Because of FISA and Hollywood's complicit collusion with the Pentagon, I *beg for intelligent democracy.

These fools have passed a faulty Fisa bill, and now they want to toy with Nuclear War.

When the fuck will these idiots get their heads out of their asses!

No one wins a Nuclear war. (Japan didn't have nukes therefore the US acted without threat of retaliation) now we have that threat. These people will surely use their fire power to bring damage, and cause an all out world war.

Sooner or later some country isn't going to be pushed around by the US.

Obama voted yay for the Fisa Amendments.

Better get your encryption software going people, because this bill basically nullifies the original bill (which protects private citizens).

I hold these lies to be self-evident:

1. There are actually definitions for "left" and "right"
2. What he is describing as "right" is actually libertarian, while "left" is authoritarian.
3. On the political compass, which measures both the real left/right polarity, as well as libertarian/authoritarian scale of an individual, you can see that Kucinich is more libertarian than Ron Paul.
4. Republic also has a definition -- and it's not the one he gives (though it's not a very specific term, generally).
5. The United States, despite the famous quote, is a Representative Democracy, or on this scale, an Oligarchy, leaning towards Democracy.

As for a government limited by law, it's more like a goal than an immobile fact. We've gotta make that happen, by making sure Impeachment is on the table, and shredding the Constitution is off it.

You want to make a cogent argument in favor of defending Constitutional limits on power, Ron Paul's party has provided many of late -- if he wanted to defend the Constitution, he shouldn't have ducked the vote on FISA when it came up in the House.

You want to lie to people about what left and right means, you might as well be a neocon, even if your goal is one I ultimately agree with.

>> ^blankfist:
Outrageous! Certainly the use of fear by the government. Great post.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
O RLY? I think you would change your tune if you ever lived in a real police state.

I live in America. This is a real police state. You can start with why we have FISA, move to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and end with the Patriot Act. If that's not enough for you, I've got more! For someone who says they follow Ron Paul, you sure don't listen to what he says, gunner. I'd say start here. It's about as good a book I've ever read. I think everyone, no matter your party affiliation, could learn something from that book. Easy read.


MarineGunRock only reads books with pictures.

Outrageous! Certainly the use of *fear by the government. Great post.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
O RLY? I think you would change your tune if you ever lived in a real police state.


I live in America. This is a real police state. You can start with why we have FISA, move to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and end with the Patriot Act. If that's not enough for you, I've got more! For someone who says they follow Ron Paul, you sure don't listen to what he says, gunner. I'd say start here. It's about as good a book I've ever read. I think everyone, no matter your party affiliation, could learn something from that book. Easy read.

^ Second the David Brooks is an idiot. He's just whining because he doesn't like the thought of a tough Democrat.

Besides, Obama always said he'd consider public financing, he did not unequivocally commit to it, contrary to what that obviously objective John McCain guy says.

Let's look at McCain's flip-flops.

My favorites:

Against off-shore drilling, now advocates it.

Thought Iraq would be easy, now says he always knew it would be hard.

Has been both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Against Bush tax cuts, now for them.

Against torture, now for it.

Oh, and how could I forget? John McCain is an election finance criminal.

Technically that last one isn't a flip-flop, but a long-held position, but it seems relevant to the conversation anyways.

David Brooks is a Republican cheerleader. If he wanted to slam Obama for a serious flip-flop, he'd have to talk FISA, but Brooks won't do that because in his very prestigious role as a Republican cheerleader, that's Obama seeing reason, not selling out the 4th amendment.

I think Brooks' article was entertaining read, but I think Republicans like Brooks seem to think all of Obama's appeal comes from being "a different kind of politician", and that any time he makes a smart tactical or strategic move, it's evidence that he's "just another politician." They think articles like this will "shatter the illusion", and make us all get luvey-dovey about McCain, who's a "straight-talker".

If you read through the article I linked and the videos I linked, you'll find that if Brooks is really concerned about us liking a "two-faced politician", he needs to write an expose about McCain.

I won't be holding my breath.

BTW, note the conspicuous absence of any commentary on FISA.

It's been funny to watch how all the conservative pundits are going apeshit over Obama opting out of public financing.

Funny how they, too, don't try to hit him hard for caving on FISA. That would actually damage him in the eyes of the country, but I guess there are some limits to their hypocrisy -- they think FISA is Vital To National Security.

Count me as a member of the rational minority who's pissed at Obama about this.

I'm watching to see how the Senate portion of this plays out, but I'm not hopeful.

Someone on one of the blogs I was reading was arguing that the immunity is just for civil cases, and has nothing to do with criminal cases...and that the compromise is really a "win" for our side, since the Republicans will think they won, only to get hauled off in irons when AG Edwards tries them for treason...

But that seems like grasping at straws to me.

This whole surveillance issue obviously won't go away, but this leaves things in a dangerous state (Presidents can spy on anyone, without probable cause).

It also pretty much guarantees that any crimes committed with domestic spying by Bush & co. won't be revealed to the public, let alone get a day in court. Guess we'll just have to try them for one of their countless other crimes.

edit: I remembered where I'd heard about the immunity only being for civil cases. It wasn't from blogs, but from Olbermann.

Obama supports the FISA bill but says he will "work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses"

Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."

The liberal blogs are all sending out "call your representatives, NOW" messages.

Kos had a conspicuously brief comment on it:

When we started this "netroots" thing, we worked to get "more and better Democrats" elected. At first, we focused on the "more" part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the "better" part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the "better" part.

That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large.

We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010.

We're going to have to count on the Ron Pauls, the Dennis Kuciniches, Chris Dodds, Russ Feingolds, Robert Wexlers, and Pat Leahys to pull out some sort of gambit to block this (again).

It's shameful that this is being done, and that they're trying to give themselves immunity, when there's not likely to be a court decision that penalizes anyone for it in a meaningful way. Hell, no one was going to wind up charged with treason for betraying their oath to the Constitution.

We'd just fine AT&T a month's profit from iPhone service, and say "justice served."

At least that way, it'd be on the record as being something the government is still saying is against the law, rather than just written on some piece of hide stretched out in a display case in DC.

If there are any sifters out there who feel this should be stopped, please, call your representatives, for numbers, go here.

I also want to point out the defining characteristics, in my mind, of those Democratic candidates we've left behind:

8. Gravel -- angry about something (they never really let him talk about what)

7. Kucinich -- Fought against corporate corruption in Cleveland, Ohio. Promised to repeal NAFTA, to instigate a carbon tax, and bring our troops home as quickly as possible. According to several online political quizzes, closest match to my own views. (Oh, and a hot european wife, something I also strongly support)

6. Biden -- Passionate, and by far the most experienced with foreign policy. Not really terribly resistant to business influences, though.

5. Dodd -- Passionate, well spoken constitutionalist. Wants to kill FISA by any means. Wants to ensure Bush & co. are brought to justice for their crimes. Father was one of the prosecutors at the trials at Nuremberg. I'd love to see him as Senate Majority leader.

4. Richardson -- Good foreign policy experience. Hispanic. Didn't seem to have much in the way of policy differences between himself and the top three.

3. Edwards -- Son of a millworker. One-time senator of North Carolina. Spoke passionately about the economic division in America (the two Americas). Had a voting record that didn't back up hardly any of his rhetoric. The early favorite of the kossacks.

2. Clinton -- Wife of someone famous, not sure who. Apparently has already served two terms as President, not sure how she's not in violation of the 22nd amendment. Sat on the board of directors at Wal-Mart. Led a failed initiative for Health care reform in 1993. Has been planning Presidential run since before being elected to the US Senate in 2000 (since she was 12, some say). Currently proclaims to be a freedom fighter for the disenfranchised in Florida. Was oddly silent on the issue in 2000, and even as recently as February, 2008.

1. Obama -- Inspirational speaker. Limited experience, but has shown good judgement. Has passed legislation in favor of transparency in government in his short time in the Senate. Opposed the Iraq war from the start (like Kucinich and Gravel). Has run a fantastic campaign.

My preference in July, 2007 was "anyone but Hillary". Obama wasn't my first choice. Kucinich was, but I knew he'd never make it. I followed the kossacks in supporting Edwards, until it became clear in South Carolina that he was done for.

I praise Obama highly, but he's my 3rd choice. The media buried all the rest.

If the media could, they'd bury him too. They sure have done a good job of keeping Hillary propped up.

meh, when I tried to post it, it failed
http://www.videosift.com/video/FISA-Protecting-America-or-executive-power-grab

anyway, good insightful clip!

I think that #9 stands out the most today. FISA anyone?

Please... The current FISA act more that sufficiently allows for the protection of the US. There is support for extension to its time periods also. Most people that claim it isn't sufficient don't actually know what the current FISA laws allow.

There is no need for baseless, warrantless wiretaps.