Are you O.K. with Barack's latest? (FISA)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   


Barack Obama is facing an angry backlash from liberal voters after vowing to support a deal on Bush administration wiretaps that is due for final approval this week.


Source: www.guardian.co.uk...

Now along comes the FISA bill reworked to grant immunity to the telecom companies. This is the same bill Obama vowed to filibuster. Of course this was during the primary season when he was really reaching for the far, far left.

Now we're basically on to the general election and as happens each and every time, the far left candidate seems to slink back to the center. This is where the votes are after all.

I really can't understand the Dems just gobbling up this phonies crap. Heck you kicked Hillary to the curb and she voted NO on this bill. The left keeps screaming about the freedoms they are losing under Bush and the funniest thing is their Messiah of hope and change just jammed it up their Tu-Tu's.

You're an interesting bunch!!

Becker




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Because the reality is we need it and the democrats only used their phony outrage to gain support against Bush.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Obama is my candidate of choice, but with this, I truly feel like he screwed me, and not in a good way. I will have no alternative than to overlook it, because for my family and myself he is a better option than a war mongering elderly man with only about half his brain left. But to your original question, yes the dems were given the finger on this one.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 


I am not "Okay" with it, no. I don't approve of his vote on this, especially after saying he would support a filibuster. I do expect some of this will happen in his attempt to win the race.

I am not a Democrat or a Liberal.

Obama's Blog Response to FISA criticisms



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Hell no, he didn't keep his word. No if, then, or butts about it. This is no different then any other bill. I'm sure he would vote no on others bills if he didn't like something, regardless if it was a compromise or not. To the 28 Senators who voted no, I salute you.

Many people got screwed by the telecom and had every right to go after them. These companies knew it was against the law to give out this info without a warrant. Now they have a green light to do it again. Is privacy important or not? There is no excuse. Obama should have been a man of his word and went down fighting like the other 28. Maybe then I could believe in his change. Thus far the only change I see is a change of position.

Now many people are going to tell me to prove what has he change. Either he will get the troops out of Iraq in 16 months or he won't. If he can't guarantee me either one then he will have to change his position. That goes for every other issue and for both candidates.

If neither one can make me a promise then in the end their will be change. This is the reason reason everybody is calling each other candidate a flip flopper. I want a candidate who can make a promise, go to Washington and fight to fulfill that promise. Now if they lose that battle to Congress, at least I can say that that candidate is a person who keeps his or her word.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
Obama is my candidate of choice, but with this, I truly feel like he screwed me, and not in a good way. I will have no alternative than to overlook it, because for my family and myself he is a better option than a war mongering elderly man with only about half his brain left. But to your original question, yes the dems were given the finger on this one.


Get used to it. I predict this kind of thing isn't going to stop simply because this is pre-election. It's going to happen every time there's a majority in favor of an issue, or every time it benefits him and his croonies.

I anticipate he will do an about face on drilling sometime in the near future.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm not ok with it, and I think he made the wrong choice.

But I still agree with him on far more than I do with McCain, and there's too much at stake to risk another 4 more years of George Bush.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I'm not OK with it! Everything that spews from Obama's mouth is


He's embarrassed by Americans, his wife is unhappy with America, he's a liar and I truely believe him and his family hates America. This is not a man that I as an American want in the White House. I'll take McCain anyday over Obama.


P.S. I really don't want any of them in the Oval office.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Now this is something that is outrageous.. Unlike virtually every other "Obamas a secret Al Queda agent!" POS threads that proliferate like and by cockroaches.

NO We do not need this goddamn piece of sheet bill ... Only the IGNORANT could support this bill..

FISA has worked for years.. You can even start a wire tap and get the warrant later... (warrants were virtually NEVER denied)--

The Government has and had enough power already.. giving them more and then shielding the Telecoms for violating our 4th Amendment rights is traitorous.

It reeks of political maneuvering ... so as not to make any waves... For Obama, hopefully when he is in.. he can use his extensive knowledge of the Constitution to change the outrages against it...

Although it is SSDD as usual.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Do you really want to know why he did what he did? I'll tell you why.

Because as a briefed and cleared member of Congress and presidential contender, he has access to the actual intelligence that this surveillance is producing. The DNI probably gave him a briefing of all the useful intelligence that this program has been producing over the past few years. I'm sure that most of it was pretty eye-opening.

Then, the DNI probably said "Senator, if you are elected President, you will not have access to this information if our surveillance capabilities are removed. You will make uninformed decisions affecting national security and the lives of our sevicemen, and terrorists will more easily infiltrate our country and systems while you sit in the Oval Office, blissfully ignorant. All because a bunch of internet nerds think we really give a crap about where they stash their weed, or who is boffing who. And when some building comes crashing down, or a bunch of innocent bystanders are slaughtered, the public and the press will call for your head, claiming you were asleep at the switch, and not doing enough to keep them safe and warm and cozy. Just thought you should know".

Not a hard decision, really.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


I starred that post because you cracked me up by using weed and boffing in the same sentence.

Now to the point. Based on your assumption concerning the revelation of news based on Obama's current political standing, why then would Hillary vote "NO". She has high level clearance and if hers is not enough, Bill's got carte blanche being an ex-prez.

Just playing a little devils advocate here. I look forward to your thoughts.

Becker



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


I respect what your saying but I don't buy it. No matter how good our info is the President will still be accused of not doing enough. That is just the way the ball rolls. Invading the privacy of millions of Americans in hope of finding a terrorist is like finding a needle in a haystack. Could somebody please tell me if any of that information that was acquired illegally led to the arrest of any terrorist?

I am willing to bet that it didn't. Otherwise, we would have already heard of it as justification as to why we need this bill. What's next- police have right to search you, your car, or house for no reason just because you might have info that might lead to a terrorist? That is a big might. If the government wants the info they should get a warrant, not give immunity. Immunity only gives the companies the right to violate our privacy again whenever the government sees fit.

Obama voted yes after saying he would fight against it. He didn't keep his word. I guess that is what he calls change and hope is when I say that you better hope this doesn't come back to bite Americans in the butt.

60 something other Senators also were in favor of this bill. I am po'd at all of them. This bill may be intended to find terrorist in the beginning but will be used against us in the future. That is just the way the government works. Whether you like it or not they got us by the gonads and all we can do is squeal.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
What are all you Obamanites complaining about? "Change we can Believe in" right? He's a new style politician, right? Good luck with him as your Candidate this Fall. Expect more flip flops, and watch them spin the flops into reevaluations of policy.

It's like Kerry all over again "I was against the Surge in Iraq before I was for the Surge in Iraq". He will change his "policy" on troop withdrawals when he actually visits Iraq and talks to the commanders on the ground.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 


I would imagine that if Hillary Clinton did indeed vote "no" on this issue, it was because she has everything to gain from a no vote (pandering to the left-wing moonbats that currently dominate the Democratic Party), while having very little to lose since she is officially out of the running.

It's all about scoring political points at opportune times, while simultaneously planning for future events.

Hillary is scoring points now to be used in her political future, which is uncertain. Obama is making politically unpopular decisions now, in an effort to strengthen his future position of POTUS. The last thing anybody wants to do is weaken the presidency....right before you are about to become President! Also, Obama must have a way to counter McCain charges of "Soft on Terrorists!", which McCain has already used very effectively. Obama has no choice, politically and realisticly, other than to move to the center and sign what is ultimately a very unpopular but incredibly useful and necessary piece of legislation.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Pyros is right on the money. Humor aside (and his response was very funny), he summed it up with the following:


Obama has no choice, politically and realisticly, other than to move to the center and sign what is ultimately a very unpopular but incredibly useful and necessary piece of legislation.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I understand that many people feel that no matter what they need to vote for Obama because McCain is horrible, but I don't think that this is the right choice. Obama's entire campaign is being run on this mantra of change, and because of it he won the primary. Now, I think it is quite obvious that there will be no change. No surprise here though. Remember when Pelosi was promising to get the troops out of Iraq, and was going to get Bush, only to do the exact opposite after elected?

The Republicans are just as bad (though thats not what this thread is about so I won't go into detail). The two party system has made our government horribly inept at best, and corrupt at worst. Congress's approval rating is 9%. Wake up! Neither party cares about the average person. They make promises to get your vote, and then don't keep them. The point is, if all of you Obama supporters are excited over the idea of change, the mobilize and VOTE THIRD PARTY!



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Ben Franklin



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becker44


Barack Obama is facing an angry backlash from liberal voters after vowing to support a deal on Bush administration wiretaps that is due for final approval this week.


Source: www.guardian.co.uk...

Now along comes the FISA bill reworked to grant immunity to the telecom companies. This is the same bill Obama vowed to filibuster. Of course this was during the primary season when he was really reaching for the far, far left.


What Obama is doing -- very unwisely I might add -- is making it possible for Jesse Ventura to launch a credible run for the White House.

After the FISA vote I expect Ralph Nader to launch a presidential campaign from the left. But the important thing to watch is if Jesse Ventura announces he is running for President. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jesse Ventura announced such a run for the White House on Monday.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
What Obama is doing is making it possible for himself to run for the White House with a chance of winning


He supported the amendment stripping the telecom immunity provision, and it failed. Then he voted yes on FISA.

I disagree with his vote, on the other hand I suspect if he had voted against FISA, the far right types on here would have been posting a thread called "Traitor Obama Votes to Protect Terrorists From Eavesdropping" within about 15 minutes


Frankly I think if he had voted against FISA, he would have guaranteed that he lost the election in the fall.

Period.

It's sad but true - with Hannity and O'Reily on TV, and after 8 years of Bush in the White House, most Americans these days think that the Fourth Amendment is a left-wing technicality that protects the terrorists from Bruce Willis


The right wing noise machine gives McCain a free pass on defense issues, but Obama knows he won't get one.

[edit on 7/10/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I completely agree with you!

And now that he HAS voted for this, the right is using it to try to convince Obama supporters that we should all abandon Obama for the traitor he supposedly is.

No matter how he voted, the right would try to use it as a weapon.

I'm not happy with this vote, but it's not going to change who I vote for.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join