Debate Questions I'd Like To Ask
Tomorrow night may be the last debate in the Democratic primary race. This will be the twentieth debate so far, which has to be some kind of record. ...
Tomorrow night may be the last debate in the Democratic primary race. This will be the twentieth debate so far, which has to be some kind of record. ...
Some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.
So here we are, balanced at the precise point where the bottom-up dynamics of Web 2.0 meets the top-down dynamics of an American presidential campaign.
Last week a mix of water and sanitation experts gathered for World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden to mull over the world's biggest public health crisis. The problem is that not enough people paid attention.
If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. While he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself.
It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency.
On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. This beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.
My interest is not to derail Obama's campaign from within, but to keep a place at the table for his activist base.
We should not give Obama an easy pass on his FISA turnaround, but progressives need to maintain a nuanced view of the relationship between electoral politics and movement building.
It's not just the left questioning Obama's principles over the FISA flap. His opponents are pointing and laughing at him for being a panderer and accommodationist. And Obama hasn't even voted on the bill yet!
Obama is raising more money via the Internet in small donations than any candidate in history. Hooray! But it is just as true that he is raising more money from fat cat donations than any candidate in history.
Barack Obama tapped his sizeable grassroots network on Saturday, coordinating over 4,000 "Unite for Change" meetups across the country through the cam...
Both candidates are embracing, rather than challenging, the fundamental irrationality of Bush's "war on terror," which substitutes hysteria for rational analysis in appraising the dangers the country faces.
We need to know why the president was so hot to do the tele-spying the way they did. Why go outside FISA? Why circumvent a law that already allowed them to tap all they wanted, effectively without restraint?
The DNC's 'Terry McAuliffe mind-set' ruined the campaigns of Gore, Kerry and Sen. Clinton and now the legions of McAuliffites who have surrounded Obama are doing their best to undermine the possibility of his presidency.
I think our country and the damage to our balance of powers means we're really in crisis, we're in water that is nearing a boil and we don't seem to know it.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
MARTIN - Get with the program, its the same constitution that allowed your future generations savings to be transfered to Haliburton and Exxon, murdered over a million Iraqis, lets Kissenger walk free, assassinated Allende and Lumumba, distributes weapons of mass destruction to undemocratic states and others that refuse to obey U.N. resolutions.
There is hardly a U.S. president alive who should not be infront of a human rights court and you think this is the issue?
You think the last straw is FISA? Dont you remember the Rio Summit chaired by Gorbachev when Bush Snr refused to protect the environment, later Kyoto, not to mention the ban on Land Mines.
We are talking about a country that elected George W Bush, TWIICE!!!! and you are proposing a sane argument to the electorate?????????????????????????? I tell you what, pose your argument to Paris Hilton and if she gets it I will follow you around the world.
Michale,
You probably should have stuck to your technique of evasion and obfuscation, because I literally destroyed you in this debate.
:D If you say so...
Simply because you refuse to accept the facts, does not destruction make.. :D
But, I do appreciate the opportunity to prove how utterly ignorant you are of the issues facing us.
Please don't be offended by this.
There is no shame in not knowing everything..
I am going to move on to other commentaries now. I'll be generous to you and let you have the last word.
It's the least I can do after so utterly destroying your credibility...
Michale.....
I'll let others decide who won this debate, suffice to say you utterly failed to answer, or even address the bulk of my arguments.
Hanging your entire case on the concept that international and domestic communications cannot be separated, even if true (though you failed to provide a single fact that proves this point) fails to address the 4th amendment violations that occur AFTER the communications have been "flagged;" when they are REVIEWED (a.k.a. searched) by a GOVERNMENT AGENT, all prior to a "Judge" issuing a "warrant," based on "probable cause," which "particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Additionally, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my points about potential abuses. Why? Well, because those threats are very real and you have no answer that could alleviate these concerns.
Next, you contradicted yourself several times by claiming only a "computer" analyzes the communication, when earlier you admitted that once a computer finishes violating your 4th amendment rights, having then "flagged" your communications based on some words (chosen, no doubt by a covert government agent), it makes its way into the hands of a government employee (yes, a human being) who studies (a.k.a. searches) that communication without due process as described above, in conflict with the 4th amendment.
The ACLU position on the new FISA bill:
The FAA violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows the government to gobble up the constitutionally protected communications of American citizens and residents without getting individualized warrants, and without specifying the time, place or length of the surveillance, and not specifying how the info gathered will be disseminated, or how long it"ll be kept. (You know, the who/what/where/when/why.)
The FAA also violates the First Amendment by chilling lawful expressive speech without adequate justification by authorizing the government to intercept constitutionally protected communications without judicial oversight.
The challenged law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the government to continue surveillance activities even if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has deemed those activities illegal.
Next stop.... court.
@tommybones
}}}}}Okay, so your entire argument is based on a lie or ignorance.
No, it's based on the facts...
It's simply NOT possible to differentiate between American communications and other communications without any sort of monitoring or analyzing of the communication itself.
These are the facts whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
This is why I said at the very beginning of this long running marathon debate that FISA is ill-equipped for CT operations.
Michale.....
Yeah, you keep on saying that you have facts to back you up, even though every time that we ask you for some you come back with OPINION, and then when we call you out on that you say that you OPINION is a fact!