Open Thread (6/20/2008)

The treasonous FISA bill passed today 293 to 129. 

Republicans were split on the issue 188 to 1, the lone Nay vote being that of our own Tim Johnson (thank you, sir).

Democrats tended to vote along party lines, 105 Yea, 128 Nay.

I would say a large majority of the U. S. Congress voted for the FISA bill and to try to protect the United States from attacks from terrorists.

I just wonder what happened to all the talk from the Obama campaign about this was a threat to democracy and all the rest? We do have one hope I guess next stop is the Senate the Democrats have a larger majority there and Obama can speechify and win the day and stop the FISA bill. To bad about the Iraq budget is that a done deal or something 190 Billion did Obama fight that, did he try to set a plan to cut funding to slowly cut the number of troops in Iraq to bring them home? I don't remember any bills passing the senate like that with his name on it. Maybe he is to busy running for President.

Looking at the vote I guess I should amend my comment a large majority of the vote was for it. it seems a lot of people didn't vote.

Not a typo.  Note the divisiveness among the Republicans 188 to 1.

FISA is in my opinion a damnable erosion of 4th amendment rights.

I never cease to find it surprising is how neocons abandon Republican principles of opposition to big government, freedom of individuals, and responsiveness of goverment to the people...  "I'm a Republican Because...I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored."

I am very pleased that Tim Johnson voted against FISA and had enough backbone to resist the madness that seems to have gripped the GOP these days.

One purpose of the federal government is to provide for a unified national defense.  The need for a national defense is not to be used as a pretext for the federal government to insinuate itself into every aspect of our lives.  It is no excuse for illegal searches and spying on our people.

"Not a typo.  Note the divisiveness among the Republicans 188 to 1."

Ah.  Sarcasm, then?

As to whether or not the Constitution is a suicide pact, I would suggest that destroying liberty in order to preserve it is not just stupid, it's evil.  Yes, I know that freedom can never be infinite, but that just means that we have to be doubly conscientious when deciding where the line is drawn.  Conservatives are supposed to oppose totalitarianism, and Big Brother is definitely not on the side of "inalienable" rights or a healthy democracy.

Don't like the Constitution?  Change it.  Until you do, live by it.  It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've been able to do for a couple hundred years now.

Ol' Ben was a notorious whack-job and he and his antiquated ideas are out of date, obsolete, irrelevant, unapplicable to today's complex political landscape.    NOT!

The Virginia constitution of 1776 contained this article foundational to our 4th amendment.  That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

FISA is grievous and oppressive and free men walking in liberty ought to be appalled and outraged that their representatives voted for this unconstitutional fascist-socialist neoconservative travesty.

In case anyone was wondering why the Champion of the Constitution, Ron E. Paul did not vote against the FISA bill, it was because he was keeping a speaking engagement with the Republican Party of Montana on the day of the vote.  Paul was noted as saying on that day:  The young people who have joined our campaign are rallying to the cry of self-reliance and getting out of the control of government and getting their independence back.

Run: I'm not sure I get your point.  They both seem wrong to me.  Asking which is more grievous is kind of like asking which is worse: drowning 10,000 puppies or immolating 5,000 kittens?

Run4: The thread is "open", but I dont understand the question, really.

I don't too much want the goverment to regulate oil and gas refineries let alone own them. We should be privatizing more things out of the public sector rather than having the government run businesses of any sort that can be done by the private sector. 

All Things that are in the public sector should be completely transparent, including all filings and transactions made by corporations and other private sector entities with  government agencies as matter of open public record.  Since these things are all filed electronically in this day and age, they should all be publically accessible on the internet.

The reason for that is to put a stop to the anti-competition effect of government regulation.  We have too many situations where the corporations are cooperating with the government agencies to create a complex web by which the corporation receives protection from competitors and the government agency gets to survive and thrive because it can demonstrate all the "good it is doing for the public".

I would permit exceptions to complete transparency in government in cases of where the defense of the nation is at stake.  Obviously the classification of documents has been sorely abused as the government has become an entity with a "life of its own".

On the other hand, the privacy of the sovereign individual cannot be abridged except by due process.

Run:  Faux News spin notwithstanding, one loose cannon Democratic congressman does not constitute "the Democrats in Congress."  I really, really seriously doubt there is any significant traction among Democrats in Congress for nationalizing refineries.  Look for the leadership to shoot that one down right away if asked.  You're going to have to show me something a whole lot more substantial than a single quote from that so-called reporters' notebook.

As to FISA, you do realize that there are at least two participants in any phone call, right?  Just because a call is going to or coming from a foreign country does not mean there are no American citizens on the call being wiretapped.  Besides which, if the government doesn't have to go to even a secure court first (or within a reasonable period after), then how do we know who they are really listening to?

Being a Republican who did not vote for GWB either time, as he fits too well with the NEW GOP who could not see FISA as serious infringement on the 4th Amendment.  What a bunch of losers running the GOP.

"Kevin this wasn't some story from a reporter’s notebook it was a quote from minutes of a committee hearing."

Dead wrong.  Read the story you linked to again.  It's a skeletal outline of notes, not a transcript.  And the reporter clearly points out that this was not a committee meeting, but rather it was a press conference involving a handful of Dem congressman, only one of whom mentioned government ownership.  There is no proposal for nationalization, and no support for it by the Dem leadership (or even more than one or two rank and file members.)

The Republican blogs and forums all went nuts over this one reference, but if you google the story, you'll notice that they all link back to this same single report.  You'll also notice that Fox was the only commercial media outlet to run with it.

By Fox's own admission in a follow-up story, the solitary congressman who made the remark (Hinchey) backed away from it the very next day.

Oh, and by the way, one of the problems with the FISA rewrite is that the Bush Administration has been trying to remove the requirement to go to the FISA court for a warrant.  That's why it's referred to as warrantless wiretapping, and that's one of the two primary changes that has us all so upset.  (The other being blanket immunity for past violations.)

Finally, it's getting late, so I will leave the obvious differences between WWII and the war on "terra" for another day...

I made a mistake about the fact it was a committee hearing or a reporter but the reporter was quoting real people. The fact still stands that there are democrats out their wanting to nationalize the oil refineries. Obama is still out there advocating confiscating the profits of the oil companies. History Guy I think there is a long history of over regulation and an attack on private property rights by democrats for people to really wonder what will come next, maybe a new Presidential seal. I really don't want to get into a debate on the War on terror using the twisted facts most of the people us on this site anyway. Do you think they are having any success in Iraq or are you in denial like the news media?

Waters is well known for her outrageous comments, often unintentionally stupifying.  My favorite: "I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion."

Ironically one of the best arguments for abortion I've ever heard. ;-)

--

Glock21 Op/Ed