Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Telecom Amnesty Foes On the Move

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the one-week-and-counting dept.

Democrats 363

ya really notes a blog posting up at Wired reporting that foes of the Telecom Amnesty Bill have mounted a campaign on Barack Obama's own website. Though the group was created only days ago, on June 25, it has grown to be the fifth largest among 7,000 such groups, just short of Women for Obama. Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again. Meanwhile, left-leaning bloggers and libertarian activists have joined forces to raise $325,000 in the fight against the legislation. "Their Blue America PAC is already targeting House Democrats who voted for the bill, including placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post [an image appears in the Wired story] slamming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who claimed credit for creating the so-called compromise bill. The coalition plans to follow-up with a Ron Paul-style money bomb, which will be used to target key Senators..."

cancel ×

363 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait a minute... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014017)

A slashdot story where *Democrats* are the bad guy? Did I wake up in the Bizzaro universe???

frist piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014021)

lol what

Barack Obama (4, Insightful)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014027)

This is what happens when someone promises intangible things and bases their entire campaign upon promising 'change' and 'hope,' two things which mean whatever you want, and mean different things to different people.

Too bad he couldn't actually give real promises and expectations other than 'hope' this and 'change' that.

Bloody sheep. You all deserve the hell you're creating for us.

This guy has a point. (0, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014107)

I agree with this guy!

He has the capacity to actually demand change, and the political clout and media presence to shame these people who think cowing to a fundamentally unreasonable demand like our fourth amendment rights is "centerist" into standing up for americans on both sides of the aisle.

He didn't, and given the words on his site "i'm asking you to believe", It's an even greater insult.

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014117)

Don't mind me, just channelling Robert Heinlein again.

Re:This guy has a point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014155)

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

Well now that sounds like a really mature and intelligent way to deal with it.

Re:This guy has a point. (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014195)

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

Well now that sounds like a really mature and intelligent way to deal with it.

If he's going to be nothing more than a sock puppet for crypto-fascist republicans and their propaganda ministers at fox news, we are screwed either way this election. It's best to keep slapping the one party which MAY have some virtue left until it rouses at last and gains some righteous fury!

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014281)

If he's going to be nothing more than a sock puppet for crypto-fascist republicans and their propaganda ministers at fox news, we are screwed either way this election.

When did begrudgingly accepting a compromise mean "being a sock puppet"? I swear, you people have this out of proportion.

The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.

Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014313)

Sorry 'bout the formatting; messed up my closing italics tag above.

supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future

Explicitly and unambiguously illegal, that is, in such a way that the telcos can't be told that they're going to be able to weasel out of it again.

Re:This guy has a point. (3, Insightful)

TargetBoy (322020) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014339)

How about letting it expire and acting on making it illegal in the next term?

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Insightful)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014453)

Fuck forgiveness.

I'm a lot more inclined to put some heads on some pikes as a warning to future generations. That'll work much better than "passing a law" as to "make it illegal in the future"... guess what, it's illegal NOW. Why do you think they're asking for immunity?

The whole problem is that the current administration has run rough-shot over the laws by violating them and then thumbing their noses at us and show us how little teeth the current batch of laws has over them. And your solution is to pass a law? Screw that. I'm all in favor of taking a tier 1 telcom company and burning it to the ground so maybe next time they'll actually protect the citizens rights instead of kowtowing to a schmuck president. After that, THEN pass a law and poeple will actually take notice.

They had a duty to us, the citizens, and they screwed us. Fuck 'em. And unfortunately, they're just a poor substitute for the REAL criminals.

d

Re:This guy has a point. (1, Funny)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014575)

channeling a bit of JMS

I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this.

Re:This guy has a point. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014593)

Didn't I see you at several WTO riots, um...I mean protests?

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Insightful)

The Spoonman (634311) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014599)

Exactly right. AT&T deserves to be shutdown completely and made an example of. You know, kinda how this whole site cries for the same thing to happen to Microsoft BECAUSE THEY PUT A BROWSER IN THEIR OS. The vagaries of scale on this site are just unbelievable sometimes. "Bundle a browser...lock 'em up and throw away the key! Illegally wiretap American citizens? Eh, they learned their lesson, then won't do it again..."

What's most sickening is how so many people are SCREAMING to have this bill blocked, yet the politicians are actively voting against the wishes of their constituency. They're not even pretending to care anymore.

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014829)

Why can't I have mod points for this!

+1 insightful my friend.

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014519)

People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future..

It is illegal now. Why not leave it that way?
Are you so naive to think that electoral calculations did not play a part in Obama's stance?

Re:This guy has a point. (3, Informative)

theM_xl (760570) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014665)

To add some perspective to your forgiveness, as an aside to making it illegal (well, MORE illegal) it makes doing it legally laughably easy.

Jefferson wept (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014717)

the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.

Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness

So the message is: Your masters can get away with anything.

No wonder Cheney can hunt the most dangerous game with impunity, he knows damn well that even if he shoots people in the face, there's nothing the People will do about it. That would mean the "left" would "won"! Can't have that!

Slaves to their "sides", sheeps, argh!

Re:This guy has a point. (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014181)

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.

Re:This guy has a point. (0)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014203)

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.


A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.

actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014243)

To put it in a historical analogy (which is bound to be a huge success), you're planning to defeat the evil Cubans by supporting the Soviet Union? Do you honestly think the republicans are the democrats' biggest enemy? They are the closest allies! The two major parties are closer to each other than to any other entity. As I said, don't be part of the problem.

Re:This guy has a point. (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014677)

Is the goal to express disgust? Or to make someone lose? Those aren't the goals. The goal is to give the power to those who would use it properly, to select a prsident, and to decide which parties have enough support to be given the recognition and funding to participate in the debate.

Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates. Since 50% of the people don't vote at all, that's a lot of potential for the green or libertarian parties to get noticed. Heck, if those 50% just voted completely randomly, it would be a landslide change in politics.

Re:This guy has a point. (2, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014679)

Engrish is my forth language, but I remember an old saying....

Cutting your nose off to spite your face

Re:This guy has a point. (4, Interesting)

parcel (145162) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014783)

A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.

actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.

Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama [aclu.org] and McCain [aclu.org] would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.

Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014397)

Not voting at all doesn't express disgust, it expresses laziness. Voting for third party and independent candidates shouldn't scoffed at as a vote of disgust either but rather a willingness to leave the beaten path.

Personally, I'm going with the third party vote as I have in the past. No because I'm disgusted but because it's what I believe.

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014491)

Not voting at all doesn't express disgust, it expresses laziness.

Low voter turnout in the USA is regularly interpreted as people being digusted and disillusioned of the system. A politically correct name to put it is "voter apathy".

Voting for third party and independent candidates shouldn't scoffed at as a vote of disgust either but rather a willingness to leave the beaten path.

Of course not. Votes for small parties are not protest votes at all. Protest votes are mainly voting for "the other big party".

Re:This guy has a point. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014751)

Low voter turnout in the USA is regularly interpreted as people being digusted and disillusioned of the system. A politically correct name to put it is "voter apathy".

Unfortunately, with the high voter turnout in the primaries, it's looking like this will by a high-turnout election in November.

Protest votes are mainly voting for "the other big party".

That's not a protest vote. Sure, they want you to think that's a protest vote, but it's not. As you said, above, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicrats and Democans. Vote for one, you might as well have voted for the other, for as long as you do, nothing will ever change in this country.

IOW, people, if you want the "change" and "hope" Barack Obama is promising you, you won't get it voting either for McCain or Obama.

Re:This guy has a point. (5, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014821)

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

And yet, looking through your previous postings, it is obvious that you ARE a republican, not a libertarian. Nice move. You are worthy of working with W or Rove.

Re:Barack Obama (4, Interesting)

aurispector (530273) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014171)

It was bound to happen. Reading the "walks-on-water" posts by supporters on various websites has been a laugh. Who really believes in election-year promises anyway? The democrats walked away from their traditional base of labor and minorities during the Clinton administration, but the younger voters don't remember that. Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter. Oil and finance on one side, media and entertainment on the other, both marching in lockstep toward corporate-controlled fascism.

The only thing Obama (or anyone else) could do to impress me is tell the far left/right to f*ck off, but since they're the ones controlling their respective parties, it ain't gonna happen. The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.

In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!

Re:Barack Obama (4, Funny)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014225)

If you are calling pelosi and dean the "far left" you need to go back to your comfort zone reading Ann Coulter and watching the Oreilly factor.

Far left, in the US. (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014295)

Yeah right. You got extreme right and extremist right and that is it.

Far left in the US, what a joke.

Oh and what you are basically saying is that Obama should become yet another middle of the roader, neither left nor right. That doesn't work, it only leads to the slow ruin the US is currently experiencing.

It doesn't really matter if a country is run by the left or the right as long as they stick to it. Try to appease everyone and you end up with a complete mess.

Re:Barack Obama (1)

us7892 (655683) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014465)

Reading the "walks-on-water" posts by supporters on various websites has been a laugh

Agreed. Somehow, he's "the one".

Re:Barack Obama (3, Interesting)

doojsdad (1162065) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014545)

First you say that the parties are controlled by corporations, then you say they should tell the far left/right to fuck off. Which one is it? From my perspective it's the far left that is trying to *prevent* the corporate fascism... (see WTO riots). What you said doesn't make sense.

Re:Barack Obama (2, Funny)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014657)

In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!

It could be similar to "BLING BLING"

http://www.blacknews.com/pr/blingblinggame101.html [blacknews.com]

"Players become adventurers in an inner city setting, trying to gather up as much money and property as possible in the 30 to 60 minutes that it takes to play."

Change that to "power" and "information", and there you go.

Or you could just play the college ghetto version of fascist interrogation.

Player1: "What is you name?"
Player2: "..."
Player1: "LIAR!"

Player 1 thus wins a free /slap at Player2.

Re:Barack Obama (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014189)

It's all very easy, when the time to vote comes around you just consider the candidates, all of them, and vote for who you would actually like to run the country.
Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.
The goal isn't to vote for who you think will win, you don't get points for picking the right one.
Yes the guy you voted for probably won't get in but he might get say 5%.
and next election people saw that he got a noticeable percentage and some of the sheep who think voting for someone who isn't going to win is somehow a waste might throw in their votes as well.
Then the next perhaps someone who you'd actually like to see in charge might get 10%, the next election even more.

If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system.

Re:Barack Obama (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014273)

This idea might work if so many people did not rely on the nightly news to tell them what the candidates are about. I am resigned to taking the slow route as you describe and spreading the words about candidates that are going to be good for the country or whose beliefs are good for our government and the people. It won't be until MSM is doing the same things that we'll see change in the US political system.

When we can show who got contributions and who changed their votes on immunity for telecomms and how much they got.... damn! just damn! The whole system looks corrupt to even the simplest of people yet here we are having to argue against it.

It's just sick.

Re:Barack Obama (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014585)

Exactly. Proponents of the "lesser of two evils" line of thinking forget that elections are not a single round game. There is an election every four years. Unless people think that voting for the lesser of two evils makes the difference between having future elections at all or not, the sound strategy is to vote for who you think represents your interests the closest. Btw, google for "douglas adams lizards"

Re:Barack Obama (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014779)

It's all very easy, when the time to vote comes around you just consider the candidates, all of them, and vote for who you would actually like to run the country.
Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.

Sounds great. Now if only someone worth voting for could get on the ballot here.

John Lennon (3, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014249)

This is what happens when someone promises intangible things and bases their entire campaign upon promising 'change' and 'hope,'

John Lennon nailed it:

Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky
Gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope

Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

Re:John Lennon (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014357)

I really don't like John Lennon. He was an idealist, and like all other idealists, forgot that reality did not allow his beautiful utopian plans to come into existance, and he is responsible for a great deal of vapid people running around spouting politics that were great fourty years ago but are stagnating now. And I'm not even sure half of what the hippies had to say was even worth listening to, let alone good.

Re:John Lennon (1)

zifferent (656342) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014503)

Idealists can be good or dangerous. Our forefathers were idealists.
Of course they started a war.
I don't think people have that kind of intestinal fortitude anymore.
I blame television.
In the end I think John Lennon understood that the odds against his utopia were stacked against him, I think that's exactly why he was so vocal. Besides who else was better schooled in the power of music to bring about change.
To be completely honest I feel that if John were alive today he'd be a conservative. Don't ever underestimate how much the Beatles hated taxes.

Re:John Lennon (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014759)

Besides who else was better schooled in the power of music to bring about change.

Woody Guthrie [wikipedia.org] , whose guitar had the inscription "This machine kills fascists".

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign there, It said "Private Property"
But on the other side, it didn't say nothing!
That side was made for you and me.

You are a clumsy troll (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014257)

Namecalling, distortion. Do you get McCain points for this?

Re:You are a clumsy troll (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014471)

Other than calling the populace 'bloody sheep' there was no name calling. There was certainly no distortion. He hit the nail on the head with regards to Obama.

Re:Barack Obama (1)

beh (4759) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014461)

Ah - so you'd rather have a politician who promises specific things and breaks them after the election (e.g. 'No more taxes!')?

Wake up and smell the coffee - the only difference is that someone has the honesty of saying in advance he doesn't know how much CAN actually be changed past all goings on on Capitol Hill.
The other candidate may promise whatever specific things (like, say, 'No more taxes!' - but you don't have any recourse if he breaks them after the election.

Re:Barack Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014481)

You people are spouting off without knowing anything about which you speak.

Obama has been entirely consistent in his position.

The original bill granted immunity for the corporate telecom criminals. Obama opposed this.

An amendment was added that changed the immunity to an exemption from civil penalties, but allowed for criminal penalties.

Obama wants these criminals to do hard time, so he supports the bill with the amendment.

If the amendment is stricken from the final bill, or another amendment added to give them criminal protection, Obama will oppose the bill.

All this will be without changing his position a single time.

Maybe you should pay attention before you speak your anti-democracy trash.

Sheesh.

Re:Barack Obama (1, Informative)

cptsexy (948021) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014569)

I am not a walk on water supporter, there are plenty of things I disagree with him on, but is it even a choice between him and Granpa McCrazy? To clarify something for you he actually was very clear on FISA earlier in the campaign. His previous statement made in January is below. [firedoglake.com] (bold is mine)

I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens â" and set an example to the world â" that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power â" and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law. It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

So while you say all he promises are hope and change he actually does take positions on these things. Imagine what you can discover when you do the slightest bit of research. It's his seeming shift to the middle and abandonment of this statement that has people pissed. Not that we misunderstood what he was talking about.

Re:Barack Obama (1)

kidcharles (908072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014595)

I agree that Obama's campaign has been marked by vagueness, but on this particular issue he was actually rather clear about opposing telecom immunity, but then did an about face. I was planning on supporting him both financially and with labor to help get him elected, but now he gets nothing from me. I'll give my money to the new batch of Democratic congresspeople and candidates, many of whom are unapologetically progressive and reject telecom amnesty.

Jesse Ventura the only one I still believe in (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014603)

Never thought the day would come when a professional wrestler would represent our best hope as President.

Obama said up-front exactly what 'change' is (5, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014707)

...if you weren't reading his books or listening to his speeches (as opposed to the sound bites), I suppose you could miss it. The "new kind of politics" he discusses isn't a change in what he as a Democrat supports; the change is in how he goes about supporting it.

If you've been paying attention to American politics lately, you'll notice that you've got the Left and the Right, and they pretty much hate each other. The Left paints the Right as being a bunch of religious war-mongering nutjobs who hate people having freedoms their religion proscribes, and the Right paints the Left as being a bunch of new-age peacenick nutjobs with no regard for personal accountability who hate their religion.

The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!"). Read A Call To Renewal [barackobama.com] , and appreciate how its message different from the way Democratic politicians have behaved in the past. Obama is promising a presidency which is serious about the "uniter, not a divider" thing, even while still effectively backing the Democrats' agenda -- by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base. For someone young enough to have never seen American politics that aren't divisive, that's genuine change.

The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.

So there you are -- real promises and expectations, described by 'hope' this and 'change' that.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014743)

  1. Bush was the criminal.
  2. McCain supported the actions AND the original full amnesty.
  3. HRC supported the original full amnesty.
  4. BHO supports the modified amnesty

Assuming that you are dem, then all candidates except for HRC and BHO had dropped out early. So, you are left with a full amnesty, or a partial.

Assuming that you wanted amnesty (i.e. let the criminals go totally free), than what hell did BHO cause?

OTH, Assuming that you do not want amnesty, then you are left with the option of full or partial, of which only BHO supports the partial.

and yet, you blame him for causing chaos.

With logic like that, I am guessing that Yyou are a neo-con republican.

About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014041)

It's about time someone got this in Obama's face. I cannot understand how a man who constantly follows a rhetoric of freedom can possibly be in favor of teleco amnesty.

Unless....he is going to fuck America over too. Quite possible, and if he turns, kiss what's left of our country goodbye.

Re:About time (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014843)

Unless....he is going to fuck America over too. Quite possible,

He's from my state, Illinois, home of the world's sleaziest politicians, where we're so patriotic even being dead doesn't keep us from voting. I wonder how my other Senator (Durbin) will vote on telcom immunity and net neutrality?

If Obama's elected his stance on these issues won't matter - all the President can do when it comes to making laws is jawbone and either sign or veto. The legislative branch, which he is now part of, legislates. If he's elected President his job will be to enforce whatever laws the corporations have purchaced from the legislature.

The legislative branch writes laws, the executive brance enforces them, and the judicial branch judges them.

I'm voting for Bob Barr, depending on whether or not the Greens are on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning. I wonder why slashdot doesn't talk of the other political parties? [wikipedia.org]

From what I can tell (4, Interesting)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014047)

it's now the fourth largest.

If you believe in this, go join the group. It takes about thirty seconds to sign up, and there's only 2000 more people needed to make it the third largest. I've seen more comments than that on many political posts, so I have little doubt that we can, in theory, rustle up that many people.

Re:From what I can tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014205)

There's no point. It won't make a difference even if it grows to be the largest group. If you're holding out for anything other than "We hear what you're saying and clearly this is an issue which requires further investigation and discussion" then prepare to be disappointed.

Re:From what I can tell (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014433)

Still better than nothing. We probably won't change his mind or get anyone to notice, but we certainly won't if we don't try.

Re:From what I can tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014571)

It's worse than that. I don't want a leader who takes his cue from polls. A real leader espouses a position and tries to convince people to follow him.
It's clear to me that Obama is just another pol who is good at giving speeches. Even if Obama ultimately votes against the bill he has already shown his true colors and I'll be voting for a Libertarian or Green candidate this fall.
It is too bad the Democrats didn't back Feingold. He actually has the conviction to follow his principles.

Wow! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014049)

Campaign, fight, target, bomb... it sounds like a war for our liberties.

On an unrelated aside... 7,000 groups? That's a lot. Someone let me know when the group count IS OVER 9000!!!!!

Logo for the summary is misleading. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014083)

As a person who grew up in a democratic household, i would be remiss if I didn't request you put the proper party logo for today's democratic party. The Elephant with 3 stars.

Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014177)

As a person who grew up in a democratic household...

You got to vote for who would be mom and dad?

Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (1)

akzeac (862521) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014309)

Actually, looking at both logos it seems to be perfect for the state of the Democratic party.

Ass + hat.

Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (0, Troll)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014517)

It's the Democrat party, not the Democratic party, but that's a common mistake people make. Ironic that the party that claims to champion Democracy relies on party elders to choose their Presidential Candidate (Superdelegates).

Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014409)

How about the mythical beast with an elephant's head on one end and the head of an ass on the other? Because since the corporations own both the Democrats and Republicans, we now have a one party system with two wings, the Democrat wing and the Republican wing, both of which are beholden to the multinational (foreign) corporations and neither of which is beholden to "we, the people".

When someone who can't vote has more influence over a representative than a voter he is supposed to represent, you no longer have a representative democracy. When money counts for more than votes you have a plutocracy.

So, in the immortal words of Walt Kelly, you can vote for Tweddle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber. No matter who wins, you lose. Or, you can "waste" your vote on a loser, as I plan on doing. You vote doesn't matter anyway as the fix is in, you might as well make your displeasure knows in the only meaningful way possible - vote for "other".

Plutocracy [wikipedia.org] is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy (Modern Greek: - ploutokratia) is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.

Usage
The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: a historical term and a modern political term. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece, the Italian merchant republics of Venice and Florence, and Genoa.

Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government." [1].

Fittingly, the saying at the bottom of the page is "anything free is worth what you pay for it", which is part of the Gospel Of Mammon. Mammon is the US's national religion. Bow to the god of money or suffer.

Widely Known (5, Interesting)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014091)

It is widely known that slashdot summaries are completely inaccurate. As Slashdot [slashdot.org] previously reported, Obama has not switched his position to be in favor of telecom amnesty. He has said he will try to have that provision stripped from the compromise bill. Now don't get me wrong, he has taken a weak position and plans to vote for the (bad) bill even if they aren't able to have the provision removed, but that doesn't make the summary any less bullshit.

Re:Widely Known (2, Insightful)

akzeac (862521) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014129)

So basically he'll vote for a bill that gives telecom amnesty and hasn't done anything to date to actually strip the immunity except for a vague promise. And you still say he hasn't changed his position?

Or are you one of the people who think it's all part of a Secret Master Plan (TM)? That Obama works in misterious ways?

Re:Widely Known (2, Informative)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014169)

So basically he'll vote for a bill that gives telecom amnesty and hasn't done anything to date to actually strip the immunity except for a vague promise. And you still say he hasn't changed his position?

Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.

Re:Widely Known (-1, Flamebait)

akzeac (862521) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014199)

Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.

The end effect is the same. Leadership you can believe in, indeed.

Re:Widely Known (3, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014265)

So basically he'll vote for a bill that gives telecom amnesty and hasn't done anything to date to actually strip the immunity except for a vague promise. And you still say he hasn't changed his position?

Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.

Actually, guilt by negligence is punishable in many cases by sentences equally harsh to active participation in a crime.

In this case the crime is high treason (im not talking about the immunity, i'm talking about the fact this "stops the illegal spying" by making it legal and letting it continue)

Re:Widely Known (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014443)

Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.

And that's the moral high ground you hold your presidential candidate to? No wonder the US is scrapping the bottom of the barrel any more. You are aware of the term complacency? Last time I checked it wasn't a virtue.

Immunity "Has just been revoked." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014307)

Immunity? Where are the Riggs and Murtaugh attitudes going to be when we need them?

I know, I know, keep the boxes in order, but our candidates using diplomacy with us and the misdirection is getting very old. Obviously the soapboxes to date are not giving us more then choices between the lesser of two evils in the ballot boxes. If they keep failing we may have to change boxes unless we stand on more of them and speak loudly enough to be effectively heard.

Re:Widely Known (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014363)

No kidding. I'm starting to wonder if one can really know where Obama stands on a lot of issues. He used to be for an immediate pull-out from Iraq, now he's backing away from it. He used to be against telecom immunity, and now he's backing away from that, too.

Granted, McCain has switched sides on some issues, but at least the waffling has been over the course of years (or decades!), rather than months. He at least can plausibly claim "I know more now than I did then"

Re:Widely Known (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014223)

Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again.

Now don't get me wrong, he has taken a weak position and plans to vote for the (bad) bill even if they aren't able to have the provision removed

Before he had said he was absolutely against retroactive telecom immunity. Now he says he will vote for the bill even if it has the immunity in it. It is that simple. He flip-flopped and is exactly what the summary says. Did I miss something?

Re:Widely Known (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014539)

Well, that's exactly what I'm looking for in a strong leader--someone who makes a vague promise to oppose something, then doesn't really do anything, then quietly votes FOR it when the rubber hits the road. I guess that's what passes for a strong leader in the Democratic Party. Truly a profile in courage.

Re:Widely Known (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014745)

Since Telecom Amnesty is the only relevant part of the bill (the rest is just fluff that really says things like "you can't violate this law" and "this is the only law that can be used to wiretap") voting for the bill with the amnesty clause included really is supporting Amnesty. There's no other reason to vote for it. Oh, unless Obama is also supporting establishing secret courts. That's the other thing it does.

I'm all for this... (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014099)

but I'd rather not give money to a "Democrat" PAC. I wouldn't give money to a Republican PAC, either. If they separated this issue out from the rest of their position I'd be all over it.

I hate politics.

Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014115)

A bunch of officers come to your business, say, “That’s a nice phone company you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. Of course, we can protect it, but you got to give us some information.” The telecoms say yes, and you want to prosecute them? They’re the victims! Don’t you see that the government has the upper hand? Why not prosecute the government for illegally getting the information in the first place?

Re:Missing the Point (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014209)

This is an interesting point, except that the telecoms already had a relationship with the NSA, etc.. However, it should be pointed out that at the time, everyone thought invading Iraq was a good idea, too. I don't thing the telecoms are really the bad guys either.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014389)

The telecoms arn't the bad guys here, but they ARE guilty. I agree that the government officials responsible should be prosecuted, but the reality of the results of such prosecutions is that they are not harsh and do not stop anything. Prosecuting the telecoms WILL stop their participation and send a strong message to anyone else that would think of participating in similar activities. It sucks, but that's the reality of leadership.

Re:Missing the Point (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014609)

Threatening the telecoms with prosecution will encourage them to cooperate with any future investigations into warrantless wiretapping. If they were coerced, I have no problem with granting them immunity based upon their providing testimony in court to that effect.

If, as the Bush administration claims, there was no violation of the law, then no immunity is needed. If they were forced to hand over data, then they aren't guilty and no immunity is needed in this case as well.

Re:Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014557)

Even if the telecoms might be considered "victims" in this regard *cough*, sueing them is the only way the public has of finding out exactly and to what degree their privacy is being invaded. The Legislative branch of the Federal Government's proper response here should have been to order a full investigation, instead they are attempting to aid the Executive branch in their coverup scheme which could enable the halting of the lawsuits as well as blocking future ones. Doubt Franklin would approve.

Good idea, but can it work? (2, Insightful)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014127)

This is a great idea, but can it really work?

A lot of times, when laws are o the verge of being passed, these groups pop up to try and get them shot down. However, how often have they ever really worked? In a lot of cases, either the politician doesn't listen/care or there isn't enough support to make anyone's head turn.

Not to mention, we look back at the story about having evidence that Representatives that took kickbacks to change their votes and have to wonder if they will listen when they have companies lining their pockets.

There is greed and corruption going on at some of the highest levels of our government, and can a small group of people on an Obama website really change that?

Re:Good idea, but can it work? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014163)

the so called "moderates" (Fox News's word for crypto-fascists) he's trying to woo by quietly supporting this bill will not pay his bills.

This group draws attention to his outright lies, and has already resulted in announcements by several people that they will cease giving money, time, and votes to his campaign.

When you're financed by your party's base, and you give that base a golden shower, don't be surprised if they leave for greener pastures.

He is repeating inflated security concerns (5, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014151)

It looks as if he has accepted the line peddled by those who have an interest in exaggerating the security issues:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike

Sad, I thought that he was brighter than that.

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014165)

Or rather, he thinks his constituents aren't that bright.

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014269)

Or, unlike you, he's actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face. Let's not boil this down to "those who agree with you" and "stupid people".

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014515)

Or, unlike you, he's actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face. Let's not boil this down to "those who agree with you" and "stupid people".

that's exactly what you're doing.. "you're just ignorant of the threats we face".

OH NOES, WE TRADE SECURITY FOR FREEDOM! GOD FORBID!

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (0, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014509)

Sad, I thought that he was brighter than that.

It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of honesty. He's a Chicago politician; there are no honest Chicago politicians. Here in Illinois the last Democrat governor we had that was defeated by a Republican went to prison, and the last Republican governor we had that was defeated by a Democrat went to prison. The Resko scandal [google.com] looks like Governor BlaBlaBitch will likely be George Ryan's cellmate.

Obama (as well as a lot of Republicans) has ties to Resko.

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (0, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014565)

He's just a big a fear-mongering demagogue as anyone else. Ironic that the first black man running for President would adopt the same fear-baiting strategy that kept men like Ben Tillman, George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond in office for so long.

Strange Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014685)

Strange, your quotation cuts Obama off in the middle of a sentence:

...while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

I wonder why you would do that. Did the second half of the sentence not fit your world-view?

Nonpartisan org?? (1)

taphonomist (963482) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014251)

Anyone know if there is a nonpartisan organization trying to do the same thing as the Blue America group? I'm so sick of the partisan nature of the political discourse that I have a real problem donating any money to a clearly partisan group. This is a constitutional problem that should cut across party lines, and I can't really in good conscience donate to this group. On the other hand, I can't sit by and let this happen...

The aclu? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014541)

the ACLU is a non-partisan organization out to protect our civil liberties.

Of course to Fox News, civil liberties = liberal = traitor = KILL!, but yeah, they are a non-partisan organization.

AT&T's take (4, Interesting)

giminy (94188) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014255)

AT&T took down their ad, but it was pretty funny in a sick sort of way. If you didn't catch their new ad, it was on their bill-pay site last week. I kept a little archive of it here [readingfordummies.com] . Enjoy.

Reid

Join this group, write your senators (2, Interesting)

danceswithtrees (968154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014411)

My view of Senator Obama has dropped considerably after he said he will vote for the bill giving the telecoms immunity. Perhaps he feels that he can piss on lot of people and still have their vote-- who else are they going to vote for now? Perhaps he thinks he an piss on the people who believe in him and convince them that it is only raining.

Senator Obama's promise to "fix this" when he becomes president is grossly illogical and pompous (not elitist). What if he loses the election? Then what will he be left with? A vote for a bill that he doesn't support and no chance to "fix it." If you don't agree with the bill, DON'T VOTE FOR IT!

If this issue is important to you, take the time to join this group and make it the biggest group on Obama's website. Then take the time to write your senators about this issue. I wrote both of mine:

Senator, I was filled with dismay as Democrats in the House of Representatives caved in and voted to give telecoms retroactive immunity. I feel that the representatives did a better job of representing the telecoms than they did of representing the people.

Ours is a country of laws. Where every man and woman is considered equal. A land not only of opportunities, but also a place where people are held accountable for their misdeeds.

Perhaps you and others feel that we should drop the pretense of being a fair and noble country and let President Bush and the telecoms off the hook given the president's short remaining time in office.

I would argue that this is precisely why we need to hold firm on this bright-line issue -- people who break the law should be held accountable, companies that break the law should be accountable.

Be assured that my vote depends on your decision.

Re:Join this group, CALL your senators (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014551)

don't write them. The cloture they put this though earlier means they vote for it on the 8th.

call them, and keep calling them.

Re:Join this group, write your senators (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014633)

Your view of him should drop more because he can't seem to ever make up his mind where he stands on issues, rather than what his stance happens to be on any particular day. Even if he did change his mind back, how long would it stay that way? What would his actual vote be when it came time to decide? You will NEVER know what Obama is actually going to do, even if he tells you.

Oh no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014427)

How long before this turns into a bush-bashing post?

I can't beleive this (2, Interesting)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014497)

This is retarded. How is giving more money and rewarding more vote switching going to solve anything. We need to look a little farther than in front of our noses here. I'm sick and tired of these people in office and we need to implement a scorched earth policy and vote out every incumbent we can.

Awes0me fp! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24014513)

it w1ll be among

I don't get why people are upset with Obama... (0)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014719)

This is a BRILLIANT move. It allows him to pick up votes from people who felt who wouldn't be "tough on terror" (Yes I know giving telecoms immunity doesn't make us safer but unfortunately a large portion of the US population does). Once he becomes president there is absolutely nothing keeping him from having his AG nail the telecoms to the cross.
If the goal is to punish the telecoms which would you rather have? 1.) Obama votes against amnesty and looses the election because of it, leaving McCain in the whitehouse to ensure the telecoms never get prosecuted.
2.) Obama votes for amnesty now gets a seat in the white house and then proceeds to have his AG go after everyone and anyone involved in domestic spying.
This is a matter of the least bad choice, from his perspective. I'm sure he would like to have the telecoms prosecuted but making a stand now is not in the best interests of the ultimate goal of prosecuting them.

Tools of the revolution! (1)

Rhesusmonkey (1028378) | more than 6 years ago | (#24014793)

Last-second grass-roots feel good lobbying: because the fuel to make a molotov cocktail is just too expensive.

-I feel the puppet on the left hand shares my beliefs.
(Bill Hicks)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?