
By hellokeith on 7/10/2008 9:15:30 PM , Rating: 3
I thought the Democrats were supposed to side with the "people"? Democrats control both the House and the Senate. How come a Democrat-lead and Democrat-controlled Congress is allowing amnesty for telco companies???




RE: Democrat-controlled House & Senate
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/11/2008 10:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the Democrats were supposed to side with the "people"?

Who ever told you that mis-guided statement? Democrats are for control everything... Tell you were to work, were to go to school, how long you should work, what pens to use, what you should eat, where you show eat....They are the push for socialism which is push for communism. Even Obama has been on stage tell a crowd of people, your kids should not watch more then 1 year of TV a day, should be in bed by 8 pm... To which I say, Obama if you want a try an run a government, fine through your hat in, but stay out of my home.
Republicans are to push for less government all round - less government equals more freedom of choice. Having freedom of Choice in my book is more for the people then taking them away.

Now do we need the government to say what is good and what is bad? Sometimes, it keeps some businesses from selling magic tonics (popular in the 1800's) and things down that line. However, today the government has way to much influence in our day to day life. Also, the more influence they have the more expensive it is to run the government therefore the higher the taxes will be....


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/11/2008 5:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
hmmmm....must have been sleeping when I wrote this...sorry for the typos... where and were big problem with me...
show should have be should...opps and 1 year of TV should have been 1 hour.
When I'm tired, my minor issue with dyslexia seems to kick into overdrive and I miss the little things like typing in the wrong word from what I was thinking.... My bad. Of course I like to drop the 'ed 'ing or 'm off of some words for some reason...Pisses me off.


Magic Word
By Basekid on 7/10/2008 7:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the magical word of "terrorism" is used again to pass a bill. Well in that case they are in their full right aren't they.....




RE: Magic Word
By snownpaint on 7/11/2008 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 3
If you can't take it from them, make them give it to you..


US is too socialist
By croc on 7/10/2008 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
The US should just do away with any and all taxes, let the market forces prevail. Pure capitalism will cure all evils of the socialist empire that the US has become.




be careful what you wish for...
By zaxxon on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 7:34:49 AM , Rating: 1
You cannot honestly accuse the current administration of being the first to do something amoral by our US democracy standards. But if you really think this bill is to spy on your phone call w/ your gf, you're gravely mistaken.

However, whether you are for or against the following items, they too, could be considered a breach onto personal freedoms in one way or another:

Slavery
Federal Taxation
Welfare (redistribution of wealth)
Property Taxation
Social Security
Illegal Immigration Reform

Need I go on? American is, and in my view, always has been a great country. There are more opportunities here, than anywhere else, to follow your dreams and to succeed by working hard. But lets not view the last 200 years as a picturebook on how to do everything right. The government, like us civilians, sometimes have to learn by making mistakes too.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By DigitalFreak on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By TheDrD on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By zaxxon on 7/10/2008 10:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
checks
balances
separation of powers

that's what it's about


By Gravemind123 on 7/10/2008 5:34:25 PM , Rating: 1
Just because we've done immoral things for the past 200 years doesn't make doing more immoral things now the right thing to do. Sure the past 200 years weren't a picture book, but why take away freedoms when you don't need too. We gave rights to more people(not just limiting them to white males), but now the trend seems to be to take away rights from everyone, which is not a proper direction for a democracy.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 8:08:43 AM , Rating: 3
You assume we all oppose this. I for one want the government to be able to taps someones phone when they deem it necessary and the judges are asleep. Do we want the answer to the question of "Why didn't the government catch the guys planning this?" to be "Well we couldn't get a warrant because it was 2am when they were speaking and all the judges were banging their mistresses."? I sure as hell don't.

And from it sounding like you're in the UK, you've got no room to talk. Your government is so appeasing that now you're going to put booties on freakin bomb sniffing dogs if they go into a Muslim home who would be otherwise offended.


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 8:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention how many video camera's they have throughout the cities that are recording regular civilians. UK big brother is always watching you....literally.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By keegssj on 7/10/2008 8:37:59 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well we couldn't get a warrant because it was 2am when they were speaking and all the judges were banging their mistresses.

The old FISA court rules covered this issue. Perform the action and go back and get the warrant later.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 8:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well I also don't think the telecoms should be liable to be sued simply for complying with government orders and requests.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By CountZero on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Adonlude on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Kenenniah on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By stilltrying on 7/10/2008 10:42:26 AM , Rating: 3
Complying with government requests. So what if they didnt? It was just a request not a law. Verizon could have easily said SHOW ME THE FISA WARRANT but didnt. Did everyone forget that qwest didnt not comply and were they tried by the executive branch in the court of law. They did not have to comply as is pointed out by qwest. But Verizon and AT&T execs I am sure love big brother as politics and huge buisness go hand in hand vis a vis fascism.
A small local cable company is about to provide broadband in my area and I cant wait to dump Verizon permanently.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Grast on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By sinful on 7/11/2008 7:31:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well I also don't think the telecoms should be liable to be sued simply for complying with government orders and requests.


The issue is that the requests were illegal. Any corporation with a legal team is going to *know* they were illegal, as well.
Additionally, some companies did NOT comply with the illegal requests (but were later 'punished' by losing out on government contracts, which were promptly awarded to those that didn't put up a fight).

To put it another way:
Imagine if the government called up your neighbor and said "Hey, burn FITCamaro's house down", but he said "No, that's illegal". Then, he's mysteriously hit with an IRS audit.

And then let's say the government calls up your other neighbor, and asks him to burn you house down. That neighbor then proceeds to burn your house down. Should he be liable? The precendent here seems to say "No".
Now imagine that after doing that, he gets a sweet new car for his "compliance".

Does that sound right to you?
IMHO it sets a dangerous precedent. Next time, if the government calls up your neighbor that got with a tax audit, do you think he'll comply?

It's the same concept with the Telecoms.

Laws were created for a reason. Why should they be above the law?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By drzoo2 on 7/10/2008 9:06:43 AM , Rating: 5
I'm happy your willing to give a way my liberty so you can feel safe. The FISA law already provisions the ability to get the tap then the warrent. This way there is still oversight.

z

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By aebiv on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Kenenniah on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure why you're directing that at me. I support the bill, and do not feel my rights are being infringed upon.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 10:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
And just to clarify myself - I support the FISA bill, not the handgun ban.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HeavyB on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Sure. I've got nothing to hide.


By Kenenniah on 7/10/2008 11:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't directing it at you, just hit the wrong reply link :P


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 11:30:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What liberty are we giving up? Are we no longer able to talk on the phone because of this? Does this curtail our ability to speak our views in any way shape or form? Please tell me how this is taking away any liberties whatsoever.


You should really learn the Bill of Rights better. The Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees:

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


We have the right against unreasonable searches- and wiretapping a phone is searching someone's effects. When you do this without a warrant, you have just violated the Fourth Amendment.

No, we didn't lose the right to use the phone, and no, we didn't lose the right to speak our views. We lost a substantial part of the right to be safe from someone warrantlessly searching our effects. This only makes way for the Fourth Amendment to be further weakened.

Why should we be concerned about this? Passing laws like this has typically been in the domain of authoritarian regimes, and they are typically used to support other actions, such as guaranteeing that rule is not subverted. Why is it unacceptable for Yahoo to turn over names of bloggers to the Chinese government, but it is ok for phone companies to warrantly wiretap our phones for the United States? So basically, what anyone is saying by accepting this law is that they are willing to live under an authoritarian government so long as we believe that this measure will prevent terrorism.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
against unreasonable searches


It's not unreasonable. Amendment not violated.

They are not just wiretapping people at random. They have specific targets who have given them a reason to wiretap their phone. Don't want to get wiretapped? Don't give them a reason.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 12:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
If it were reasonable, and they have probable cause, they can get a warrant. That's the whole point of the fourth Amendment.

quote:
Don't want to get wiretapped? Don't give them a reason.


Again, if there's a reason, it's called probable cause and you can get a warrant.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Who do I trust to determine probable cause? The guy who works in the intelligence field? Or the liberal judge? Hmmm....

I'm going to go with the intelligence agent. I'd rather them follow up every lead they get without a warrant, than only go after those the judge determines to be worth the effort.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 1:00:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who do I trust to determine probable cause? The guy who works in the intelligence field? Or the liberal judge?


Wow, that statement stinks of a partisan opinion. While there are a lot of liberal judges, if you look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court Justices, they are mostly conservative appointees. On top of that, I'm certain there are good number of conservative judges. Even if there weren't, if a case merited elevation to the Supreme Court, the highest judges in the land are conservative appointees. So much for the idea that conservative ideals are on the losing side of the Judicial System.

quote:
I'm going to go with the intelligence agent.


The whole point of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself is to adhere to a system of law, not to use who you'd go with.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By sinful on 7/11/2008 7:37:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who do I trust to determine probable cause? The guy who works in the intelligence field? Or the liberal judge? Hmmm....


Would you sing a different tune if some liberal cop busts down your door without a warrant because he thinks you're a terrorist?

quote:
I'm going to go with the intelligence agent. I'd rather them follow up every lead they get without a warrant, than only go after those the judge determines to be worth the effort.


Too bad Nixon isn't president, I'm sure he'd love your views on warrantless wiretapping.
=P


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Kenenniah on 7/10/2008 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, my point was that it doesn't take away any freedoms. Like I said, you can argue the privacy side, which is where the Fourth Amendment comes in. I was only stating that we lose no freedom to do or say as we wish. We just lose some of the expectation of privacy while doing so.

On the privacy side, I don't personally don't believe the Fourth Amendment applies directly. Tapping a phone line requires no search or seisure of my personal property, but instead attaching to public networks. If they were searching my house without a warrant that's one thing, I just consider phones a little less private.

quote:
and wiretapping a phone is searching someone's effects


That is only an interpretation. Personal effects is defined as a legal term for "clothes, cosmetics, and items of adornment" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pers...

Or, "Privately owned items, such as keys, an identification card, or a wallet or watch, that are regularly worn or carried on one's person"
http://www.answers.com/topic/personal-effects?cat=...

Nowhere do I see the definition of effects equate to phone conversations.

That said I do understand your concerns. For me though, the difference between a good and bad government isn't what information they have, but what they do with that information. In your example of Yahoo and China, I find that wrong because the Chinese government uses that information to persecute dissenting citizens. The difference is China gets the information and tells people what they can or can't say. As long as the US sticks to only using the information for its intended purpose and not to curtail my freedoms I don't have a huge problem with it.

Bottom line it's a grey issue, and I do understand your side as well. It's all a balancing act between personal privacy rights and public need, and each of us have differing ideas on where the lines should be drawn.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 1:05:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Or, "Privately owned items, such as keys, an identification card, or a wallet or watch, that are regularly worn or carried on one's person"


Do you dispute the idea that most people do carry phones on their person in todays age?

quote:
Nowhere do I see the definition of effects equate to phone conversations.


There is tons of historical legal context to show that wiretapping requires a warrant to begin with.

What you're missing is what this new FISA revision does.

It is still illegal to unwarrantably wiretap- now, phone companies can't get in trouble for it. What is the point of having a law if there's no consequence. It's like saying murder is illegal and morally wrong, but we won't put you in jail for it.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Kenenniah on 7/10/2008 1:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you dispute the idea that most people do carry phones on their person in todays age?

No, but they aren't tapping your phone directly, or taking it and searching for illegal content etc. The "tapping" isn't happening on anything you personally own. Again, I do understand your side though, I just see it differently.

I also do know that legal precedence and context is on your side. That doesn't take away my right to believe otherwise.

In addition I do know what the revision does. My post was supposed to be in response to the Franklin quote about giving up liberties, therefore I didn't limit myself to the scope of the revision since giving immunity to telcomms has nothing whatsoever to do with our liberties. Also there is more to the revision, the immunities are just the most talked about aspect.

As far as the phone companies, the immunity has nothing to do with legality or the law. The immunity is from the civil lawsuits, which yes I agree with. They shouldn't be getting sued for complying with government requests. AT&T employees are not made immune from criminal prosecution. The only thing the provision does is remove civil liability for doing what the government told them to do.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
By Kenenniah on 7/10/2008 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
True. The only thing that makes this different for me, is that what they did was done at the request of the government. To me that makes it unfair for the government to turn around and let them be sued for it. I do understand they could have fought it, and with that in mind can easily see how other people disagree with the immunity.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Grast on 7/10/2008 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
here here


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By zaxxon on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 10:46:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The right to bear arms is NOT about being able to shoot your neighbor or go waste ammo in the countryside.

Since when has the right to bear arms ever been a substitue for legalized murder? Everyone, outside of the mentally challenged and criminals, have the right to own a gun. Don't confuse that constitutional right with how you're allowed to use that gun.

You're way off base on the shooting your neighbor thing. What does that have to do with owning a handgun in your own home? And if I want to go to the countryside, where its legal to shoot a handgun or rifle, I will damn well do so if I want to.

Last I checked, no one was advocating for owning an M-16 or RPG launcher. We are advocating for owning a handgun, in your own home, which we've been doing so throughout history.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
About the m-16 or RPG launcher....
If our forefathers only wanted us to have only the option to own pistols and rifles it would have been written that way and not bear arms. They left it as bear arms so new weapons could also be owned by the public.... Of course not Nukes - not very personal. One just has to realize if you are going to own a few M-16 or RPG's type of weapons you are going to be watched by the Government.
Of course you might not have been meaning can not own M-16 or RPG and meant it as we are covering handguns at this time....


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course you might not have been meaning can not own M-16 or RPG and meant it as we are covering handguns at this time....

Correct, I was not advocating for or against fully automatic weapons or rocket propelled grenades or the like. I was merely just talking about the right to own handguns, which democrats are trying to take away - thus crapping on the original constitutional rights.
quote:
They left it as bear arms so new weapons could also be owned by the public....

You won't find argument on that from me!
quote:
One just has to realize if you are going to own a few M-16 or RPG's type of weapons you are going to be watched by the Government.

Yup.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
M-16 sure. But I don't think I want people to have the right to own RPGs....


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
They can but I have no idea what you would have to go through to obtain one - plus I think they are very expensive. Not going to be at your local gun shop. Problem is, if you say "no" to one type of weapon then it can lead to "no" for other types.


By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not shooting my neighbor unless he breaks into my house. Then I'm protecting myself.

And how do you learn to shoot a gun? By going and "wasting" ammo in the countryside.

By your logic hunting is also illegal (unless the animals are part of the government too) and would have been since the country was founded. I guess a lot of us wouldn't be here then since how did a lot of people get food back then? HUNTING!

Just admit it. You don't like guns so you'll say whatever you have to to get rid of them.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By TheDrD on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 9:45:06 AM , Rating: 1
And there is still oversight.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By zaxxon on 7/10/2008 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
well, I'm glad I don't live in the UK either.

Here in Switzerland, if 100'000 people are not happy about ANYTHING the government does, there will be a public vote on it!

(Best example : some leftists wanted to get rid of the army, for example by denying the airforce it's new F-18s. Although the government already had the money ready and it was decided to buy them, 100'000+ signatures were collected, a vote was held. "Fortunately" the vote went south and we have the jets now, but it could very well also happened the other way around and that would have been 100% binding for our government)


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
We'd be voting every day if we had that here. It might be practical in a country that has the population of one of our major cities. It's not here.


By snownpaint on 7/11/2008 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised at the shear lack of interest in what Average Americans think from the Hill and 1600.. We have a terrible system for collecting votes in this country. You can transfer millions of dollars over the phone , computer, or with a signature; securely and fast.. But it seems we can't get a concise voting system in this country.. Imagine your voice/vote could be counted. really count. Once a week Americans could choice/vote the future of Bills, amendments, local rulings and such.. (8am to 10pm voting on Friday) Locally and Nationally.. Not writing some guy that gets a million and half letters a month, for a hope of his yeah or nay. Actually your yeah or nay. With the diabolical of the previous elections and the non-standard in voting across the country, I'm seriously surprised that citizens don't scream to be counted..

Bah bah.. sheep.. Bah.. I guess its no surprise that when the flock gets big you need more eyes and ears, to see the wolf in sheep's clothing and make sure they move where the dogs push.. bah..


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Machinegear on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By aebiv on 7/10/2008 9:49:22 AM , Rating: 1
Double Triple Amen...

Those who think the Constitution a dead guideline are the same ones muddying what would be a clear, and concise form of order for a government.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
A true republic is less representative than the democractic one we have now. Then you only elect people to represent you. They choose the leader. Do you really want to give our elected officials the power to elect the president? Yes we have the electoral college but never in my memory has an electoral college vote gone against the votes of the district they're voting for.

And I'm perfectly aware of our history. I'm aware of how the New Deal, despite being a good idea for the time, is what has created the Welfare situation we're in now. I'm aware of the mistakes of the Vietnam War. And I'm especially aware of how the values of this nation are slowly being eroded away by the left in their defense of illegal immigration and those who do not assimilate into our culture and do not learn our language.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 9:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'm especially aware of how the values of this nation are slowly being eroded away by the left in their defense of illegal immigration and those who do not assimilate into our culture and do not learn our language.

You mean how Barack Obama said yesterday that our children should learn Spanish?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you complain and speak out against everything he does and wants to do are YOU yourself unpatriotic and unamerican???

Who says you're unpatriotic by using your freedom of speech or protesting? No one.

Its your physical actions that more less make someone/something unamerican and unpatriotic - like the city of Berkely trying to outlaw military recruitment centers while accepting government funds, which are made available by tax payers, which contains people in the US Military. And the city of San Fransisco changing the rules by not allowing high schoolers who are part of the Junior ROTC program to use that as a PE credit anymore, even though they undergo more rigorous physical exercise than those in gym class. Its those people who vote to pass crap like this that are unamerican and unpatriotic. Not people who disagree with the war - but those who try to change and punish the lifestyle of other americans due to their disagreement.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 12:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who says you're unpatriotic by using your freedom of speech or protesting? No one.


Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 1
So now you're concerned with members of the media? How about the NY Times during WWII accusing the US Government (Republican led at the time) of being worse than Stalin. Or how about the media members of MoveOn.org accusing our lead general of being a betrayer because they did not agree with his military assessment?

Citing Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter as your sources is idiotic.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These two seem to be at the forefront of this idea that anyone protesting the war in Iraq or who disagree with policies by the government are unpatriotic and should just leave the United States.

You cited to far right conservatives in the media to make a point, and I cited to far left liberal media sources to make a point.

NY Times and MoveOn both go out there asserting that anyone who supports the war are unpatriotic betrayers to the country.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NY Times and MoveOn both go out there asserting that anyone who supports the war are unpatriotic betrayers to the country.


Well that's not my position, and so I am not concerned about responding to it. I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

On the other hand:

quote:
You cited to far right conservatives in the media to make a point


This was only because you asked.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise, I never said that I agree with everything that Bill OReilly or Ann Coulter say either.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 1:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that you don't, but I never said you did agree with them. Again, I was just answering your question :)


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mdogs now try thier best to distance themsleves from him and hios policies

I may not agree with all his policies, or attempted ones, like immigration reform and the will to even discuss lowering emissions at the G-8 summit...but you won't see me distancing myself.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Who again is it that wants to add over a trillion dollars in government spending? Obama. Even if the war stopped tomorrow, we'd still be spending more than $800 billion more a year than we are now. Of course Obama's answer is tax the rich, tax investors, tax the oil companies! Of course to him, I'm rich.

Real good fiscal strategy. We might have the war in Iraq under Bush, but he's not pushing to expand other spending either. The war in Iraq isn't going to end just because Obama becomes president(christ I hope he doesn't). So in reality we'd be paying for that AND whichever of his crack pot policies get passed.

That's not even counting the nearly $800 billion dollars that Obama wants to give to the global poverty fund over the next 13 years. The rest of the world wants us to stop "interfering" but they sure as hell want the tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep on flowing.

At least the war in Iraq has given a people freedom. And eventually oil from Iraq will flow onto the global market which will lower prices. Not just for the US. For everyone.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:03:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You know, Clintons strategy didn't differ too terribly much from Obama's (although it's not quite as simple as you're making it sound) and the country had a surplus budget by the end of his term in office.


Clinton administration NEVER had a surplus, that is myth and smoke screen. It was nothing more than transfering funds from one place to another. In fact, the closest he ever came to balancing the budget was a deficit of $17.9B.

Here is a good write up of it...

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you would have to add the interoffice holdings of about $248B to that $17.9 for the real number.

While no one, not any conservative, will agree with and like the amount of spending that Bush administration has done...my point was to merely debunk the Clinton Surplus myth. Sounds to me like you already know its false.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 2:24:36 PM , Rating: 1
Here are some better writeups:

http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

I prefer more official sources, such as the Congressional Budget Office:

But if you'd like a nice graph with an analysis that includes a baseline comparison of the budget before and after Clinton, one was generated at FactCheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c...

I do question how motivation of how the data was presented at lexta.org, as well as their specific focus on Clinton. And if there wasn't a surplus, what were Bush and Gore debating over during the 2000 elections?


By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 2:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, meant to say lexta.com


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
The point was that the budget was showing surplus, but the interoffice holdings of the government loaning itself money was also going up. Meaning that the government was loaning itself money that it didnt have to try and make the budget look positive, only to have to owe that back again later. Its nothing more than taking from one jar, and placing it into another. Had the budget been in surplus, but interoffice holdings stayed the same or decreased, then you would have a true budget surplus.

Also, if he had a true surplus, the national debt would have decreased because the budget surplus would have paid that off by not being in negative.

Its nothing more than creative accounting. Its like having two credit cards: one with a $1000 balance, and another with a $0 balance. You pay off the $1000 balance with the other card, then come out and say you're debt free. while at the same time your checking account is negative and accruing overdraft fees.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And there are some really good reasons to increase taxes on oil companies.


So the consumers pay more? Because thats ALL thats going happen. Well other than the government getting another huge boost in tax revenues. Apparently an average of $88 billion dollars in taxes over the past 25 years(adjusted for inflation) isn't enough taxes to pay.

The government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil companies.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html


By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Thats an average of $88 billion a year over the past 25 years.


By snownpaint on 7/11/2008 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think The gov't should enforce nice tariffs for imported oil.. Then offer nice incentives for US oil used in the US, drive business to capitalize on US oil.. Maybe have two types of barrels of Oil that could be purchased/traded.. Imported Oil and Domestic Oil. That way it offers a choice in purchase, and competition in price/service (the capitalistic way)

I would really like to see very inexpensive electricity. Pull us from Oil. I would drive an electric car if it was feasible and significantly cheaper.. I would use my Truck when needed and the electric car to work and back.. I do that now with my manual 4 banger..

Also I would like to see businesses develop in the US that helps increase our efficiency on our resources. Like companies that make roof top heat pumps for winter heating (help ween people off oil heat) and solar cells to help produce electricity (running AC in summer). There a 100s of millions of roofs in the US staring at the sun.



RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Ringold on 7/10/2008 4:35:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A) More refining capacity. Oil from Iraq means nothing if we don't have refining capacity. B) We need to stop threatening Iran. It is not a coincidence that with each rhetorical clash we have with Iran the price of gas goes up. They're going up because we keep inching towards an armed conflict with Iran which makes investors and speculators twitchy and want more money for their oil. Are there any more blind conservative ideas that I will need to debunk with sound reasoning?


What do you mean more ideas that you need to debunk? You didn't get that one right, so you don't get to move on to others yet!

A: Refineries are no longer running full-tilt. The crack spread between oil and gasoline is likely the driving factor at this moment, due to a record decline in monthly miles driven. Idle refinery capacity has nearly doubled over the last six months, and utilization is down from nearly 90% last year to 86% in April.

B: Blaming Iran tensions doesn't seem to make sense. There has been a near continuous stream of concerns over the last 7 years, and the Iran threat isn't completely new. Nigerian trouble is just as likely a source of fear. Further, Iranian fears can only allow speculators to amplify price moves in the short term, as every month real suppliers must sell contracts that find their way to real consumers downstream, and if the price isn't in a market clearing equilibrium, speculators lose their shirts very rapidly. Liberal economist Paul Krugman's blog explains in great (technical) detail how its essentially impossible for speculators defy fundamental laws of supply and demand. All that said, a price hike is possible if suppliers hold back on reserves of oil and build stockpiles in advance of an expected conflict -- but oil stockpiles have been falling, so there is no evidence of that taking place so far.

The price of oil itself has basically been flat for about a month.

Final point about threatening Iran; in case you failed to notice, it is not the United States that is speculated to be preparing an attack, but Israel. Your default blame America position perhaps lead you astray here. :) That was a massive Irsaeli operation practicing a massive long-range air strike recently, not an American one. In fact, if Israel feels an existential threat, there is probably nothing the US can even do if they make their minds up to end that threat.

At least you were close to being right on the refinery issue, just a few months behind the curve now. On the second point, you unfortunately just repeated a left-wing talking point that has little rigor behind it.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
You know, Clintons strategy didn't differ too terribly much from Obama's (although it's not quite as simple as you're making it sound) and the country had a surplus budget by the end of his term in office.

Surplus budget...what a joke. We have not had surplus funds since the end of Thomas Jefferson term. Surplus funds would be real money. Surplus budget just means, "well I'm going to spend $1,000 today and end of the day I only spent $950. Yea!.... so who do I send this $950 bill to? Oh yea, the tax payers." It's not an impressive statement. I would rather be under a President that spend over the budge say like spent $850 on a $700 budget verse a president that had a surplus budget of $100 because he only spent $900 of his $1,000...because of higher taxes.
No, I have not looked at the Government total budget this year verse Clinton's years verse Regan's years and so on...(you can not compare straight numbers you have to figure in a fair rate of growth.) My point here is, sometimes what looks like a good thing, really is not good at all.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 5:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
You know, Clintons strategy didn't differ too terribly much from Obama's (although it's not quite as simple as you're making it sound) and the country had a surplus budget by the end of his term in office.

Surplus budget...what a joke. We have not had surplus funds since the end of Thomas Jefferson term. Surplus funds would be real money. Surplus budget just means, "well I'm going to spend $1,000 today and end of the day I only spent $950. Yea!.... so who do I send this $950 bill to? Oh yea, the tax payers." It's not an impressive statement. I would rather be under a President that spend over the budge say like spent $850 on a $700 budget verse a president that had a surplus budget of $100 because he only spent $900 of his $1,000...because of higher taxes.
No, I have not looked at the Government total budget this year verse Clinton's years verse Regan's years and so on...(you can not compare straight numbers you have to figure in a fair rate of growth.) My point here is, sometimes what looks like a good thing, really is not good at all.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 5:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
sorry about posting two times... my bad.


By emarston on 7/11/2008 8:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
You know, Clintons strategy didn't differ too terribly much from Obama's (although it's not quite as simple as you're making it sound) and the country had a surplus budget by the end of his term in office.

I love how people try to look fondly at the economy during the Clinton years. Aside from the statements disputing this below we should remember the fact that a silly little thing called the internet boom was severely skewing everything. Eventually, many of those DotComs became DotBombs throwing alot of that false economic goodness back into reality. He just happened to be the big cheese at the right time. It wouldn't matter who was president after that we would still have ended up with a huge correction when all those business went Tango Uniform.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Ringold on 7/10/2008 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is those "conservative" values and policies that have our country in the giant mess we are in now, politically and fiscally. Mdogs still finds a way to Blame dems for it.


Nice shot, but you don't understand what a "conservative" is. George Bush is not a "conservative." Barry Goldwater? Conservative. Ronald Reagan? Conservative. Bush isn't in the same ideological galaxy as Goldwater, but good luck trying to suggest otherwise. :P

Big government, big-spending George Bush? Not a "conservative."

Here is a hint for you. Republican =! Conservative. The Republican Party has multiple factions, ranging from "conservatives" who have a deep libertarian strain, evangelical types, special interest groups with shared concerns (ex: NRA), and various shades of grey in between. Unfortunately, particularly within the evangelical wing, some liberal ideas (like big government and big spending) seep in.

Incompetence is also not a trait of conservatism or the Republican party; its a bipartisan plague.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Polls said Gore and Kerry would win. Look how that turned out for you.

I can go around my area and a poll will say McCain is going to win. Election polls are one of the most retarded things the media has ever come up with. All they try to do with them is say "Hey this guys going to win so don't waste your vote on the other guy." I can't remember the last time the media reported a conservative as leading in a poll when they could get away with reporting the democrat as leading.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 1:59:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can't remember the last time the media reported a conservative as leading in a poll when they could get away with reporting the democrat as leading.


Obviously you didn't watch Fox news. Either that, or you did watch Fox, they told you that the media outlets were falsly reporting democrats as leading, then they showed you a statistic showing Bush leading. One or the other....


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its funny how you can turn any post on any subject into an attack on anything and anyone you deem "left".

Funny how I was merely commenting on a post that referred to "the left".

Also, I didnt deem anyone as being "left". Barack himself stated "...make no mistake, I am a progressive."


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:16:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
general ability to label people left

If people have leftist views, they shouldn't be afraid of being called on it.
quote:
Can you handle that?

I'll be doing my part by not voting for him.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
Funny how you quickly pull out the past 8 years, without mentioning that for the first time in history, congress has a single digit approval rating. Wait, who controls congress?

Also, its funny that you claim Obama is the "most liberal member", while your other members of the left (including Media Matters) go against that claim saying the National Journal was biased. However, you and Obama both know that you cannot win the presidency being a far left liberal...which is exactly why he's moving to the center.

quote:
have our country reeling from the effects of piss poor decision making

Similar to how the democrats have consistently voting against oil drilling in ANWR and on the coast for many years, and now almost 80% of the US wants us to do just that?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the vast majority of American's favor making English the official language. Who's against that again?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By TheDrD on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Ah so now we're retarded for wanting to take advantage of the resources on our land and wanting our country to have it be law to use a single, common language. Both of which nearly every other nation in the world does or has.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
"If the conservative right didn't totally make a mess of everything they touched when in power and have our country reeling from the effects of piss poor decision making and total mismanagent of just about every aspect of government there is NO WAY Obama could have won."

Still curious to see what you or Mdogs has to say to that (odd you both totally ignored it and responded to that post using totally different subjects)


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
Because you have not stated any specifics in terms of your "country reeling from the effects of piss poor decision making...".

And since Obama has not won, and the election hasn't taken place, I'm not really sure what you're fishing for.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 3:06:36 PM , Rating: 1
I feel like you are an intelligent person and that you do in fact understand what I am asking, but here it is again anyhow, since you are acting like you dont get it.

specifics - stuck in Iraq, economic recession, record deficits, govt. spending out of control are the 4 biggies- our damaged standing in world politics would be another one.

What I mean is Obama is very likely to win and that would never have been the case if the conservative leadership and methodology hadn't failed so miserably. (Note: George Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any prez ever, including Nixon post watergate. ) If the conservatives ways are soooooo much better, whty are we in such a mess?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 3:18:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
specifics - stuck in Iraq, economic recession, record deficits, govt. spending out of control are the 4 biggies- our damaged standing in world politics would be another one.

Iraq was a majority bi-partisan vote by congress, not just Bush.

Economic Recession is in no way attributable to Bush. The credit & housing crisis are directly related to lenders & consumers. If anything, the "Enron Loophole" during Clinton's administration held the most responsibility, if any, for the government.

Record Deficits & Spending are no doubt a major problem in this administration - but lets not be so quick to discard the massive billions of increases in welfare & unemployment (wanted by democrats) and pork barrel projects (also wanted by...).

Our damaged standing in the world? Thats quite laughable. Other countries are against the US for many reasons - most attributable to our massive wealth and force we have over world governments. But whats funny, is that no matter how much against us they are, they have never turned down a tax payer supplied check, have they?

quote:
George Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any prez ever, including Nixon post watergate

And again, the democratic controlled Congress has the lowest approval rating EVER in single digits...which is less than HALF of Bush's approval rating. Explain that.

quote:
If the conservatives ways are soooooo much better, whty are we in such a mess?

Go ahead and look at total picture in other large countries like France, the UK, China, Russia, etc and tell me that again with a straight face.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
"this was 100% the Bush's admin's war don't bother blaming others. Remember the WMD's Bush promised us were there? OF yeah, that was a lie."

Having and acting on bad information or incomplete information just means you were wrong not a lier. Having sex (oral) with an intern then denying it is a lie.

We are not in a Recession. We have not been in one since the days of Clinton. You need to understand what a recession is..
In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=recession

In the entire time Bush has been in office there has only been two negative growth quarters. The first one was the very first quarter of office. You have to always give credit of the first quarter to the last President – Economic changes do not come over night. The Second negative growth quarter was his third quarter in office, when the twin tower were hit 9-11. I say it's hard to blame him for that quarter. That's it, no other negative growth quarters. Now the growth we have had has been crappy, very low... however it better then the several negative growth quarters we experienced under Clinton.
For most people however, they are feeling the effects now and do not understand why so they blame Bush. The truth is, during the 90's the real recession we were in was beating the crap out of all businesses – small and large. The companies had large capital reserves built up and did their best to weather the storm (not firing or laying off of personnel). By the end of the 90's earlier 2000's those reserves ran out and people then lost their jobs. It is also why you saw a lot of 50 and 100 year old companies go out of business between 1998 and 2003. However, the economy started to correct itself...just not strong enough nor fast enough (still that way today). You really would have started to feel the effects of the 90's recession sooner if it was not for the effect of increase in sales in personal computers and Dotcoms. These two factors kept the economy afloat. Of course when the dotcoms went bye bye so did a lot of peoples money, which hurt the already weak economy.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 6:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Still do not get it...We are not in a downswing...we are in a upswing from the days of Clinton. The average Joe is just feeling it now. However, the economy is still not pick up, just not going down anymore...
The definition of recession is very, very relevant if you wish to use it.
The war is on Terrorist not WMD's and yes, WMD were found just not the chemical ones the the USA expect to find - we knew they had them because the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta (forgive me if I have the name wrong – but you should know the place) issued out several disease to Iraq (small pox, anthrax to name a few) for purpose of study. This is not uncommon, many countries request it and it is provided. Of course they are to maintain full records of use and disposal of the diseases, something Iraq did not do...and villages in Iraq were discover to have been attacked by these type of diseases. There was never a question of WMD... The question was how much and where are they hiding them. It would only take a small suitcase of Anthrax to wipe out New York City (if done right). They have a big desert to hide things in, so I'm not surprised nothing was found. Ever walked down a beach of soft sand and drop a dime or quarter? It can be hard to find, now think of a beach the size of California...


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 6:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I give - there is nothing to be said to change either of our minds... We think very differently. YOu seem to think that every single bad thing that happens or has happended in this country is the fault of libs and/or dems... I disagree. Both sides have made alot of errors. As for now, I think Obama will by far be the best prez we have had in my lifetime. He has the vote of just about everyone I know here in Arizona too (yes, McCains's state). Fed up with the crap that spew's out of the right, like you are never wrong and make no mistakes.

Enjoy the last few months of your prez's term - Its gonna change starting in January.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 6:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
Understood... Just FYI Everyone I know in Illinois (were I live) hates Obama. Of course the state will still go to the Dems. All the World problems will be solved before you can get the majority of the people living in Chicago to vote to the right... Lot of bad politics in this town. No, not saying that because I'm against the left, it is just what it is in this case.
I would not say I think all is to blame on libs or Dems... Just tired of everyone blaming 100% of everything that is wrong on Bush or the Rep. party it get old fast, especial when the statements are not correct. Yes, both side made mistakes and both side will continue to make mistakes.
Have a good night... Retrospooty


By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 6:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
you too. Thanks.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Ringold on 7/10/2008 8:30:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for now, I think Obama will by far be the best prez we have had in my lifetime.


Not sure what facts you can base that opinion on, given that even liberals have been calling him out pretty heavily over the last 48 hours due to his rapidly changing positions. Do you think he'll be the greatest "prez" based on his positions in January, March, or now here in July, or even a different theoretical set of positions you speculate he may grow in to by Nov? :P


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 9:28:01 PM , Rating: 1
LOL... Funny. You listen to too much media, and not enough to the man himself. He is brilliant, level headed and had a great mind for leadership. The rest that you are hearing about is all just campaigning.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Ringold on 7/10/2008 11:42:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
and not enough to the man himself


Actually, I do listen quite a bit to the man himself. The problem is, my memory extends further back than 48 hours, and position shifts thus become obvious. I'd counter that you perhaps listen to his music and not enough to the lyrics themselves. I also wasn't aware a silver tongue was a qualification for the White House.

quote:
The rest that you are hearing about is all just campaigning.


So then, anything said on the campaign trail in the name of victory is acceptable by a Democrat? If he shifts positions, that's fine? If he says one thing on the campaign trail and another behind closed doors, that's fine? An example of the latter is permanently printed in to my memory, since it pertains to my one true love; he made one stump speech after another in rust-belt parts of Ohio and elsewhere about how bad NAFTA was and the possibility he'd renegotiate it, and immediately sent Austen Goolsbee to give the wink-wink to Canadians (and then rapidly through Goolsbee under the bus after it became public), and then not long after had a closed door meeting with Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister), after which Brown walked out and threw ice water on the idea that Obama was anti-trade. In other words, when Obama was before liberal crowds, he would spare no opportunity to bash trade, but behind closed doors with world leaders and trading partners, he appears to come off as a free trader.

Your permissive attitude though isn't a surprise; I just googled some old pro-Obama blog posts, and his boosters were more angry that the news leaked than they were that their golden calf had radically different positions depending on the audience. (Sort of like how in front of liberals in California, guns and religion are for bitter hicks in the countryside, but on CNN, he supports the 2nd Amendment and now even faith-based initiatives!)

What is the truth? How do you even know what is a lie and what isn't? For the record, I've not watched the mainstream media for about the last 72 hours, so my knowledge of liberal outrage at him abandoning his previous hard-left positions and tacking towards the center actually comes straight from the source: left wing bloggers!

Meanwhile, I'll point out, McCain has gone throughout the rustbelt, including Ohio and Michigan, and given them the straight talk even while Romney pandered (just like Obama did), telling them trade is in the aggregate good and that their jobs were gone and never returning. I'll take straight talk over misdirection and obfuscation any day, thanks.


By emarston on 7/11/2008 9:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for now, I think Obama will by far be the best prez we have had in my lifetime.

Based on what? You must not be very old to make a statement like that. Obama is simply a charismatic speaker who:
a) looks young and hip compared to his opposition
b) Is given much love from most of the press
c) Is excellent at talking from multiple positions in order to appease constituents. (a key to being an great politician)

I'm not particularly happy about any of the candidates, but he definitely won't be getting my vote. I'm not sure if any of them will.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Ringold on 7/10/2008 8:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again laughable - Record deficits, lead to the weak dollar - Bush sitting idle while the credit crisis happened around him didn't help either.


Deficits aren't new, and I bet you can't tell me the precise impacts such deficits have on an economy anyway, including feedbacks, etc, without running to Google; you make too many amateurish misstatements on economics for something a little more sophisticated like that. Fact is, our deficits and our public debt is small as % of GDP compared to other countries that still manage to grow. It's also intellectually inconsistent with your accusation that Bush "did nothing" while the credit crisis rolled on. There was a supply and demand imbalance once demand for what turned out to not really be AAA rated paper dried up. The only thing that could've really been done is the federal government buying some of it up to try to influence the market value, thus reducing the write-offs banks would have to take. That, however, would require massive sums of money.. and higher deficits.

As for the weak dollar.. two points. First is that the weak dollars impact on imports has not yet been entirely passed on to consumers; multinational firms have instead taken the hit to their bottom line in order to maintain competitive positions in the worlds largest economy. Second point, the weak dollar has been a huge boon for exporting companies and US-based multinationals with large amounts of international sales. The weak dollar may take away, but it can also give! Can't devalue ones way to prosperity, but its not a crisis.

The credit crisis, heh, first of all a recent Rasmussen poll said only 24% of Americans think the government should get involved at all. Second of all, all parties who have engaged in bad loans have been harmed, including the idiots who lost their homes because they bought more than they could afford and the banks who didn't make sure their clients could continue to pay them back. Retro, if you (or anyone else) were an idiot and bought a home you could not afford or did not comprehend what "ARM" meant, that is not the governments job to save you.

I'll also point out that many Republican states, including the Dakota's, Texas, and various areas of the South are still experiencing economic growth while the bluest of the blue states, Michigan and California for example, are the states bleeding jobs. Here in mostly-Republican central Florida, economic/job growth rolls on. Years of economic policy in individual states are now proving their worth.


By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 2:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
nice deflection - you didnt address a single thing in that post. Just brought up 2 separate subjects (current congress bad approval and Obama's moving to the center, which is something that all candidates do once the primaries are over)


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 12:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I didnt deem anyone as being "left". Barack himself stated "...make no mistake, I am a progressive."

As a person who lives in Illinois, I assure you there is nothing progressive at all about Barack Husein Obama. He is very old school... Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar. Take you pick, they all talked about the same thing and how they are progressive and will magically make your world better. Even though they have no plan. In short, lies and can not be trusted.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I lived in Chicago from 2003-2007.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
Where you at now Mike? Didn't know you moved. Thought you were still there.


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm in Columbus Ohio - been here about a year.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh... the full length of Obama's reign (minus this year of course).


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah - back in 04 when I moved to Chicago when I had no idea who Obama was, never heard of him...I started noticing the Obama for Senator bumper stickers. I honestly thought it was some kind of sick joke...then I realized...well, you know.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 1:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
yep... blind sided like being hit with a long 2 x 4 from behind. You never forget things like that. The amazing thing is he pulled it off in Chicago the capital of underhanded politics. Of course most do not realize, he also used Tony Rosco (not sure if I'm spelling his last name right)... The word I've heard is if they get Governor Blagojevich impeach and jailed from the campaign fund raise tactics that they will have to bring the same charges up on Senator Obama. They did not want to hurt Obama run for president, so charges will not be brought up unless Blagojevich is found guilty. Crazy.... Only in Illinois can things like this happen.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar. "

Likening Obama to them proves you have zero perspective and zero credibility. I dont even know where to start to explain how redicoulous your post was.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
They too, were people of "change".


By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 5:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
again... perspective.

Reagen was too - so was Abe Lincoln. Niether were any more comparable to histories worst dictators than Obama.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 4:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
And that's the biggest problem today... To many people out there like you that can not see and pick up on the similarities.... Hence once again history will repeat itself. Not knowing where to start means you either do not know the real Obama (you should see through his thin facade by now – all politicians put up a facade of course) or you do not know you history what the people I listed promised the citizen of their countries.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/2008 6:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
All people have similarities... What of it? Do you think Obama will kill millions of people?

And fascade? I see he is a politician. You have to be to get that far... As far as a fascade? No, I think he is quite genuine - and I look forward to his term.

Now, you wanna talk fascade??? Lets talk Bush.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 6:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
I said all politician have a fascade - they have to... I just said his was thin and you should be able to see through it by now. Meaning there no meat behind his words... he has no real plan. He's a very charismatic person and a wonderful speaker. However, has done nothing - has not been in office long enough to have a track record of what he can and has done. Therefore he all hot air, maybe in 12 years but he is not ready today and hot air people are your Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon.
No need to talk about Bush's fascade – he not running for office any more... Him, his dad and Billy will be hitting the links in about 9 months. :) I doubt they will let Jimmy play a round of golf with them.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By retrospooty on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
By emarston on 7/11/2008 9:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
Which great presidents were these you speak of?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By TheDrD on 7/10/2008 2:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And I'm especially aware of how the values of this nation are slowly being eroded away by the left in their defense of illegal immigration and those who do not assimilate into our culture and do not learn our language.


No.


By MrBlastman on 7/10/2008 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
A pure democracy will always lead to Socialism and a complete standstill of due process.

Nothing would ever get done because everyone would be too busy bickering that their side should be heard and sine they disagree they will have to continue to debate the topic infinitely.

Our forefathers saw this clearly and hence we have a Republic.

A pure democracy is akin to communism, they both can't work as to reach their ideal purity the former will stagnate and the latter will be a hypocracy as someone will always be in control at the top, thus defeating the purpose.

I'm glad we have the system we have now. It isn't perfect, but the best part is we can all do something to make it better.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/10/2008 10:56:26 AM , Rating: 3
We lost the republic a long time ago. With each left wing person we put in office the more socialist / communist we (USA) becomes.
However, who cares if a computer is listening in on your phone calls (it will not be a person to many phone calls are made every minute of the day to employ enough people to listen in). So, if you are afraid of a computer hearing what you're saying....then I have to ask, what kind of business are you talking about over the phone??? Sell drugs, weapons, hits??
The only time you would have a person listen in would be if you become a suspect in something. Which means you are probably doing something shady.
This would be similar to laws that say you can not mirror or tint all your car windows. It's so the police can see what's going on (safety). Now 99.5% of the time even with the windows mirrored the police would be safe, but its the .5 % that's a killer. (yes, I made up the numbers...I don't know the real percentages.)


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We lost the republic a long time ago. With each left wing person we put in office the more socialist / communist we (USA) becomes.

I agree 100%. I just wish people would really start to look around the world at the evidence of what happens. Look at what happened to the French economy, unemployment, and welfare problems. Look at the problems with European socialized medicine. How about the gas taxes in Europe?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By drwheel on 7/10/2008 9:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I didn't want him! The rest of the world so readily forgets the circumstances surrounding both of Bush's elections to the office. Both 2000 and 2004 were very close, very controversial elections.

Election process issues aside, they were a very rude wake-up call showing how sharply divided this country currently is. Remember this, <world>... nearly half of us didn't want him in 2004 and more than half of us (Gore won the popular vote) in 2000 didn't want him!


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 9:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
more than half of us (Gore won the popular vote) in 2000 didn't want him!

Hillary also had the popular vote over Barack in the primary.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By TheDrD on 7/10/2008 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
And?


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Proof that popular vote does not win elections, or primaries....so why cry about it?


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 9:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...what controversy was there in the 2004 election? Kerry lost the popular vote. Hence Bush won.

And part of us being a democratic republic is the electoral college. Not everyone votes. So you have representatives for a state based on population that (always so far) vote for the candidate that the majority of that state votes for. And the point of that is to stop a radical from getting elected. Might need to use it too if Obama wins the popular vote....


By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 9:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
I should say the point of the freedom of the electoral college to vote for who they want is to prevent a radical from getting elected.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 10:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
From your link:
quote:
Practical impediments to voting, such as excessively long lines.


So let me get this straight, since so many people came out to vote, that is part of a conspiracy on behalf of Kerry? What a joke.

Kerry himself conceded because they could not prove anything related to those conspiracies. Just far left talking points, and people being mad that they didnt win the vote.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HeavyB on 7/10/2008 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 1
If you were living in 2004 where your email suggests you live now, you know the issues of ridiculously long lines to vote in the predominately black areas of Columbus. The predominately Republican burbs didn't have these issues. Its a fact, and I was there 1st hand to see it, too.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
I was living in Chicago in 2004, but have been a resident of Ohio for roughly 25 years (Columbus the past 2).

The black areas of columbus are much more populated than the suburban areas, thus making the lines shorter no doubt. But to suggest that there is a conspiracy is bunk, when you factor in that the city itself is responsible for where the voting stations are and how many of them are in place. Could it also be because more voters turned out than usual? Sure. But I dont see how waiting in a longer line due to a larger population will deter you from actually voting, especially given that its a law that your place of employment has to give you the paid time off to be able to vote.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HeavyB on 7/10/2008 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
especially given that its a law that your place of employment has to give you the paid time off to be able to vote.


That is limited to salaried employees only in Ohio. What demographic does that favor?


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What demographic does that favor?

Favors neither demographic. The ability to have a salaried position is available to those who have worked hard and pursued their career goals. Not everything can be made into a black & white issue, and this is one of them.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 12:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Oh so now we're back to the white man keeping blacks down. Who's fault is it that a person does not take advantage of the education that the US government provides to everyone for free? Theirs. And who's fault is it if a parent doesn't push their kid to try hard in school? Theirs.

And don't give me any whining about the poor not being able to afford college even if they do well in high school. If nothing else, you get student loans. The poor are far more eligible for federal aid too.


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Just goes to debunk every left wing education talking point....funneling more and more money into a public school system is not going to make these kids smarter, try harder, or have better careers.

Its called self, parental, and school system responsibility. If your 16 year old has no self motivation or parental motivation to do well in school and take advantage of his education down the road...dont later look at me to give him a salaried job and all the benefits.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 1:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm going to be extremely careful with my response here because I'm almost certain it will get misinterpreted.

quote:
And don't give me any whining about the poor not being able to afford college even if they do well in high school. If nothing else, you get student loans. The poor are far more eligible for federal aid too.


The problem isn't necessarily that the poor can't afford college. The college systems still have systems of admissions that are NOT entirely based on academic achievement. In some cases it's based on athletic achievement. In other cases, it is dependent on the locale from which the applicant comes. Colleges charge a lot more for out of state tuition, and tend to favor international applicants. The local University I went to (it's a UC system school) was full of international students, and had a predominantly Asian population. My initial application was rejected even though I had a high GPA, took college classes while I was still in high school, and scored well enough on advanced placement tests to get some college level courses waived. I had to fight with admissions officers for months before they reconsidered and granted me admission. They later admitted that they should have let me into the school in the first place.

Sometimes it's not the cost of the education, but the admission process. After I got into the school, I saw how much favor was granted to international students. I was held to stringent general education requirements, while a good number of the international students were able to take a pass on basic literature/writing courses and still earn a degree.

I'm not saying this is a black/white or a rich/poor issue. But the systems of selections in many of the more competitive schools is based on more than academic merit.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2008 2:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In some cases it's based on athletic achievement.


An area that heavily favors blacks. See. I can play the game too.

Where I went to college was a private college (paid for with loans and scholarships) and was over 50% international. And all state colleges charge more for out of state tuition. Thats why you go one year, get residency, and then its cheaper. These are not obstacles for admission. Student loans are in ample supply. Colleges are numerous. You may not get into your first choice and you may have to take out private loans to go, but you can.

No one in America has anything stopping them from going to college other than themselves.


By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 2:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No one in America has anything stopping them from going to college other than themselves


Cha-Ching!


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 11:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Text But to suggest that there is a conspiracy is bunk


I swear, the more time I spend on this board, the more I am of the opinion that people need to learn to read better.

He talked about controversy in the past two elections, not a conspiracy. You're arguing against a point he didn't make. Controversy is much different than conspiracy.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 11:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
My apologies for using the incorrect verbage in this case. However, in this case, to me at least, the two are interchangable. Most people who believe there was a true controversy are asserting that the Bush administration had something to do with it, thus making it a conspiracy.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 12:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people who believe there was a true controversy


I'd love to see some evidence of that idea.

I'm not disagreeing that there are some who believe there was some kind of conspiracy. But I find it inaccurate to say "Most people who believe there was a true controversy are asserting that the Bush administration had something to do with it, thus making it a conspiracy." You may get that impression because they don't support Bush, but that's different from implying that the Administration had something to do with it.

And this is something that I have found typical of those who seem to support positions on the right (I don't know if you specifically are a Republican or conservative, but you do "seem" to support those positions- forgive me if I am mistaken). In this case you say that the two ideas are interchangeable when in fact they are not in accordance with the position I read coming from drwheel.

I have commonly encountered the idea that because someone on the left feels a problem is a controversy, someone on the right believes that the person on the left is saying it's a conspiracy. Especially when the person on the left points out laws and policies in place by the government which supports the problem. This is wrong and only serves to discredit someones opinion. Whether you did that intentionally or not, I am unsure. But I notice this trend to convert "controversy" to "conspiracy" on the part of the conservatives a common tactic to discredit those who are on the left.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2008 12:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I notice this trend to convert "controversy" to "conspiracy" on the part of the conservatives a common tactic to discredit those who are on the left.

Its not just conservatives at all, its both political parties. People too often claim there is a controversy just because something that they wanted to happen, didnt happen.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/10/2008 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People too often claim there is a controversy just because something that they wanted to happen, didnt happen.


con·tro·ver·sy :
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.

Well, considering what you said was pretty much the formal definition of a controversy, I think the claim is valid.

My contention was mis-interpreting someone else's controversy into a conspiracy.


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By MrBlastman on 7/10/2008 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
Does Full Clip know you are posting here? ;)


RE: be careful what you wish for...
By drwheel on 7/10/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
lol

Damn otters. :p


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments


Latest Headlines
11/20/2009 Daily Hardware Reviews
November 20, 2009, 1:10 PM