Thursday, March 16, 2006

A Vote For The American People


Tom Harkin


My native state senator stands up for the Constitution. I'm proud to say thank you Tom!

In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Let's be clear: No American – and that must include the President – is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy........... He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping. .....I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

23 Comments:

Blogger The Game said...

This is only for Ron, and I will only read Ron's answer since he must be the only one who can control his emotions enought to occassionally dabate.

Ron,
Do you think it will look good for the Dem's to bring that to the floor and only have 10 or 12 Senators vote for it? You don't see how excited Bill Frist is to have Russ talk this way?
Even if Bush is in the wrong (and i know you believe it is a home run "yes," we can debate that later), a vast majority of everybody would agree that a censure is too far. Yes, you think Bush should be hanged, but you have to atleast understand that a vast majority of Americans are not as far left as you are

8:34 PM, March 16, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

I understand that people don't understand the full implications of what is being done and how dangerous it is to our democracy. It's up to me and us to point that out, popular or not. Taking a principaled stand is what honest government is all about. I bet down the road frist and company will be singin a different toon. We shall see

6:08 PM, March 17, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

I guess what I'm really saying is I could give a rats ass about the politics. I have decided not to call myself a democrat because they are such cowards they can't even figure out ethics when it stares them in the face. I don't expect the pubs to care but I thought the dems did. I was wrong. They do not represent me on this or many other issues. You have to understand. The reason I like Russ so well is because he is willing to be the ONLY one to take a stand if he believes in it. I am that way also hence the admiration. A guy on the other side that I find quite interesting is Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Don't get me wrong. I find myself on the opposite side of him almost always. I even wonder if they guy isn't a bit touched in the head. The thing is I have heard him on C-Span say things that made me say Yeah! outloud. I can tell, even though I often disagree, that he is speaking from his heart. He is consistant.I would rather deal with someone like him because he seems to work more from his own standard rather than the political angle. I think Russ is the same way.

Anyway. This was to keep the story from being buryed and they will try to bury this as fast as they can but it ain't gonna work this time cuz this is serious.

6:23 PM, March 17, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

Understand your points...
I would like to debate the wiretap issue further...but I can honestly say I do not know enough about this issue to argue. I think I know some things, but it is VERY hard to find non-partisan sources. Sources on the Right say Bush is just listening to terrorists talk to Americans, liberals say he is trying to listen to your grandma talk about getting groceries...I'm sure the truth is somewhere inbetween...

But can you show he how the government listening to terrorist talk on the phone is HURTING you? Honest, don't go crazy here and say Bush is tring to take over the country or something. I know you are going to talk about privacy...and that is fine. But I'm not a terrorist, I don't talk to terrorists..so I don't really care if anyone is listening to me or not...

Obviously the government was not doing enough before, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt now.

12:58 AM, March 18, 2006  
Anonymous Scary Cat said...

To the Milwaukee Vulcan from the overly emotional DC.
Hiss!!!
We are not too emotional to debate each other, but refuse to waste our time debating politics with braindead Ann Coulter lovers. I am willing to debate social issues with you, but will not buy any of your rightwing cr*p that supports the policies of this totally inept and corrupt Administration. I repeat, you are so deep in denial that if you saw Cleopatra's ghost, you'd refuse to believe your own eyes.
And speaking of Democrats we gotta love to hate, Lonna called me this morning to tell me about the Senate vote on ANWR and how
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)joined the GOP to pass it 51-49. Evidently she was "bribed" with a promise of $10 Bil. to help rebuild New Orleans/LA. Of course, IF she gets it, expect the money to go to Halliburton and maybe some other rich GOP contributing construction companies. The House still gets to vote on it, but I'm totally pessimistic about the outcome. As you can expect, Ron, I am unbelievably enraged about this. Goddess forgive me, but I can't stop thinking that I hope the traitorous bi*ch will choke on her gumbo tonight!

3:17 PM, March 18, 2006  
Anonymous DC said...

Hi Ron!
Went to check my email and send out some scathing remarks on the ANWR vote and came back to see Hooray! (6/05) on the screen again. As I emailed you, I'm such a space cadet I automatically posted one on it yesterday without looking at the date. (Well the GOP could've been trashing Dean, I mean, what else is new?) Anyway, I talked about the latest Dem meeting, so if you can will you move it to the new coffee table... pretty please with sugar on it? Thanx!

3:50 PM, March 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron, here is a link to what conservative columnist Steve Chapman said about the wiretapping.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603160158mar16,0,6825867.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl

He does not question that it was illegal.

He is a pro-life Libertarian.

I am going to paste his column on his reasons for voting for Kerry for president in another column. He said he was voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in his life, and he hoped he never had to do it again. It was quite enlightening.

Lonna

3:55 PM, March 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excerpts from the conservative, Chapman's article. I recommend you click on the link above in the comment above and read the whole thing.

The self-emasculation of a weak Congress
Steve Chapman

March 16, 2006

Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, thinks President Bush broke the law with his secret program to eavesdrop on Americans, and he wants Congress to censure Bush. He's right about the lawbreaking but wrong to think censure is the answer. That might give Americans the impression that Congress is something more than a supine slave of partisan interests. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, presented with the censure resolution, practically trampled each other to prove their slobbering devotion to the president. Sen. John Warner of Virginia assailed the proposal as "the worst type of political grandstanding." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee accused Feingold of giving hope and encouragement to Al Qaeda: "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong."

I had the impression that indicating lack of support for our commander in chief--as congressional Republicans did so conspicuously, and appropriately, during the 1999 Kosovo war--was a constitutional right and sometimes a patriotic duty. But never mind that. It would be a waste of time to censure Bush, because censure would not compel him to do anything he doesn't want to do, such as obey the 1978 law governing domestic wiretapping...

Republicans, after all, control both the Senate and the House, and they are far more intent on protecting their party than upholding their prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government. Recently Senate GOP leaders offered to bless the program without even investigating first to find out what, exactly, they are blessing...

"Before he reauthorizes the program, the intelligence community has to certify that the threats still exist and recommend that the program be renewed. The secretary of defense has to sign off on it. The attorney general of the United States ... has to certify that it is compliant with the laws and Constitution of the United States. Then the president reauthorizes the program." What a relief it is to know that the administration can't renew the program without the approval of the administration.

This is an absurd parody of the checks and balances our system is supposed to provide. If the framers of the Constitution had thought a single branch of government could police itself, they would not have created three branches.

As James Madison wrote, "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others ... Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

The idea was that each branch would jealously guard its powers against the others. But in this case, Congress passed a law, the president ignored it, and Congress applauded him for doing so. Stalin's Politburo could not have been more compliant.

What the framers didn't anticipate was the rise of political parties, allegiances to which now override every other consideration. This episode makes clear that the best government is divided government--where the party that occupies the White House does not control Congress. Only then can we rely on lawmakers to provide a meaningful check on presidential power. With the GOP dominant at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the president can treat Congress as an obsolete irrelevancy.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), defending the Republican proposal against critics who say it's pathetically weak, said he resented being called a "lap dog of the administration." That label certainly is unfair. Even lap dogs will bite if they're kicked often enough, which is more than you can say for congressional Republicans.

Lonna

----------

4:02 PM, March 18, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, The problems with this are so multitute that your one question doen't even begin to address it. Here my thoughts on that though.

The problem is we don't know who he is considering terrorists.Is it Quaker peace activists. I bet there are politicans that call questionable areas all the time. Are they tapped? They won't tell us anything so how can we know if what they are doing is proper or not. I actually have studied this quite a bit along with the patriot act.I could tell you lots of stuff. Suffice to say I am scared by them because it is more police state, which is a way I don't want to go. If the soldiers will die for freedom so will I. We must all support freedom or we all will lose it...slowly over time...and sometimes, as recently in big jumps.

6:22 PM, March 18, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, I know it's hard to understand not being here in Roswell but it is reallllly hard to be anything even approching liberal or progressive around here. This is the reddist area of NM and directly borders west texas and midland odessa is just a bit east. The progressives here have been beat and mocked and minimialize for years. If you lived here I think you could better understand their anger. It's about the only way to survive the superiority complex that the pubs have around here.

6:31 PM, March 18, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

I don't think the lack of ability to debate and stay calm is not exclusive to your site. But I don't want to even waste time talking about it...if you are willing to talk and be a reasonable human being, then we can talk (but it is only fair you comment over by me too, which you do a little).

Okay, I saw V for Vendeta today...and when you talk about the patriot act and this wiretapping stuff, I instantly think you are truly thinking the world is about one step away from being run like the UK is in the movie. If that is not true then tell me...but if it is you have to understand I find that completely insane. The government is not trying to form a police state...especially when your examples might involve listening to Muslims overseas call Muslims here...or that the patriot act might allow the govt to look at see if you took out a library book. I don't see the personal liberties that are being taken away...

12:46 AM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

The government is not trying to form a police state...especially when your examples might involve listening to Muslims overseas call Muslims here...or that the patriot act might allow the govt to look at see if you took out a library book. I don't see the personal liberties that are being taken away...

I've never seen that movie but On this we must completely disagree. This is why we can't play together. We don't even see it in the same frame. Who are the terrorists!!!? Who will they be tomorrow? Are you sure your definition will always match up to the Presidents? They are not only looking at library books they also can get YOUR medical records, finacial records, business records...oh but registration of guns is a serious violation of our civil liberties!!!!! What the F!
Oh, by the way, as an employer you cant tell anyone.
They don't have to tell you or anyone else that they have been snooping around either and the business must bear the cost of all of this..really Game, I'm not kidding.
At what point are we suppose to get worried Game?
I have a feeling from what you have been writing you are old enough only to remember very conservative government. You will like liberals a lot better when you get a true picture of them..once we put a bunch of them in office..really Game you will.:-)

2:32 AM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

If he's just listening to al queda im ok with that. Now how do we prove he is just listening to al queda...or are we suppose to just "trust him".

12:21 PM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

At what point are we suppose to get worried Game?

That is a good question...and the answer is not never. But the answer is also not right now. I really don't even care if the govt looks at my medical files (not sure what good that does). When we start hearing stories of people going to jail for saying things, or taking out certain books, things like that...then I'll be worried...

I would be more worried if the government was NOT listening to everything possible...and you see there is your problem...

When the Right says things like:
"We are fighting the terrorist in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in New York"
or
"If the terrorists call someone in the US, we want to be listening"

most people agree with that, they think those statements sound good...

Then you talk about the police state and the government flying around in black helicopters and you sound crazy...that is not what is happening..

Your side doesn't have a message besides Bush sucks...or that we need to run away from Iraq...you might win some seats simply because Bush doesn't have a clue on how to form a complete sentence...but since the only messages the Left says sound crazy to too many people (Russ), you will not win nearly as many seats as when the American people revolted against Clinton and the Dems in 1994.

4:08 PM, March 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An awful lot of the rage I read (and post) comes from "emotional" fed-up Republicans.

One outraged Republican from the Bush I administration said he kept going back to the Aug. 6th PDB "bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S." It mentioned using airplanes and hitting Washington and New York. But Bush did not even call a meeting to discuss it. That kind of "inattention" (the Republican's words) is incomprehensible.

And he did the same thing with Katrina. Asked no questions. "Brownie" looked better in that teleconference than anyone else.

Also, in 2002, Dumsfeld said if we went to war, it might last '5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months, but not more than 5 months.'

He still has not been fired for incompetence.

AND, as another Republican said, he would vote for Kerry because Congress would NOT give Kerry every bad thing he wanted. But they WOULD give Bush every bad thing he wanted.

Lonna

10:38 PM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Well think it sounds crazy if you like but you have been labotamized if you don't see what is happening game. I never said anything about black helicopters. The united states presidents have used their power to spy illicitly a number of times in the past. That is why we have those laws in place. It is more understandable if you have lived through it which obviously you didn't. We also have had our own soliders shoot americans on american soil so dont say its crazy and cant happen it already has! Go about with your blinders on if you like but that is why we cant play together. I have no idea what world you are living in. I am NOT a radical. I am a concerned american and to be played of as some crazy person is half the problem in this country right now. All I can say is I hope life gives you some perspective.

You also twice have failed to answer my question Who are the terrorists that are being monitored. Do you think your definition would match the presidents. Do you think mine would? Who will be described as terrorists tomorrow. Those american citizens from hollywood and the liberal blogs that criticize the president, that you say should be tried for sedition? Do you even get why we are worryed for Gods sake!!!!!!!!!!

10:40 PM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

All I can say is I hope life gives you some perspective.

Didn't you know that the older people get, the more likely they are to be Republican...

ONLY group that Kerry won...18-29

10:21 PM, March 20, 2006  
Blogger Dedanna said...

Game, need we remind you of how far you need to pull your head out of your ass before you see any light at all?

12:26 AM, March 21, 2006  
Blogger Dedanna said...

BTW: I'm almost 50, and have no intention whatsoever of becoming Republican or Democrat either one.

My mother is 64, and Bushco makes her literally physically ill to look at, much less to deal with in any way shape or form.

My aunt, who is almost 60, is Democrat.

My grandmother, once Republican, has turned Democrat (94, there in Roswell, still alive 'n kickin').

So has my grandfather.

My son's father is almost 60 -- Democrat.

My other grandmother (80+) -- Democrat.

Everyone I know has now turned Democrat from Republican (friends) since GWB came into "office".

I'd like to know what the hell you base your "the older you get" statement on (or is it just bullshit you picked up at a Republican site somewhere?).

Oh, and I'm so glad you want to be spied on. Let's see how much you like it next time you're porno-ing with a gf on the i-net.

L8er.

7:03 AM, March 21, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

maybe so but it aint happening to me unless they change a lot. I am 50 and pretty set in my ways already...as you may have noticed.:-) I'm a man in search of a party. Whatever Russ is I could go with that but it is obvious that most of the Democratic party is not looking too lead.

5:45 PM, March 21, 2006  
Blogger Dedanna said...

My point being, that where does Game get his "facts" that the older one gets, the more they are liable to vote Republican? I named what, some dozen or so people who are older, and are not voting Republican, and there are scores more that I could do the same with.

Are you planning on voting Repug, Ron? Didn't think so --

Everyone is different, so we each would vote differently, would we not?

Again, I ask, was this "fact" dreamed up at some propagandist neocon site?

11:01 PM, March 24, 2006  
Anonymous DC said...

During the course of the 2004 election I listened to a lot of senior citizens who hated Bush and wouldn't have voted Republican for any reason. Many of them were planning to vote for Kerry, but their kids/grandchildren were pro-Bush. I suspect the latter had turned evangelical and/or abortion/gay marriage were major issues for them. Also, it just isn't popular to be a Democrat in this neck of the woods and apparently, doing or being what's popular is more important than doing what's right for some.
My mom and step-dad are both over 65 and both loathe Bush and Cheney and think they're about as bad of leaders as it can get. I might add that my step-dad is a Vietnam vet, too. They saw Kerry make a speech in Tucsan and were very impressed with him. Also, you can bet that a lot of seniors are p'd off about Bu$h's bogus prescription drug plan and his plan to privatize Social Security.
You gotta figure that age isn't a factor. The smart and informed folks of any age vote Democrat, Independent, Green, etc. and the brainwashed deluded religiously fanatical uninformed and sometimes just dumb redneck voters still vote Republican when they ought to know that the yeehaws* in charge are as far from Lincoln and Eisenhower as you can get.
* a yeehaw is a Texas yahoo or anyone who supports one
Ciao!

3:29 PM, March 25, 2006  
Blogger Dedanna said...

Thank you.

*bows to you*

10:06 PM, March 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home