http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/05/house-passes-bushs-fisa-law-american-ci vil-liberties-destroyed/

Well here we are. I'm not sure where I stand anymore.

I expected the Dems to limit the damage, take a few hits and tee the debate up for '08 where we could start undoing the damage.

Now I am just not so sure.

What the hell people?

Are we really that scared? I don't think so. Does the GOP have something really ugly on the Dems? I'm not sure that's the case either really.

Is it all sides wanting the power being created?

Maybe, but does anyone harbor any illusions this crowd will just quietly go away next year, after having done all of this?

It's big dollars driving this people. Remember what I wrote on the Edwards thread? This is corruption working at it's finest. We've a bunch of pussies running our government right now.

We are a bunch of pussies.

I'm gonna go and help to build a farm. Hell, I might just go live there, tune out, off grid and wait this crap out...

You just watch. This will go just like the Patriot act did. It gets passed, then will be "amended" just enough to make legal challenges difficult, and "we tried to do something" is plausible enough to frame for the morons.

Anyone up for regular meet up conversations? That's where the real Americans will be talking very soon.

I'm very angry right now. Do the ends really justify the means?

It is growing very difficult for me to continue to justify not just being a brutal ass, start fucking people over, one by one, to get what I want. Why should I not? It's beginning to be a serious question.

One of the fuckers that voted with Bush on this was Jim Webb too! That guy would not be in office if it were not for people working to bring fresh blood into the process! Several of the others, who got elected that way, did the same thing!

In France, Ukraine and other places, people stood in the streets making demands. Here?

Nothing!

We are too fat and happy indeed. It is gonna come down to being broke ass, smaller in number and just devastated before we consider lessons already learned.

I'll betcha it happens somewhere else. Probably somewhere that took what we started, and continues to believe in it.

Welcome to the coming North American Union. Said union is not possible with our old Constitution and liberties. Break those down and suddenly merging the nations becomes quite a bit easier.

Missing, a typical liberal over reaction to a bunch of lies.

You obviously know nothing of what's in the bill. You're only reacting to a bunch of garbage on a radical left web site.

The bill has to do with traffic between people outside of the US that happens to be routed through the US via modern technology. It has nothing to do with spying on Americans.

Thank the Lord you liberals have very little power in this country and that most common sense folks quickly see you for the certifiable bananas you are. I'm disappointed you've gone so far off the whacko end. You didn't used to be that way.

Deane, you may trust the government to spy on you and do you no wrong, but I don't. Not our current bunch of clowns, and not an unknown new bunch yet to be determined.

Part of American freedom is our right to privacy. If the government has such a compelling case to spy, then getting a warrant with the proper checks and balances should be no problem. I have no issue with spying, but there must be checks and balances in place to oversee the inevitable abuses that will occur (and already have as a result of our lack of checks and balances).

Earth to Vitalogy, earth to Vitalogy. Can you post the exact verbiage in the bill that let's the government spy on you without the proper checks and balances?

I applaud the passage of the bill. After Hillary Clinton assumes power in January 2009, she'll be able to spy on all you Republicans who happen to have a digital packet of information from one of your calls or emails routed out of the US. Better not make any more snide remarks about Monica or Bill in your private messages or you could be facing an IRS audit, ha ha ha!!

But, I'm sure you will trust completely Hillary's attorney general to exercise the best judgment as to how to use that information and that there won't be any outcry from the same people who practically had a stroke when some FBI files wound up in the White House by accident in the early Clinton years.

Andrew

Some details here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401744. html?hpid=moreheadlines

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.

In place of a court's approval -- which intelligence officials worried might come too slowly -- the NSA would institute a system of internal bureaucratic controls.

Good thing all of this will be under Hillary's control starting in 2009 - whew! Maybe we can finally force you Republicans to stay nice things about her for a change or risk being the target of a terrorism probe.

Andrew

Hillary, a person who more than 50% say they will vote against her, under any circumstances?

Hillary uses a much different probing method! Much similar to the alien anal probe only without lubrication! BEND OVER SUCKERS!

The only person Hillary needs to spy on is Bill.

The spy bill that just passed has a 6 month sunset clause in it. It should have been two years, so that it would fall right in the middle of Hillary's first year, so that all Republicans would line up against it and a more reasonable FISA update be approved. But, I can't wait for conservatives like Deane to leap to Hillary's defense, claiming that she can be trusted to decide how to spy on Americans and that she needs this power to protect the nation against terrorism.

Andrew

Honestly now, Andrew, do you really think Hillary needs my help?

Ok, there is an upside, besides Andrews excellent point.

(And you know the GOP will squeal like a stuck pig when their day is done.)

That upside is this:

The unjust spying and likely blackmail is happening right now. Legal challenges are problematic due to corruption and a lot of Bush loyal appointees.

So, give him what he says he needs to keep America safe and to "fight for freedom" and "bring freedom to [insert nation with natural resources we fixate on]."

Now, if there is an attack, he [Bush] will not have the high ground in that. So, no terrorist attack, martial law, somehow dodge being judged by the people dodges will come from that.

If there isn't an attack? Well, it's not a bad thing to make a big ass laundry list of sacrifices we've made for nothing. Iraq will still be a mess then, so that's a gimme.

Taking this whole issue off the table right now, likely denies the GOP a lot of key framing they might find handy very soon as well.

All in all, putting our civil liberties in the sling, like tools to leverage, is not my idea of politics. It's done however. Let's see the leverage in action then.

Perhaps this is one of those "pick your battles" things.

I still harbour significant worry over the election however. Nothing is off the table with these guys, boundary wise. That could work to our disadvantage as Americans, should the election go poorly.

(Not the result, but the process ending up with enough issues to not function as it should.)

It's funny how all the conservatives here won't pipe up and say how enthusiastic they will be about Hillary getting these powers. Must be in major denial! Oh, well, rest easy knowing that it will be almost impossible to take them away from Hillary after all of you righties have gone on the record as saying how crucial it is for the government to have these powers.

Andrew

It's a totally great point --one I'm gonna start floating out there fairly often. Will be curious to watch the reactions.

Of course, they also think they've got a win coming. In a way, it's likely a good pressure for the GOP in general. Going for broke right now is pretty hardball. It's all rapidly coming down to a winner take all affair.

I'm clearly a moderate in these kinds of things. Much prefer to keep the rules of engagement fairly sane, then work on issues...

Oh well. That will very likely be considerably easier after the election.

There has already been considerable whining about not getting to set the agenda. Their response was to essentially move that to the President. Well, now they are setting some elements, but not all.

Should that go away, then it's gonna be back to the basics. They will dig for dirt, then smear it repeatedly, just as they did earlier.

>>>"t's funny how all the conservatives here won't pipe up and say how enthusiastic they will be about Hillary getting these powers"

I couldn't care less if Hillary had these powers. If she follows in Bill's footsteps of selling our secrets to the enemy in exchange for contributions, doing a little snooping will seem pretty tame.

"It is growing very difficult for me to continue to justify not just being a brutal ass, start fucking people over, one by one, to get what I want. Why should I not? It's beginning to be a serious question."

Me too, but you have to have the personality for it.... I don't.

Sure the meek shall inherit the earth..... there just won't be anything left of it. Like someone else having sex with the pretty girl then handing you the used condom.........

yes, I know, EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! that's what I thought too.

sorry, I have voted Republican since 1976, but after 88 it's been almost exclusive 3rd party and write ins.... nearly everyone of the bunch is so focused on money and re election that my perception is they have ONLY their interest at heart. That is not a policy I follow. That and no matter how important the need, every tax proposal gets a NO from me as well. too much waste. I make do when my bills rise and my wages don't..... they can do the same!

"If she follows in Bill's footsteps of selling our secrets to the enemy in exchange for contributions, doing a little snooping will seem pretty tame."

And the Republicans went after Bill for SEX!? I think Deane is delivering a bit of bs here.

"I couldn't care less if Hillary had these powers. If she follows in Bill's footsteps of selling our secrets to the enemy in exchange for contributions, doing a little snooping will seem pretty tame."

Are we forgetting a little something called Iran/Contra here ... where Reagan sold arms to one set of bad guys to fund the overthrow of another alleged "bad guy"?? Again, seems a little more serious than a hummer from an intern.

"...alleged "bad guy"..."

And the left wonders why they're labeled soft on commies.

Alleged?

Or, as Trixter might say:

ALLEGED!!!!!!!! ALLEGED??????????

Herb

Iran/Contra, how about lend lease to the Soviets, where Roosevelt gave billions to the worlds prime mass murderer?

Ira/Contra, at most involved a few million is small arms.

Ummm maybe you're forgetting that we teamed up with Stalin, warts and all, in a common purpose of defeating Hitler. FDR saw the bigger threat to us and our allies and decided to overlook Stalin's atrocities, KNOWING that without our help the Red Army was doomed ... this is the same Red Army that fought the mighty Fins to almost a stalemate for months. While our two nations were adversaries by nature, in every sense of the word, the two leaders sought to join forces and take out the Third Reich.

Hardly a comparison to Iran/Contra. We weren't buddying up with the Ayatollah (in fact, at the exact same time we were selling arms to Saddam Hussein, whom the Ayatollah was in a bitter war with ... and we were hardly buddying up with Ortega either.

Actually, not at the start, the US was still a "neutral".

Yeah, we were "neutral" even though we had troops in Iceland in case of an invasion and a Naval fleet in the North Atlantic. Yes, they were to protect convoys, but the convoys were full of Lend-Lease equipment for the Brits and, later the Russians. We were "neutral" but it was pretty obvious whose side were on.

We were "neutral" enough to develop the atom bomb.