telecom immunity

[Jerome Scuggs]

well civil liberties, it was nice knowing you i guess. r.i.p.

[Kolar]

Awesome:

The compromise bill would have a federal district court review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork is in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

At least Leahy opposes it, not all the Dems are folding. They do have weak majorities in the house and senate so it's not entirely their fault. It does expire in 2012 so if they push this one through it won't be forever. McCain and Obama both need to give their opinions on the new FISA bill.

Edit: The Congressional approval ratings are even lower then Bush's. They seriously need to rethink this shit.

[Izor]

oh for christ sake shut the fuck up. The only reason ratings are so low is because everyone whines about stupid shit. Everyone like the people on these forums has their own ideal view on how shit should be run and they dont settle for anything less. No one is going to please you people. Even should a dem be elected, hes going to change shit to his liking, which is much closer to your liking, and youll still whine and bitch about it.

[DoTheFandango]

chris dodd, where are you?

[Squeezer]

chris dodd, where are you?

fuck him and fuck this congress.

hooray! Thanks to your Connecticut homeboy the govt. is one step closer to viewing our every interaction.

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom...?press_id=2571

this one's better:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1941.cfm

[Kolar]

The only reason they're so low Izor is because they've taken it up the ass for the last 7 years. In politics you take the good with the bad, it's easy for a politician to support one good measure and just as easy for another to attach a terrible one to it. The system at its core is broken but there's a lot of trouble when the Dems openly concede on an issue such as civil liberties when they arguably won the House and Senate with their commitment to clean up the system and bring in a stronger moral and ethical standard than that of the party of Government.

[DoTheFandango]

fuck him and fuck this congress.

hooray! Thanks to your Connecticut homeboy the govt. is one step closer to viewing our every interaction.

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom...?press_id=2571

this one's better:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1941.cfm

don't diss him, he tried to filibuster the telecom shit. that's what I was referring to. CT politics are absolute garbage. Plus the stuff your citing makes absolutely no sense to me. further, he was in favor of a full war pull out.

[Squeezer]

don't diss him, he tried to filibuster the telecom shit. that's what I was referring to. CT politics are absolute garbage. Plus the stuff your citing makes absolutely no sense to me. further, he was in favor of a full war pull out.

Yeah, the links are a little unclear if you don't have background on what's going on.

Dodd submitted a 600+ page document proposing his (and two other senator's) ideas on how to fix the housing crisis. Tacked on to this rather large bill is an amendment to allow the govt. to view and tax internet companies on ALL transactions filed. Basically it means paying taxes on anything purchased online (via Amazon, ebay, paypal etc.) and eliminates the idea of free trade on the internet by taxing credit card companies for using said services. It's going to force prices up and unnecessary costs on goods sold online through the US. The consumer will ultimately pay the price.

No one owns the internet so how can they tax it?

And furthermore, drawing funds from the intertubes to cover the obviously flawed and failing mortgage system is putting a band aid on the wound. This is a lazy suggestion and one that would allow the govt. to monitor purchases to an even fuller extent. Remember just a few years ago when the Democrats were crying about the Patriot Act? That's why Mr. Dodd can fuck off.

I'm sure he's a good guy, but I really disagree with this piece of legislation.

edit: Read up on the guy a bit more. Sounds like he's going to be the one to start the filibuster on the FISA legislation. Doesn't change his attack on net neutrality, but he's definitely not one of the worst.

[Summa]

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008...upporting.html

you decide for yourself, but to me it sounds like he doesn't like it and backs the filibuster, but hes too big of a pansy to vote against it if it comes up to vote for.....like i said you decide....there is also this statement


Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

[Jerome Scuggs]

oh for christ sake shut the fuck up. The only reason ratings are so low is because everyone whines about stupid shit. Everyone like the people on these forums has their own ideal view on how shit should be run and they dont settle for anything less. No one is going to please you people. Even should a dem be elected, hes going to change shit to his liking, which is much closer to your liking, and youll still whine and bitch about it.

[Izor]

you ARE an ass hat. All you ever do is whine about our government. whine whine whine whine whine. im not 'refuting the central point' because its not important to me.

[404 Not Found]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.
In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the "Protect America Act," which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

It may not be all that important to Izor, but in allowing what has transpired with these wiretaps on American citizens within the borders of the U.S.A.without any legal warrants, then the 4th Amendment to the Constitution holds no merit whatsoever. In noting the allowance of this abuse, it makes no sense as to why we should even argue about Abortion or Gun laws. The entire Constitution should be viewed as an old document holding no merits to any laws or lifestyle we live in as of today. It is more or less an old sheet of toilet paper.

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe. This would also be great for anyone in the military that take on a don't question and just follow orders mentality.

[DoTheFandango]

you ARE an ass hat. All you ever do is whine about our government. whine whine whine whine whine. im not 'refuting the central point' because its not important to me.

[Reaver]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.
In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the "Protect America Act," which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

It may not be all that important to Izor, but in allowing what has transpired with these wiretaps on American citizens within the borders of the U.S.A.without any legal warrants, then the 4th Amendment to the Constitution holds no merit whatsoever. In noting the allowance of this abuse, it makes no sense as to why we should even argue about Abortion or Gun laws. The entire Constitution should be viewed as an old document holding no merits to any laws or lifestyle we live in as of today. It is more or less an old sheet of toilet paper.

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe. This would also be great for anyone in the military that take on a don't question and just follow orders mentality.

Well said.

[Izor]

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe.

You watch FAR too much tv