Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

*Psssst*

Large corporations exist because of government, not in spite of. When will economic leftists understand that?

The issue is less the form the concentrated power takes - government (USSR, China), private sector (US gilded age), a mix (fascism), 'noble class', or 'oligarchy' (South America).

It's more simply whether the public's interest will have much power and representation, which seems to happen best with good democracy and liberal/progressive leaders.

We're currently seeing a rise in corporatism and the concentration of wealth in the US which is bad for the public interest, with the government's subservience to them a symptom.

 

[nageov3t]

any word yet on whether Obama is going to filibuster this or break another campaign promise?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...g_telecom_immunity.php

 

[lupi]

At least he put out that sweet looking campaign seal.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: loki8481
any word yet on whether Obama is going to filibuster this or break another campaign promise?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...g_telecom_immunity.php

Change, you can believe in*









*Change is not to be associated with campaign promises or any stated goals, take as directed.

 

[ayabe]

As someone alluded to earlier, this is a major league CYA from Congress and their friends.

Johnathon Turley explains all there is to be explained in this piece from a Countdown last week:

You Tube

 

[SP33Demon]

This is fcking apalling.

 

[manowar821]

Well shit.

 

[StageLeft]

Oh well, I guess he'd rather piss off the people who pay for his lunch than those he eats it with.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

It's really too bad Ron Paul didn't pay more attention in economics class, because I like his stance on civil liberties. But he's too much of a "libertarian" on economic issues for me to like him, regardless of how libertarian he is on civil liberties.

Right, because the two parties are doing such a great job with the economy now.

No, you're right, they aren't doing so hot either. But at least they acknowledge that economics is not magic, and sprinkling free market dust on everything is not the solution to all of our economic problems.

But really, are you holding economic policy in a higher regard than your civil liberties? I don't know too many wealthy slaves.

If politicians had more respect for our rights, and had a more sane foreign policy, we wouldn't need to debate economics.

I think economic policy is extremely important, I just don't happen to think good economic policy needs to look exactly like good civil rights policy. There is obviously a balance between freedom and government on both issues, but when you're talking about the greatest benefit for the individual, I think civil liberties call for a LOT less government than economic policies do.

A government that gives a lot of leeway on civil liberties results in free people, while a government that's extremely hands-off with economic policies results in large corporations being free to do whatever they like, which is not at all the same thing.

*Psssst*

Large corporations exist because of government, not in spite of. When will economic leftists understand that?

I'm not an economic leftist, I've just studied enough economics to know how full of crap "conservatives" are. Before the government crackdown on big business, the US had some of the most abusive monopolies you can imagine...created because the government paid very little attention to what organizations like Standard Oil did. Every time someone goes off on "government interference", I feel compelled to ask everyone to go back to high school and pay attention this time in history class, where I'm sure they are still covering all the crap big business got up to before the government was really paying attention.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: loki8481
any word yet on whether Obama is going to filibuster this or break another campaign promise?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...g_telecom_immunity.php

Change, you can believe in*









*Change is not to be associated with campaign promises or any stated goals, take as directed.

HAHAHAH :thumbsup::laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Here is Chris Dodd on the Senate floor yesterday bringing the thunder on immunity, torture, surveillance, etc.

Text

We know for a fact that millions of our communications have been recorded in their entirety.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Obama votes for immunity
But he says he's against it and will try to fix it "later"

"It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Cough Cough...

News to Obama, if you say the word compromise after a vote contrary to your proclaimed stance it dosent make it OK.

Wow. I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest.

Are Dodd and Feingold going to filibuster?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

Because this is election season, and the vast majority of commentary on one candidate or the other is aimed at making sure the candidate preferred by the commentator wins. It would be nice if people just discussed issues and actions, but we all know that's naive bullshit. You can't judge a candidate as if they were the only person in the race, you need to think about the alternative.

Exactly, and in this case both candidates are closer to the same page than they are in most other issues. So, basically, if you wanted something very different than what either of them are aiming towards then you are shit out of luck. That also means that the justification for one's vote should pretty much remain unchanged. Sucks that there isn't really a 3rd option to choose from on this matter, but that's just the way it is.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: loki8481
any word yet on whether Obama is going to filibuster this or break another campaign promise?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...g_telecom_immunity.php

Change, you can believe in*









*Change is not to be associated with campaign promises or any stated goals, take as directed.

HAHAHAH :thumbsup::laugh:

That was a good one.

 

[StageLeft]

What a sham.

The 94 Democrats who changed their positions received on average $8,359 in contributions from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint from January, 2005, to March, 2008...The 116 Democrats who remained opposed to telecom immunity received an average of $4,987 from the telecoms during the three-year period...The members who voted yes on June 20 received, on average, $9,659 from the big three phone companies while those who opposed the bill received an average of $4,810

I ask, who TF does this government work for?

 

[bamacre]

Looks like yet another 4 years of zero integrity in the White House.

Real change. :roll:

 

[Robor]

Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

We have a winner!!! Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

We have a winner!!! Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

Jack sh*t cause those in charge of the law don't give a crap.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

Fine but before we grill the telco's I think we need to grill those who directed them.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Jack sh*t cause those in charge of the law don't give a crap.

Exactly. It's like busting the dealer on the street while ignoring or worse yet excusing his boss.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

Fine but before we grill the telco's I think we need to grill those who directed them.

We're not grilling anyone, it's a done deal for the most part. We'll never know.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

Fine but before we grill the telco's I think we need to grill those who directed them.

Well voting for someone who wants to let everyone off is a good start. :thumbsup:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Robor
Fine but before we grill the telco's I think we need to grill those who directed them.

We're not grilling anyone, it's a done deal for the most part. We'll never know.

That's unacceptable.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor
Serious question: Who is to blame here - the telco's or those who directed the telco's?

All who broke the law.

Fine but before we grill the telco's I think we need to grill those who directed them.

Well voting for someone who wants to let everyone off is a good start. :thumbsup:

What choice do we have? Practically, a vote for anyone but McCain or Obama is a waste.

So we can choose between the lip service opposition and the amnesty hugger.