×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1489 comments

You admire a politician? (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134087)

Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.

Re:You admire a politician? (5, Funny)

voltel (1323287) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134193)

Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.

Whatcha smoking? All politicians are honest, it says so right here in "All the government wants you to believe about Politicians". Now, I need to get back to rolling over and wagging my tail for the politicians who are fighting all thems terrorists.

Re:You admire a politician? (4, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134379)

I was under the impression that Obama is not perfect but that he would always admit if he was wrong and quickly qork towards the right direction. I think this will be a big test of him in my eyes. If he never turns around on this issue it means he is clearly as stubborn as the rest. If he can admit he is wrong then hes better than someone who started out agreeing with me more.

Re:You admire a politician? (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134547)

Did you just say that if he screws you over, then says, oops I was wrong... it's ok? Put the crack pipe down! How is he going to fix this is the question, not whether he was wrong or not. wow.

Re:You admire a politician? (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134641)

While I despise them as a group there are a few I like. If you just have a fuzzy blanket hatred for them as a group, you're actually giving each one of them individually a pass- you basically have no opinion of them or their behavior. If your Congressman keeps voting for evil shit, it doesn't matter, because when the election comes you'll hate his opponent too.

Re:You admire a politician? (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134735)

Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.

You got a +5 for this?

I'm completely disillusioned with Obama right now but that notwithstanding I still don't think you deserved a +5, insightful for that comment. Admiring a politician means you have "issues"?

So I have "issues" if I admire Nelson Mandela?

Who supports FISA? (5, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134091)

Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.

With both congress and the president's approval rating hovering at below 20%, it is clear that the will of the people is not being represented. The only plausible explanation for FISA is that it is intended an means for the executive branch to seize an even greater imbalance of power, and/or to cover up widespread criminal activity that took place in the last eight years.

Re:Who supports FISA? (5, Insightful)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134271)

Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government. But the problem is that "conservative" today is a way to masquerade as someone one's not.

And don't get me started on the other side of the pond; they're just playing like they're fighting the bad politics.

Re:Who supports FISA? (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134281)

Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.

The right has this weird shifting thing going on. When they're in power the government is always right, and law enforcement should be able to do anything it needs to do. When they're not in power the government is eeeeevil, and law enforcement is made up of "jackbooted thugs."

Re:Who supports FISA? (4, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134729)

My parents were big time republicans, my dad was in the leadership for his city's republican party. They would always talk about how the government needs it, and the president wouldn't do anything bad, etc.. I would always ask (this was over a year ago) if they were then OK with Hillary Clinton having those abilities, (man do those republicans hate her!) and they would get really, really mad. I think it finaly sunk in to them that they can't trust one person to follow the laws we have created, but everyone from that day on. Seems to have really changed their opinions on the matter. (My dad even became gung-ho for Ron Paul!)

Re:Who supports FISA? (4, Insightful)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134289)

Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems, the only difference is the flavor of said big government. I used to say that I leaned Republican and some issues, but now that's no longer accurate. I lean conservative on some issues, including this infuriating FISA bill.

Re:Who supports FISA? (4, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134421)

Apparently so. Every time I see this discussed online, there are people who say things like "the telecoms shouldn't be punished for doing as the government asked", ignoring the illegality, that Qwest didn't go along, etc.

Re:Who supports FISA? (2, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134473)

Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it?

You mean, outside of the congresspeople who voted for it, the telecom executives who authorized co-operation with the government in the first place, and the intelligence agents who ran the thing?

Probably people who think this is a crime committed to prevent a greater crime, a second terrorist attack on the US. You can argue this is not true, or that the cost wasn't worth it. But do you honesty think that people who believe this appeared necessary do not exist?

Re:Who supports FISA? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134529)

Actually, the intention of FISA is judicial oversight. With it the executive can perform domestic acts in secret while having another branch keep a check on abuse.

Of course it's believed that the secret court is just a rubber stamp. And requiring oversight hasn't prevented abuse of power.

I personally don't believe any branch of the government should be allowed to do anything in secret, with maybe the exception of military technology research. And even that's only a maybe.

Re:Who supports FISA? (3, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134537)

Here's what I, as a conservative, support. FISA may reach a bit too far:

1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.

All this being said, we DON'T need to be listening to people who aren't on watch lists and the like. However, the military needs to do its job with as few roadblocks as possible.

We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter). We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to - in their zeal to fight terrorism. We forget that the current administration can have one of two interpretations - the whole "blood for oil" argument, but there are also MANY actions of this administration which have been zealously adamant about defending from international terrorism, with many mistakes, big and small, made along the way to achieve that goal.

Sorry, bit of a rant and rather a rough draft, but I wanted it to be said...

Bills (4, Informative)

pclinger (114364) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134119)

When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.

Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/10/MN3H11ME7C.DTL [sfgate.com]

As his campaign manager said:

Sen. Obama has said before that the compromise bill is not perfect. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Sen. Obama chose to support the FISA compromise."

Opponents, including Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued that a legal exemption is at best premature, because details of the wiretapping program are not yet fully known. But a Dodd amendment that would have stripped out the immunity title received just 32 votes, all of them from Democrats, including Obama, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt.

Re:Bills (2, Insightful)

BloodyIron (939359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134407)

"Our war on terror"? Don't you mean "Your government's blatant war profiteering, uncalled for war, and eventual enslavement of the general populous through degraded civil rights?" It's not your war, it's their war.

Or, did you actually want to go out of your way to start shit in the middle east, earn your government millions (probably actually billions) as well as their companies', as well as give up your civil liberties to fight the OH SO INSURGENT terrorists in the homeland?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Re:Bills (1)

Jasonjk74 (1104789) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134625)

"Our war on terror"? Don't you mean "Your government's blatant war profiteering, uncalled for war, and eventual enslavement of the general populous through degraded civil rights?" It's not your war, it's their war.

Or, did you actually want to go out of your way to start shit in the middle east, earn your government millions (probably actually billions) as well as their companies', as well as give up your civil liberties to fight the OH SO INSURGENT terrorists in the homeland?

Yeah, didn't think so.

You forgot to mention that your (Canadian) government is happily participating in that war.

Re:Bills (1)

BloodyIron (939359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134679)

I will mention that I am using all means available to me to oppose this war.

Yes, my government isn't a prize pig either, but I'm trying to change that. What are you doing?

Re:Bills (5, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134413)

If you don't like the entirety of something, you shouldn't vote for it!

Why?

Eventually, someone will hold you responsible for the part(s) you didn't like, and all you can say is, "But I didn't like that part," to which they will respond, asking, "Then why did you vote for it?"

This is why legislators like Ron Paul vote against things: if they don't like the whole thing, they vote no, no matter how important any one part of the whole is.

Re:Bills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134651)

And is Ron Paul going to win the presidency?

Yup, that's what I thought.

Re:Bills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134725)

Because you might really care about the things you DO like, and can't get it passed without something you don't like in it. Politics is ALL about compromise between you and the party establishment. That's why McCain is running for President, not Ron Paul.

Re:Bills (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134445)

the only 'tools on terror' are the blooded ones that can't seem to read or comprehend history.

there is NOTHING that wiretapping will do to prevent those that hate us from doing damage to us. any 'terr-a-wrist' worth his salt is already using subchannels, hidden info in plain sight (steganography) or just regular old pedestrian encryption.

at this point, the door locks only keep honest people out. and tracking honest people is NOT going to bank you any 'terr-a-wrists'. its only going to harm the freedom base of the people you are TRYING TO PROTECT.

the logic is flawed: "we must vote for this or we lose the WHOLE bill". yeah, so? then lose the whole friggin bill, then! this all-or-nothing shit is bad for us and always has been. justifying that we need SOME 'tools' is just ignorant when the tools you are using have NOTHING to do with what you are advertising them as. same as using a garden hose to solder circuit boards. yes, a hose is a tool, but it won't do any good in soldering. wiretapping won't catch a single 'bad guy' but it sure will ruin what we had left of our right to free speech.

we don't even have to wait a generation to see the chilling effects. already, everyone I know is CAREFUL about what they write online (or their e-journals), what they say over the phone and even what photos they take and publish. if that's not a chilling-effect in operation, I don't know what is.

roll back the WHOLE notion of wiretapping. its not useful, its intrusive and its too abusable against non-criminals (ie, us!). the 'benefit' is not clear and the abuse is all too clear. this 'tool' should be destroyed and never used again. yes, I'm really serious - the right to free speech is near to the right to breathe air and drink water. it should be considered HOLY and not fucked with. kill our ability to communicate freely and we are not a free society anymore.

Re:Bills (5, Informative)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134487)

So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror,

Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.

No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Tool in a war on what? (2, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134495)

Come again?
Tool in a war on what?

You do realize that there is a greater chance in wining a war on chocolate than "terror"?
You know... all that stuff about one being an actual physical thing and other being an idea.

Re:Bills (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134497)

And nothing would have been the right move. Obama caved in on this topic and it's just as evil and just as stinky as what his opponent has done.

If you're going to use altruism and idealism as "values", then you have to stick by them. That's what Obama sold me, and now he's taken them back. Now he's the lesser of two evils. That sucks.

Re:Bills (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134517)

And I, and probably many others, think that none was the better choice in this case and probably almost any other that involved giving the telecoms immunity. What good is revised and improved FISA when the government and telecoms will just do whatever they want and be able to get away with it anyway? I'd rather we do what we can to hold them to the rules before we go about making new rules and changing others for them to not follow whenever it suits them.

Re:Bills (2, Insightful)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134639)

Long before the votes were cast, those weak amendments were destined for failure. Which makes Obama's voting for them an empty gesture.

The reason the details are not yet fully known is that the telecoms who did the wiretapping are not going to cooperate in an investigation. Giving them immunity removes the only leverage that Congress had in getting them to testify.

So it's very likely that it will be at least 50 years (and possibly never) before we actually come to terms with the scope of the wiretapping. And no one in the Bush administration will ever be held accountable for violating the law and the constitutional rights of private citizens.

I recognize that we're looking at a two man race, and all Obama needs to do is not lose. But on this issue (which is about the expanding power of the executive and has nothing to do with National Security) Obama could have made a clear, decisive stand and taken a position as a leader of the democratic party. Instead he chose to follow the herd, disappointing.

Good time... (1, Interesting)

BloodyIron (939359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134121)

not to be in the US. What's it gonna take guys? When you just going to leave, or revolt, or something? You think your votes are actually counted? What about all those scandals with the electronic voting mechanisms? And the Florida scandals? GTFO.

Re:Good time... (5, Interesting)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134585)

not to be in the US.

Oh, please. Australia banning Fallout 3, Canadian judge overruling a parent's normal punishment, and Britain is officially insane.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php [iht.com]
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6aaf855a-47e3-4e3f-8709-5b53dcfffff0 [canada.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nbaby.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nchild.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

I'll stick with the imperfect USA.

Canada, being so close to the US, still appears to have a little sense:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080628/steyn_commission_080628/20080628?hub=TopStories [www.ctv.ca]

Re:Good time... (2, Interesting)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134653)

You know, you may have been modded a troll, but you are right.

When are people going to stand up? When will they turn off American Idol and actually look at what's going on?

I have a feeling this won't happen anytime soon. A lot of the major news network won't cover the story, or will spin it to make American's think they are safer.

Most American's won't do any kind of real research on there own like through the internet, they expect to be hand feed the information over TV, and in this day and age, important information like this will never come across the news networks.

I think if American's knew what was going on behind the scenes, they would stand up, but it's getting people more involved and more informed.

Also any mod points I might have gotten will be surly brought back down after this next statement....

Yeah I tend to agree that I don't think our votes count. I'm sure there is plenty that goes on behind the scenes to ensure the proper person get's into office.

It's sad to think about....but what can we do? Writing senators all day doesn't seem to do the trick. (Obviously)

blargh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134125)

dammit taco. use the "politics" section!

Re:blargh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134335)

Dammit, AC, he's a Slashdot Editor, not a Slashdot Edito-- Oh, wait...

Lesser evil (5, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134151)

The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep.

That's why we always vote for Lesser Evil, not the Greater Good.

Re:Lesser evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134297)

'cos Bush was the lesser evil in both elections, right?

Re:Lesser evil (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134395)

unfortunately to me, he was....

when people ask me why i voted for him, i point out i didnt vote for him, but rather against the morons who i despised running against him.

and no, i wasnt stupid enough to think that voting for some lame ass never gonna get elected candidate was a viable option.

remember, i was voting to make sure a certain person wasn't elected.

Re:Lesser evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134461)

Cthulhu '08! Why settle for the lesser evil?

Democratic Party (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134155)

I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep

Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.

Re:Democratic Party (3, Insightful)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134287)

If Obama changes his opinions on issues, you KNOW the Republicans will be pulling out the old "flip flop" card from the 2004 election. The only thing we really have is our credibility, I want a poltician who's not willing to trade that in for votes. I really thought Obama might be that candidate. Maybe he still will be, who knows? but this really isn't a good sign at all.

Re:Democratic Party (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134491)

The thing though is. A lot of people are saying "screw this election". Hard-core republicans don't like McCain, all the Hillery fan-girls don't want Obama. And a lot of people are going to blindly vote for a democrat because they hate Bush, and then there are some people who are going to vote for McCain because he isn't black. Obama at least has people excited for him, most republicans are saying "screw this election", I expect an easy victory for Obama, but I don't think he will get re-elected.

Re:Democratic Party (2, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134519)

Every Democratic candidate does it, both losers like Kerry and winners like Bill Clinton.

Re:Democratic Party (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134549)

If the Democrats had any balls, they'd push Hillary through at the convention.

A yes vote on FISA is inexcusable.

Here's a hint: (4, Insightful)

tyler.willard (944724) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134161)

If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.

That probably goes for any letter, but those two in particular.

There ARE some exceptions. (1)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134665)

If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.

My preference going into this whole (ungawdly long) campaign was for Dennis Kucinic - check out his platform and I think you might see there are rare instances of someone progressive making a go of it. (One could argue that he was never a "viable" candidate, and one may well be right, but he got a lot further than I would have expected.)

After Kucinic, my horse of choice was Edwards for a somewhat-distant second. Once he bowed out, I just crossed my fingers and hoped that Obama wouldn't become a candidate I couldn't stomach. He's doing a bang-up job of running in that direction, sadly, so I guess it's time to vote Green Party yet again.

Re:There ARE some exceptions. (1)

tyler.willard (944724) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134721)

I don't disagree, especially with Kucinich...perhaps I should've said "(presumptive) nominees" instead of candidates.

Sigh... (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134181)

FTFA: "Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to."

Thanks for propping up the good ol' two-party system there with your thinking, ma'am. Seriously, there are other bloody candidates out there, and if you don't think you should vote for Obama or McCain, then vote for one of them! It really gets tiring listening to the thinking exhibited by most people, which locks us into the hellhole of a political party system we have.

Change starts with you, and all that.

Re:Sigh... (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134393)

The best hope we have of ditching the (current) two parties would be to reform the current election system, and support IRV or priority-based voting.

The gist would be that you could vote
1) Nader (only as an example!!!!)
2) Obama
3) McCain
4) Paul

If you wanted Nader to win, but would be happy with Obama, and *really* didn't want Ron Paul in office. If Nader fails to reach a simple majority, your vote goes to Obama. If he fails to reach a simple majority, it goes to McCain, and so on and so forth.

Personally, I'm pretty irked at Obama about this, but it's not going to change how I vote. Looking at the bigger picture, Obama's got a whole lot more going for him than against.

The EFF announced a new round of court cases today to challenge this law, which should hopefully make it through to the Supreme Court, where the law is almost certain to be struck down, even with a conservative majority of justices.

Re:Sigh... (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134649)

I agree! I've read about alternative voting systems, and I really think that, although our current system is the simplest to execute, isn't nearly as fair as it could be. I'd really like to see something like what you outline put in place.

The hard part, of course, is getting it done, since people tend to be so adverse to change. I can only imagine how big the uproar would be if someone in power ever suggested doing this.

Re:Sigh... (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134469)

thats all well and good in the utopia you want to live in, but this is the real world, and in this real world, most people are voting for one of two parties as these are the only two candidates with a real chance of getting elected.

therefore, since most people are in fact voting not so much for someone, but rather against someone (the OP mentality confirms this), voting for a candidate with little chance of winning, actually increases the chance of the person you are voting against of winning.

Re:Sigh... (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134583)

but this is the real world, and in this real world, most people are voting for one of two parties as these are the only two candidates with a real chance of getting elected

That's only true because people persist in that idiotic line of thinking. That's my whole point: if we ever want to break this stupid cycle, we need people to bite the bullet and vote for their real candidate of choice, knowing it's gonna be a while until society catches up with them. It's gonna suck watching your guy not get elected for a while, but the goal is to change the system, not to get one specific guy elected.

I'm perfectly well aware of how politics works in the US, I'm talking about changing it to work better.

Re:Sigh... (1)

Nomiwolf (1238820) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134553)

Oh aye ._. Over here in Britain we have that thinking (don't like what labour have done - vote conservative, don't like what conservative have done - vote labour) It just makes arguments go round in circles and debates degrade to childish name calling. And we're meant to have a multiparty system already >_> Vote for someone else if you want something different!

Re:Sigh... (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134579)

The last time there was a move to fight the two-party system, people voted for Nader and Bush won.

Re:Sigh... (1, Troll)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134715)

The last time there was a REAL fight that mattered, Clinton won twice. Gore and Kerry supporters blaming Nader instead of their own idiocies and inadequacies (Gore couldn't win TN or AR and is crazy; Kerry was a yankee liberal leftie snob-boy who couldn't do something to win over people who were perfectly willing to go more centrist). Democrats, like good liberals, blame everything but themselves for their shortcomings.

When you stop supporting the lesser of two evils, (3, Interesting)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134199)

the greater of two evils starts winning. If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.

Yeah, sure... and... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134661)

...If everyone voted for greater of two evils at least they would vote honestly.

So when the amount of evil finally calls for a revolution there will at least be some honesty left in the people of the land.

Fudged the bucket (5, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134207)

The guy seriously fudged the bucket with me. I actually had some amount of faith in this dude.

This was the big test to see if he would collapse under the pressure of the telecoms. More money was offered so he decided to go with it.

I am very upset over this but I should not be surprised. He is just another politician. (But lesser of the two evils)

Re:Fudged the bucket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134719)

Fuck the lesser of two evils.
We keep getting evil! The worst part is, most people determine who they vote based on that.

Look on the bright side (0, Offtopic)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134301)

You'll be able to take your mind off it with the time you invest in learning Spanish [townhall.com] with all our kids. You didn't need your laws in English, right?

Re:Look on the bright side (4, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134645)

Even after following your link to a conservative website I fail to see how what he said is so unreasonable. He is basically saying that we should be like the rest of the world and have our children learn multiple languages early on. Spanish would be fairly useful since there are many people in the US that speak Spanish.

This is my problem with conservative personalities these days. They try to take these things out of context to make it seem like what Obama says is horrible. But every time I look at the full transcript of what he says, he comes off extremely reasonable. This link didn't even hide the context. So really, what's the big deal?

My letter submitted to Obama's website (5, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134347)

Senator Obama: Because of the miserable failure that George W Bush has been, I have been placing the candidates for this presidential election under strict scrutiny. Until yesterday, I was proud to tell my friends that I supported Barack Obama for President of the United States. Now, I fear that my interests and your interests are not aligned and I can no longer lend you my support. Yesterday, while you did vote for the Dodd amendment, you failed to support a filibuster, and you failed to vote against the revised FISA bill that does for the telecom companies who have implemented surveillance against the American people what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. Being President of the United States means sometimes taking an unpopular stance on an issue despite the outcry of the public. It sometimes means thinking in the long term instead of the short, 24-hour sound-bite news cycle. What you have done today is embolden the elements of the government that tapped Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and handed them a fresh set of excuses to listen to the phone calls and Internet traffic of the American people. Maybe things work differently in Washington. Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the president have sworn to Representatives and Senators not to listen to their calls. Maybe the Republicans have sworn to the Democrats not to sabotage them like in the '70s during Watergate. Out in America, away from the halls of power, what protection does the citizen have against those who would gladly violate their expectation of privacy? Might I remind you that the president that suggested this bill also lied to start a war, approved the torture of innocent civilians, and believes himself to be above the law. What you did today was sell The People down the river for political capital. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am not proud of you. You are no different than any other politician, using the politics of fear to get what you want. The only sort of Hope you offer is False Hope - the worst kind because by the time it is identified as such, it is too late. A humble citizen, MasterOfMagic (I put my actual name, but I'm not going to post it here)

obama - right on track (1)

TTL0 (546351) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134351)

he ran left for the primaries and is moving center for the general election. sounds like a plan to me.

so his message to all of you who think that obama realy embraced the ideals of moveon.org and the daily kos is "thanx for hitch - I'll call you when i get to washington"
or better "so long and thanks for all the fish"

better luck next time.

Re:obama - right on track (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134435)

You're exactly right. Obama is now moving towards the center and in the process losing the base that got him there. Change? ROFL, he's no different than any other politician. I'm expecting him to fully implode by the time November rolls around. I'm just wondering when he'll have his Howard Dean moment...

News for nerds. Stuff that mattters??? (1)

CrAlt (3208) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134389)

D. vs R. They are two sides of the same coin. They are both only out to gain power and screw the people they are supposed to service.

I'm tiered of seeing this crap all day on TV. Now I get to get it in my face on a TECHNOLOGY site.

He lost a $1K donation from me (4, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134401)

It went to the ACLU instead.

I've left the Democratic Party and I won't vote for Obama any longer. Both parties are completely irresponsible and don't deserve any support. Further, I'd support general strikes and mass protests to demand our supposed "inalienable rights" back. They've been alienated from me, a citizen, and I'm pissed off about that.

You show your disappointment (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134425)

By signing this open letter: Open letter on getfisaright [getfisaright.com]

The group that's doing it is pretty cool. Just a bunch of folks who self-organized on Obama's own social networking site.

A multi-cave (5, Insightful)

pzs (857406) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134427)

It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists [crooksandliars.com] (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing [mydd.com], and even being inflammatory on abortion [swamppolitics.com] despite being pro-choice in the past [lifesitenews.com].

I think I agree with the Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com]. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?

I am a libertarian (5, Interesting)

kipin (981566) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134431)

Who supported Dr. Ron Paul and came to the conclusion that I would vote for Obama because I believed he would change the world's opinion of the United States.

However, after his vote on FISA, I have decided to throw my vote to Bob Barr, whereas I was previously planning on voting for Obama.

I hope others who were planning on voting for Obama decide to do the same.

The political culture in this country scares me, and I am very afraid of where we are headed. It is a shame to see the Constitution mocked like this. The only hope I have left is in the judicial system which I hope has the balls to stand up to the power grab and strike it down as unconstitutional.

Off topic for Slashdot (0, Offtopic)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134441)

This doesn't belong on Slashdot.

That aside, how many times can the nutty article use the word 'progressive'? Can anybody define progressive? It seems to be a euphemism for 'European'.

Feingold (3, Insightful)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134459)

Four years ago I saw an interview with Feingold, the democrat from Wisconsin. I thought he would be the one running this election, and now I wish he were.

WTF is FISA? I RTFA and they don't spell it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134467)

[eof]

Bill Hicks Said It Best. . (1)

Knight of Shadows (1163917) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134489)

. . .when he explained American Politics this way: "I believe the puppet on the left shares my beliefs. . .oh, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking. Holy shit! The same guy is controlling both puppets! *sound of gunshot and Bill collapses^ There's only one solution at this point. We need to take back control of the government and give it back to the people. Excuse me, but I have to go now. . .the Office of Fatherland Insecurity is kicking in my door. Gotta go. . .

please explain... (1)

unfunk (804468) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134505)

FISA? What is this? TFA only mentions it by the acronym and doesn't even descrive it. As a non-American, I'd like to know just what the fuss is about without being pummeled by a senseless acronym.

reality? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134557)

Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support

Let's be realistic here. How many of Obama's voters (outside of the Slashdot and conspiracy theorist crowds) even know about this bill, yet alone know how Obama voted on it?

so what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134565)

why the fuck is this 'news'?
I don't care about obama or your opinion of him, the world is bigger than USA

Planning for the future (1)

dahitokiri (1113461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134611)

There are some rumors out there that say that because this bill doesn't provide immunity from criminal charges, Obama is actually planning on going after the the administration and the telecoms after he gets into office. Of course, that's not much of a guarantee at this point...

Hey, McCain didn't vote for FISA (1)

Average (648) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134617)

McCain didn't vote for FISA. That's because he didn't vote at all (98 Senators did). Worse record than Ted Kennedy this year, brain tumor and all.

Doesn't mean I like McCain, but I fully expect him to say "But I didn't vote for FISA" some time in the next few months.

Don't blame me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134635)

...I voted for Kodos.

Passion (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134671)

The problem we have is that both Obama and McCain (and Hillary when she was running) are only really passionate about one thing: Being President.

They appear have a few principles which they vaguely care about, but both politicians have made incredible compromises (and in many cases from positions I don't like to positions I do support, which actually infuriates me) in their bid for the top post.

They don't have something they're passionate about that they need to be president for, and they've made so many contradictory promises that neither will have a mandate, even in the unlikely event that these very similar fellows will actually have election results that is statistically differentiable from a hundred million or so coin-flips.

Tinfoil hat (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134681)

The conspiracy theorist in me noticed the timing of Jesse Jackson's comments [google.com] about Obama. I'm wondering if it's an attempt to obscure Obama's vote in the media. Bill Clinton was accused of doing the same thing with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Kosovo. I noticed the Jesse Jackson comment has gotten much more main stream press than Obama's vote.

(takes tinfoil hat off)

I'm still voting for Obama though. Stupid two party system.

Anybody ever charged? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24134683)

I don't understand the hatred toward the FISA bill. From what I understand it has almost nothing to do with DOMESTIC spying... only with the approval process for eavesdropping overseas.

I have talked to a few in government at a security conference who I am pretty sure do such things (mostly about the technicals about the process) and they are so paranoid about capturing anything from Americans its crazy...

Has anybody EVER suffered any type of damage from this type of alleged activity?

Flame on!!

The Honeymoon Is Over (5, Insightful)

telbij (465356) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134685)

he is "no doubt" a progressive, just one who now supports the scandalous FISA "compromise" and Antonin Scalia's views on gun rights and the death penalty, no longer plans to accept public campaign funding, and wants to make sure women aren't feigning mental distress to get a "partial-birth" abortion

The rest of those things don't bother me much at all. I don't expect to share that many viewpoints with anyone, to me those are all small potato personal value judgements that people can reasonably disagree about.

The FISA bill is what is really disappointing. It's amazing how overnight it's completely destroyed my opinion of Obama. When is a politician going to have the courage to stand up and point out the simple absurdity of shredding our own constitution, trampling human rights, and sparing no legislation to cover our own asses to fight a threat that is statistically insignificant? The terrorists must just be laughing in their caves right now. Are we such pussies in America that we can't rely on real intelligence and police work to fight terrorists?

This isn't a partisan issue at all, it's the absolute insanity of our times. Obama really sounded like he understood that, then he turns around does the exact opposite. It's not about flip-flopping per se, it's about pretending to know what the biggest, scariest, most obvious problem is in this country, then turning around and pandering to bamboozled middle america huddled in fear thanks to 7 years of fear-mongering by an incompetent who was just trying to muddle through a job that was way wayyy beyond him. If Obama had stuck to his guns (if he even understood the point of what he was saying), he could have used the bully pulpit to bring rationality back to America ala "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Unfortunately now his rhetoric has become hollow. I still think he may redeem himself as president, but his most powerful tool, his voice, is now castrated.

He lost mine (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134695)

He certainly lost mine.

I mean, if he's going to sell us down the river now, what's the point of voting for him? The only reason this bill "needed to be passed, flawed as it was" was that it provided cover for the Bush administration and their corporate co-conspirators.

There was nothing stopping them from simply getting warrants to continue their "vital national security monitoring of US citizens except the fact that they pee in their pants at the thought of having to tell a judge what they have been doing. The old law would have permitted them to do everything they needed to do, and only would have stopped them from doing things that were gross abuses of power, criminal, treasonous, and so forth.

And yet they'll eat their own rather than let the facts of what they've been doing come to light.

So Obama decided to give 'em a break on this one.

Screw him, I say.

--MarkusQ

He's the only one that could have stopped it. (1)

Borealis (84417) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134701)

He certainly lost my support. While all the aye votes deserve contempt, Obama as the democratic candidate could have thrown his weight into it and stopped it. As much as one person can bear responsibility I blame him for not doing his damn job.

Telecom Immunity Might be a Good Thing (1)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134709)

I am not too worried about the telecom immunity provision. What would have been the point of suing the telecom companies? The lawyers would have made most of the money anyway. It's not like you would have gotten any cash out of it.

And take a look at the alternative. The alternative is that someone does sue and a case gets heard. Then a jury (or, probably on appeal, a few judges) gets to decide whether or not the President has the authority to make this kind of order during "war time" (in quotes because whether we're at war is hotly disputed). What if it comes out the "wrong" way? What if the courts decide the President has that authority?

By passing the immunity provision, Congress is essentially saying that we're not going to worry about whether the President didn't have the authority. We're just going to give a pass this time.

Sometimes a pass is better than a decision (especially when the downside of a bad decision is too high and the upside is almost meaningless).

Voting for Obama, But Not Enthusiastic (1, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24134751)

I'm voting for Obama. McCain is incredibly awful, and Obama overall looks pretty good - based on his past actions, and his public understanding of some of the solutions we need.

But I'm not that enthusiastic anymore. This FISA surrender is a terrible blow to his credibility in every way. On an essential issue about the Constitution, fighting Bush, keeping his word, leading, privacy, the rule of law. If Obama had done this one right, he'd have proved he can lead us out of the deep mess we're in. Instead, he looks like he's part of the problem - and certainly not part of the solution.

McCain, of course, is also completely in love with the new FISA that spits in the Constitution's eye. And McCain is salivating for so much more of Bush/Cheney's tyrannical powers. And he and his lobbyist advisors are even more clueless than the first round of corporate overlords under Bush/Cheney that they'll waste even more of America as they slice away for their cronies the power and money their offices will give them.

So McCain is unacceptable. I'm enthusiastic about him losing. And voting is not optional: it's an obligation to make a choice, some choice, after learning what the candidates are likely to do once elected. So the choice between McCain and Obama is clearly Obama, who must then get my vote. But I don't have to be happy about it. I don't have to send Obama money. I don't have to sign petitions demanding fair treatment by the media. I don't have to go to Obama rallies or other PR stunts.

If Obama's candidacy were to actually look like it might fail, and McCain might win, then I would send Obama money and do more legwork to get him elected. Because the choice is indeed that important. But I don't have to be happy about it. How can I remain inspired, hopeful, when Obama has raised my expectations, and then smashed them? I've got a sense of proportion, so I know FISA isn't the only issue (though it's important), and that McCain is worse on FISA and everything else. But there were a few hopeful months when Obama was doing FISA different, and now I'm back to the usual disgusted trip to the voting booth.

It's like taking out the trash, instead of going to the video store. Gotta do it, not going to get any dirtier than I must, won't be getting much laughs out of the trip, but I'm holding my nose.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...