More Hope and Change

[Oddball]

When is Barry Obubblehead going to repeal any of that crap on principle, or any other excuse he can pull out of his skinny ass??

 

[Modbert]

More regurgitated, parroted blather. You really should get some new material. Preferably something original. And you might check your facts as well, Bush's approval rating was low from 2005 on. "The right" didn't turn on him, it took them quite some time to finally believe that he "turned" on them.

You continue to deflect and dissemble, trying to turn any Obama thread into a Bush thread. This is because you cannot defend the policies of this menstruation. Try to stick to the topic, which is what THIS current government is doing.

I'm not trying to turn any Obama thread into a Bush thread. Of course, you don't read my other posts in this thread which shows my obvious dislike for some of the things the Obama Administration is currently doing.

In May 2004, Gallup reported that 89% of the Republican electorate approved of Bush

Even towards the end, Republicans were the majority of his support and the only reason why his approval rating was that high. I love how you try and say that he "turned" against the right when they were hand in hand until many of Bush's actions like the War in Iraq turned out not to be going so well.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yes, quotes for those supporting the spending and suspension of constitutional rights while Bush presided.

Support for the Patriot Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights
The support for any of these Acts is either support for Wasteful spending or against Constitutional Rights. ~snip for brevity~

We see you have failed to meet the challenge. NO actual quotes, but alot of DEM support in Congress for ALL the stuff you mentioned. Might have been why Congress' approval rating was lower than Bush's!

You might have a good topic for another thread. THIS thread is about the CURRENT administration, which you might note is carrying on ALL of those "Bush" policies and more, even EXPANDING them.

What do you have to say about any of that? You should take that "Independent" label off your user title, if all you're going to do is recycle useless regurgitated kool-aid you've been spoonfed.

This thread is about Obama. Not Booooosh. Do you not understand such a simple concept, or is it that you simply cannot defend the indefensible?

It's one or the other.

 

[Oddball]

You might have a good topic for another thread. THIS thread is about the CURRENT administration, which you might note is carrying on ALL of those "Bush" policies and more, even EXPANDING them.

What do you have to say about any of that?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Of course, you don't read my other posts in this thread which shows my obvious dislike for some of the things the Obama Administration is currently doing

Your FIRST post in this thread was a deflection, "Mom, look what Booooosh did though!"

Your credibility went to zero right then, your later little limpwristic, fluff, faux "objections" to "some" of Obama's policies are as obvious as a turd in a punch bowl.

 

[Modbert]

We see you have failed to meet the challenge. NO actual quotes, but alot of DEM support in Congress for ALL the stuff you mentioned. Might have been why Congress' approval rating was lower than Bush's!

You might have a good topic for another thread. THIS thread is about the CURRENT administration, which you might note is carrying on ALL of those "Bush" policies and more, even EXPANDING them.

What do you have to say about any of that? You should take that "Independent" label off your user title, if all you're going to do is recycle useless regurgitated kool-aid you've been spoonfed.

This thread is about Obama. Not Booooosh. Do you not understand such a simple concept, or is it that you simply cannot defend the indefensible?

It's one or the other.

The only reason I keep bringing up Bush you idiot is because you are. I already stated my opinion about what Obama is doing earlier in this thread but it's obvious you cannot fucking read.

You should stop acting like you're sort of moderate, it's clearly obvious you're not.

By the way, I don't need to go digging through the USMB archives because everybody knows who supported what. I'm not going to waste hours going through information only for you to cry, and neg rep me like a bitch again.

 

[Modbert]

Your FIRST post in this thread was a deflection, "Mom, look what Booooosh did though!"

Your credibility went to zero right then, your later little limpwristic, fluff, faux "objections" to "some" of Obama's policies are as obvious as a turd in a punch bowl.

This THREAD is about Obama CONTINUING BUSH's policies. So I merely pointed out that the whole "1984" concept should of been brought up years earlier in that case because Obama doesn't seem to be doing too much different than Bush thus far.

You call my objections to some of Obama's policies "faux" but the thing is Midnight you don't know me. You MAY think you know me but you don't.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, quotes for those supporting the spending and suspension of constitutional rights while Bush presided.

Support for the Patriot Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Support for No Child Left Behind - Wasteful spending since Bush cut the actual amount needed in the first place for even it to succeed. There was no point in having another underfunded failure of a program in place. As someone who just went through four years of high school with No Child Left Behind in full effect, I know first hand what a failure it is.

Real ID Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Department of Homeland Security -

As of 2008 have wasted $15 billion in contracts. The department was blamed for up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of government credit cards by DHS employees, with purchases including beer brewing kits, $70,000 of plastic dog booties that were later deemed unusable, boats purchased at double the retail price (many of which later could not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in "data storage".

ADVISE (Data Mining)

Also, it reminds me so much of Big Brother from 1984, and should worry anyone against Government Expansion as it became the 3rd largest cabinet department in such a small amount of time.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005 - Wasteful Spending

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - This alone should make any eyebrows raise: The credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years.

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 - For the American Corporation and against the American people.

The support for any of these Acts is either support for Wasteful spending or against Constitutional Rights.

No presidential power for secret surveillance
Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007


Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?
A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006


Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk
[The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable.
Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” Jul 12, 2004



FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.
Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008



Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.

Reference: Protect America Act; Bill S.1927 ; vote number 2007-309 on Aug 3, 2007



Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The only reason I keep bringing up Bush you idiot is because you are. I already stated my opinion about what Obama is doing earlier in this thread but it's obvious you cannot fucking read.

You should stop acting like you're sort of moderate, it's clearly obvious you're not.

By the way, I don't need to go digging through the USMB archives because everybody knows who supported what. I'm not going to waste hours going through information only for you to cry, and neg rep me like a bitch again.

I neg rep liars who keep blathering the same lie over and over, thinking that will somehow make the lie true. You can prevent this by not doing the above named activity.

You can also prevent future issues in Obama threads by NOT starting off with "Mom, look what Booooosh did though!" like a 3 year-old.

Each reply I have made to you asks about OBAMA. Clearly you have said all you are going to say about OBAMA. So why don't you just run along and create a Booooosh bashing thread, boy? This thread is about OBAMA.

When idiots like you who fancy themselves "independent" run into folks who actually are, you're defensive and whiny. Use weasel words and pretend to be joining in on criticism of the current administration. When really, that's just a pretext to work the Booooosh stuff in. You actually have NO criticisms of Obama. You're just a sock puppet for the far-left.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This THREAD is about Obama

NOW you're getting it.

 

[Modbert]

I neg rep liars who keep blathering the same lie over and over, thinking that will somehow make the lie true. You can prevent this by not doing the above named activity.

You can also prevent future issues in Obama threads by NOT starting off with "Mom, look what Booooosh did though!" like a 3 year-old.

Each reply I have made to you asks about OBAMA. Clearly you have said all you are going to say about OBAMA. So why don't you just run along and create a Booooosh bashing thread, boy? This thread is about OBAMA.

When idiots like you who fancy themselves "independent" run into folks who actually are, you're defensive and whiny. Use weasel words and pretend to be joining in on criticism of the current administration. When really, that's just a pretext to work the Booooosh stuff in. You actually have NO criticisms of Obama. You're just a sock puppet for the far-left.

Show me where I was lying, are you going to tell me that the majority of Bush's support towards the end was Democrats? Or that the gallup poll was a lie? Or that Republicans weren't supporting Bush until things started to go to hell?

Fuck you for accusing me of being a sock puppet. I supported the Republican candidate for mayor in this last election cycle in my city, so once again you THINK you know me but you don't.

This is a thread about OBAMA continuing BUSH's policies. My amazement is at the fact about those who seem to think when Bush was doing it, it was different. They were and are still both WRONG. What the hell do you not get about these simple facts?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is a thread about OBAMA

Again, you're starting to see the light!

 

[Annie]

Yes, quotes for those supporting the spending and suspension of constitutional rights while Bush presided.

Support for the Patriot Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Support for No Child Left Behind - Wasteful spending since Bush cut the actual amount needed in the first place for even it to succeed. There was no point in having another underfunded failure of a program in place. As someone who just went through four years of high school with No Child Left Behind in full effect, I know first hand what a failure it is.

Real ID Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Department of Homeland Security -

As of 2008 have wasted $15 billion in contracts. The department was blamed for up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of government credit cards by DHS employees, with purchases including beer brewing kits, $70,000 of plastic dog booties that were later deemed unusable, boats purchased at double the retail price (many of which later could not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in "data storage".

ADVISE (Data Mining)

Also, it reminds me so much of Big Brother from 1984, and should worry anyone against Government Expansion as it became the 3rd largest cabinet department in such a small amount of time.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005 - Wasteful Spending

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - This alone should make any eyebrows raise: The credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years.

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 - For the American Corporation and against the American people.

The support for any of these Acts is either support for Wasteful spending or against Constitutional Rights.

No presidential power for secret surveillance
Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007


Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?
A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006


Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk
[The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable.
Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” Jul 12, 2004



FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.
Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008



Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.

Reference: Protect America Act; Bill S.1927 ; vote number 2007-309 on Aug 3, 2007



Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

That second quote, with no attribution, was NOT ME!

 

[Modbert]

That second quote, with no attribution, was NOT ME!

I don't think anyone did say it was.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is a thread about OBAMA continuing BUSH's policies. My amazement is at the fact about those who seem to think when Bush was doing it, it was different. They were and are still both WRONG. What the hell do you not get about these simple facts?

Perhaps if you say it louder, and long enough, the ones standing behind you will be able to hear you.... Just a suggestion....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

My amazement is at the fact about those who seem to think when Bush was doing it, it was different.

Who? Where? QUOTE some of them! How about starting with the DEMS in Congress who voted for all that shit, then demonized it and demagogued it come time to get re-elected? THERE'S The problem!

You cannot back up your parroted, regurgitated assertions, because they are just blatherskite that was spoonfed to you.

 

[DamnYankee]

Support for the Patriot Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Support for No Child Left Behind - Wasteful spending since Bush cut the actual amount needed in the first place for even it to succeed. There was no point in having another underfunded failure of a program in place. As someone who just went through four years of high school with No Child Left Behind in full effect, I know first hand what a failure it is.

Real ID Act - Violation of Constitutional Rights

Department of Homeland Security -

ADVISE (Data Mining)

Also, it reminds me so much of Big Brother from 1984, and should worry anyone against Government Expansion as it became the 3rd largest cabinet department in such a small amount of time.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005 - Wasteful Spending

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - This alone should make any eyebrows raise: The credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years.

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 - For the American Corporation and against the American people.

The support for any of these Acts is either support for Wasteful spending or against Constitutional Rights.

No presidential power for secret surveillance
Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007


Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?
A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006


Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk
[The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable.
Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” Jul 12, 2004



FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.
Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008



Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.

Reference: Protect America Act; Bill S.1927 ; vote number 2007-309 on Aug 3, 2007



Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

That second quote, with no attribution, was NOT ME!

Sorry.... You'll have to take that up with Modbert....

 

[Modbert]

Who? Where? QUOTE some of them! How about starting with the DEMS in Congress who voted for all that shit? THERE'S The problem!

You cannot back up your parroted, regurgitated assertions, because they are just blatherskite that was spoonfed to you.

Go watch the news for starters. You seem to have me confused with someone who actually thinks the spineless Democrats in Congress are intelligent.

Too many of them rolled over for whatever Bush wanted during the Bush Administration until it finally became unpopular to go against him. I wouldn't trust Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with picking up my garbage, never mind running Congress. Harry Reid reminds me of the cowardly lion too.

That's not to say there aren't Democrats in Congress who are actually intelligent individuals with spines though.

 

[Oddball]

Who? Where? QUOTE some of them!

Looks like we're back to the old "you guys" strawman again!!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Where were all you righties when Booooosh was doing all this" really is a weak argument, cannot be backed up, is whiny and weasel-worded, is infantile, assumes facts not in evidence -- such as most of us aren't "righties" -- and is counter-productive to intelligent, mature discussion.

Which is exactly what it's supposed to be, a deflection. You should drop it from your "Independent Liberal" repertoire.