Nice job, dems. Real classy. I'm sure all those people who voted for you in 2006 are really happy about this.

Tacoby Bellisbury: Nice job, dems. Real classy. I'm sure all those people who voted for you in 2006 are really happy about this.

So our choice is either vote in the people who will give our rights away plainly, or vote in the people who will lie about doing the same thing, and then do it.

I say we vote out anyone that held office during the last 8 years, one and all. We need to start fresh.

Good job, you goddamned spineless pansies.

ThatGuyGreg: So our choice is either vote in the people who will give our rights away plainly, or vote in the people who will lie about doing the same thing, and then do it.

I say we vote out anyone that held office during the last 8 years, one and all. We need to start fresh.

THIS, but not going to happen. I suggest 1 term limits for everything

One more reason you'll never see an impeachment. Too many dirty hands on the opposing team to allow it to happen.

Move along citizen, there's nothing to see here.

It's awesome how right around vacation time, you can get Congress to do pretty much whatever you want. They just want to get out of town, fark whatever the voters want.

Settle down, Nancies.


FTA:


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 were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:

* Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
* Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
* Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
* Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
* Prohibit the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

So much for the Fourth Amendment.

/smoking ruin

Edsel: Settle down, Nancies.


FTA:

* Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.i>

I'm sure they'll comply 100% with this one

Here's a depressing analysis of what occurred:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/20/bipartisanship/

//too upset to do linky
///farking politicians! DIAF and EABOD!

It still needs to pass the Senate, and there it may end up facing a filibuster there. Or, Obama may try to flex his muscles and kill it on the floor through a procedural move.

Code_Archeologist: It still needs to pass the Senate, and there it may end up facing a filibuster there. Or, Obama may try to flex his muscles and kill it on the floor through a procedural move.

Barack Obama has said nothing, NOTHING regarding this, and this has been ramming through since Wednesday.
He did, however, find time to make a statement about not accepting Public Financing.
Also, WHERE is Hillary Clinton on all of this? She doesn't get a free pass, either.
I think I am going to barf.

Edsel: Settle down, Nancies.

Yeah, we shouldn't mind if they took away our freedoms, so long as they halfway give them back with loopholes and exceptions.

generalDisdain: Barack Obama has said nothing, NOTHING regarding this, and this has been ramming through since Wednesday.

Are you deaf, or do you just have a short memory? Obama has been vocal about opposing telco immunity since last year. And his staff is going through the bill with a fine tooth comb right now to find ways bring together a coalition to kill the bill.

Just because he is not doing this in front of a farking camera for you, doesn't mean he isn't doing anything.

Code_Archeologist: generalDisdain: Barack Obama has said nothing, NOTHING regarding this, and this has been ramming through since Wednesday.

Are you deaf, or do you just have a short memory? Obama has been vocal about opposing telco immunity since last year. And his staff is going through the bill with a fine tooth comb right now to find ways bring together a coalition to kill the bill.

Just because he is not doing this in front of a farking camera for you, doesn't mean he isn't doing anything.

What did he do or say about this bill, this WEEK, that just passed this morning 293-129?
Perfect opportunity to show leadership, and nothing but crickets.

No politicians, regardless of party affiliation, gets a free pass on this from me.

Tacoby Bellisbury: ThatGuyGreg: So our choice is either vote in the people who will give our rights away plainly, or vote in the people who will lie about doing the same thing, and then do it.

I say we vote out anyone that held office during the last 8 years, one and all. We need to start fresh.

THIS, but not going to happen. I suggest 1 term limits for everything

Nah. They'd spend all their time campaigning and get even LESS done. Might I suggest some old fashioned drawing and quartering?

Edsel: Settle down, Nancies.


FTA:


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 were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:

* Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
* Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
* Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
* Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
* Prohibit the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

Hey, I'm all for compromise. And while I don't want to rehash yesterday's thread, this compromise stinks. We've all seen what Bush can do when he's got wiggle room.

GO single digit approval rating Congress!!!

/How low can you go?
//I think they are trying to race to the bottom

Tacoby Bellisbury: Nice job, dems. Real classy. I'm sure all those people who voted for you in 2006 are really happy about this.

I'm highly pissed. But you're still a shrill farking hypocrite.

I should just vote Republican and remove the middle man.

If only there was some Democratic presidential nominee who would speak out against this bill and defeat it.

Oh well, Barack Obama has never led before and he doesn't plan on starting now.

Diogenes: And while I don't want to rehash yesterday's thread, this compromise stinks. We've all seen what Bush can do when he's got wiggle room.

If Bush disobeys the law, there's an easy solution but apparently no one in the world wants to actually hold them accountable for it.

But as for the compromise, it looks to me as though it essentially restores the pre-Bush role of FISA.

Oh noes, they be stealin' mah freedums, and catchin' terrirists.

McCainDemocrat: If only there was some Democratic presidential nominee who would speak out against this bill and defeat it.

Oh well, Barack Obama has never led before and he doesn't plan on starting now.

2/10

Buck Fush.

we_hates: Tacoby Bellisbury: Nice job, dems. Real classy. I'm sure all those people who voted for you in 2006 are really happy about this.

I'm highly pissed. But you're still a shrill farking hypocrite.

How?

degreeless: Oh noes, they be stealin' mah freedums, and catchin' terrirists.

FTFY

Diogenes: Nah. They'd spend all their time campaigning and get even LESS done. Might I suggest some old fashioned drawing and quartering?

IT JUST MIGHT WORK!!!

Edsel: But as for the compromise, it looks to me as though it essentially restores the pre-Bush role of FISA.

Perhaps, but it begs the question as to why the original FISA guidelines were insufficient. No one has spoken to that to my knowledge. If you're going to change something, you should be able to explain why.

"Hey, we've always gotten everything we've requested from FISA. Let's fark with it!"

Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama may have GAVE A SPEECH on this bill. That makes it ALL better.

I remember when Obama got a flat tire, and he GAVE A SPEECH and his tires became inflated!

Diogenes: Tacoby Bellisbury: I suggest 1 term limits for everything

Nah. They'd spend all their time campaigning and get even LESS done.

I'm not sure you grasp the concept of term limits.

It's about time to grab some guns and head to washington.

Code_Archeologist: It still needs to pass the Senate, and there it may end up facing a filibuster there. Or, Obama may try to flex his muscles and kill it on the floor through a procedural move.

Help me, Obama-wan-kenobi. You're our only hope!

Here's the roll call (new window).

lunchinlewis: Diogenes: Tacoby Bellisbury: I suggest 1 term limits for everything

Nah. They'd spend all their time campaigning and get even LESS done.

I'm not sure you grasp the concept of term limits.

D'oh! I misread. I thought he meant 1 year terms.

Diogenes: Perhaps, but it begs the question as to why the original FISA guidelines were insufficient. No one has spoken to that to my knowledge. If you're going to change something, you should be able to explain why.

It was insufficient, and still is effectively, because there are no enforceable statutory penalties to breaking FISA or this reworked FISA.

There were laws that combined with FISA which assigned statutory penalties to individuals that acted illegally at the direction of the executive branch... but this bill sets precedent allowing those penalties to be waived if the party that broke the law thinks that they are acting in good faith and under instruction of the executive branch.

Keep REelecting the crooks folks - Dem and GOP.

/retards

Code_Archeologist: It still needs to pass the Senate, and there it may end up facing a filibuster there. Or, Obama may try to flex his muscles and kill it on the floor through a procedural move.

Obama doesn't stick his neck out for causes that will lose. He didn't campaign for Ned Lamont, for example.

McCainDemocrat: Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama may have GAVE A SPEECH on this bill. That makes it ALL better.

I remember when Obama got a flat tire, and he GAVE A SPEECH and his tires became inflated!

Well since he is not in office what are we to judge him on other then his speeches?

Is pandering is somehow exclusive to Obama now?

I am not nieve, I know 90% of what he promises he can't deliver.
Maybe its that whole his heart is in the right place scenario that pulls people in.

Would you rather a candidate give speeches supporting an action you don't agree with or supporting an action and failing to deliver?

Mr_H: Here's the roll call (new window).

Hmm. Mixed bag from the Florida reps. Rather predictable.

Are Waxman and Wexler the only two who are serious about the positions they take? I'm not fully familiar with these two, but every news item I see involving them leads me to believe that they walk the walk when it comes to holding people accountable.

ThatGuyGreg:
I say we vote out anyone that held office during the last 8 years, one and all. We need to start fresh.

This!

But only if people stop voting for people with Ds and Rs next to their names. Seriously, stop ruining the country by voting for third party candidates you numbnuts.

Mr_H: Here's the roll call (new window).

I noticed the Muslim voted No on this bill.

BOOGA BOOGA

/Really pissed at my congressman for voting for this.

McCainDemocrat: Code_Archeologist: It still needs to pass the Senate, and there it may end up facing a filibuster there. Or, Obama may try to flex his muscles and kill it on the floor through a procedural move.

Obama doesn't stick his neck out for causes that will lose. He didn't campaign for Ned Lamont, for example.

That's just plain wrong. Both claims. Have you no shame?

I Said: Are Waxman and Wexler the only two who are serious about the positions they take? I'm not fully familiar with these two, but every news item I see involving them leads me to believe that they walk the walk when it comes to holding people accountable.

I'm liking Wexler more and more. Too bad my Rep. is Rick Keller.

I heard politics is a business of give and take dealbrokering. Can anyone confirm/deny?

Anybody have the roll call for this? I looked up H.R. 6304 on thomas and it didn't have the roll call available.

Here is a question. How many of you contacted your Congressman to tell them how you felt about this? I did, as did hundreds of my friends and neighbors. And Rep. Johnson voted Nay on this bill.

In a Democracy, you get the government you deserve.