Comments on: Barack Obama’s FISA shame

By: Erics

Erics — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:15:34 +0000

In the latest series of “shifts” by Obama, this is by far the most disturbing. I am having an increasingly difficult seeing the “Change” message.

By: Art from Switzerland

Art from Switzerland — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:52:06 +0000

I have been a Democrat all of my life. I rang doorbells for Hubert Humprey in Minneapolis. By going along with George W. Bush in voting for FISA, you have compromised the civil rights of the American people as well as your own ethics. If this is a preview of how you will govern, I prefer that you do not become the 44th president of the United States of America. Shame on you!

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:32:52 +0000

"If you aren’t doing anything illegal, don’t worry about it."

Modern day McCarthyism at its finest... If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. If only that weren't verifiably false from a historical perspective (and modern events such as "aggressive interrogation"/"extraordinary rendition" of proven innocents).

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:01:57 +0000

Disagree with you completely. I don’t think Bush really needs all the power he has, but there is a very real threat to our safety, and it’s a daily struggle to keep attacks from happening here on American soil. Since 9/11 how many terrorist attacks have you read about in other countries? England, China, etc have all experienced them. Did the “bad guys” decide we’ve had enough? Now does the government need to listen in on every phone call, and trace every text message, or have access to all of our emails? I don’t think so, but if letting them read about my porn habits, or tracking my ebay purchases will keep us safer, I don’t care. If you aren’t doing anything illegal, don’t worry about it. The people still have the right to bear arms, and if the government gets to nosy or overbearing, we can still rise against it.

By: Linda Wetherby

Linda Wetherby — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:15:13 +0000

Now that Obama has earned the support of the citizens of this country, he is secure in showing us that he can trample on our basic civil liberties as well as Bush has. I will continue to support Obama, but my money will remain in my pocket with my enthusiasm. There is no compromise for those politicians who have the nation’s best interest at heart.

By: bryan

bryan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:38:20 +0000

when was the last time a sitting president seeking reelection didn’t win the primary and get his party’s nomination?

Eh? No black man has ever won a presidential primary before 2008, either, yet here we are. Past actions are not a priori causal of future events.

In '92, 'daddy' Bush (sitting President) was seriously challenged by Robertson, who won 37% in the NH primary. This is/was unheard of for a sitting president to fail to capture nearly 2/5ths of a primary.

I worked many long hours for his campaign, and was elected an Obama district and then state delegate. I would be just as happy to work twice as hard for a clearly superior opponent, who respected and believed that no administration is above the law.

By: quentin

quentin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:46:00 +0000

He described clearly why retroactive immunity is wrong, but then supported the bill. In addition to its wrongness he might consider that: 1-giving retroctive immunity in a bill is a retroactive bill and hence forbidden in the constitution and 2- since the immunity is directed at specific individuals (companies) it is a bill of attainder and hence forbidden in the constitution.

By: John

John — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:26:04 +0000

If Obama wants to play such games, then he will not have my vote in the next primary 4 years from now.

Assuming he wins in November 2008, he won't need your primary vote in four years - when was the last time a sitting president seeking reelection didn't win the primary and get his party's nomination?

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:38:22 +0000

he’s being given higher level briefings which may include information that has changed his mind on the subject?-- Jeff

I could care less if he had access to the "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack the US" PDF.

My privacy and liberties are worth more than abating my "fear" (of which I have none) of "terrorism."

Terrorism is a political boogeyman that is pulled out and trotted around whenever a politician wants to let the sheeple know that they need to let Big Daddy do what he wants.

If Obama wants to play such games, then he will not have my vote in the next primary 4 years from now.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:48:05 +0000

Two things spring to mind...

1) Now that he's close to gaining the Presidency, he realizes he doesn't want to diminish the power of that office.

2) Now that he's the presumptive nominee, he's being given higher level briefings which may include information that has changed his mind on the subject?

...I certainly hope its the later.