Obama Every Bit as Bad as Bush/Cheney on Patriot Act »
Posted By berkeley 1 month, 1 week ago in Political OpinionFeingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and new Democrat Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the constitutional courage to oppose the Judiciary Committee bill eventually going to the floor that with few exceptions, leaves the Patriot Act intact. I'll be reporting on the crucial fight to bring the Bill of Rights back into the Patriot Act as Senate and House versions merge into a law to be signed by Obama as he continues the Bush-Cheney legacy.
It was Feingold who, in October 2001, was the only member of the Senate to vote against the original Patriot Act as, on the floor, he accurately predicted our greatly weakened privacy, due process and other rights since then.
Read Full Story at opposingviews.com »
241 Views Share Story 13 Comments Report
Submitted By:
berkeley
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 13 (view all)
-
-
83%
epiphannyy1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a shame, isn't it? It just proves, I think, that once someone gains power, it's almost impossible to get them to relinquish it. I had hoped for more, but honestly never expected it. This is one area that Congress really needs to step up and do what's right. I doubt they will though. The Democrats are too weak to ever face off with the Republican machine.
Reply
As a side note.....I find it amusing that even an article criticizing Obama get's a "drop" from avoth though...you'd think an article pointing out that he's just like Bush/Cheney on an issue would make him happy, but the obligatory "drop" for the Obama headline not posted by a "friend" of his is still here............how telling, especially given the last line of his profile - I don't believe it's necessary to tear others down in order to build oneself up.
Really avoth? Then why the 442 article drops already? That's a LOT for someone who claims it unnecessary to "tear others down" in their own pursuit of excellence. Some of them I understand, but most of them defy your profile statement. It seems that you DO, in fact, find it necessary to "tear others down in order to build yourself up." Or maybe "necessary" is the wrong word.....maybe you just find it "fun" instead.-
40%
Klarissa1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
epip - leave off with the personal attack - adds nothing and demeans you.
Reply
You say "The Democrats are too weak to ever face off with the Republican machine."
Nonsense, the have been power since 2006. Maybe the Democrats knew something that we don't? or they were just spineless, having to think about it for a long time.
-
-
-
100%
epiphannyy1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
True....but then I don't have that quote on my profile either.
Reply
And I have more than three times the props as avoth in our similar time frame of membership here.
me:
props: 3715
drops: 68
member 1yr 2mos
avoth:
props: 1274
drops: 442
member 1yr 6mos
Look at my my drops contrasted with his, if you want a comparison. I drop articles that are slanted or false or propaganda pieces. He drops everything "liberal"...or at least liberal SOUNDING (i.e. Obama in the title and posted by an Obama supporter). I can defend my drops, not because of a differing ideology, but a consistent view that what is posted as news should actually be factual and NEWS.
For example, my most recent drop was his post entitled "Is the World Snubbing Obama?".......why did I drop it? It was based on a proven-to-be-fake video. It deserved to be dropped. I believe he took responsibility and apologized for the inaccurate posting, but did so by apologizing ONLY to his "fellow conservatives" for misleading them.
My previous drop was the "Malcom X is Bisexual" post. I dropped that because, in my opinion, it's not news..it's just a new way to slam a black leader - an activity all too popular these days. His sexuality - bi or otherwise - is inconsequential to the man or his work. So I dropped it.
The next previous drop was the one about the Harris poll regarding support for health reform proposals. I dropped it because of the Harris poll methodology. Their refusal to acknowledge a +/- margin of error suggests a suspicious result to me.
I could go on, but my reasoning for my drops has to do with newsworthiness or, perhaps better stated my judgment of how trustworthy said news posting are, rather than the subject matter they report.
-
-
100%
hyperbola1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are many things where Obama is just following the same ideology as Bush. Part of the military-imperialism of our "elite" class in which average Americans are bled to pay for their power and prestige. How many times have you heard our corporate media (state-propaganda-organs) tell you that Obama cut defense spending?
Reply
Obama's Defense Budget - Of Pork and Baloney
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/05/06/obama39s...
This week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is set to roll out the final details of the defense budget for 2010. Beware the articles and commentary you read; many will be factually inaccurate or misleading - mostly both.
This will be the third round of revelations about the 2010 Pentagon budget. On Feb. 26, we got the bare bones - just the total amount. On April 6, we got Gates' decisions on 50 weapons programs. This week, we get all the rest - how much he seeks for every single other program and policy in the Pentagon.
The press will have a field day. The budget amounts will be spelled out with great precision in the national papers. Politicians will agonize over how much they think Gates has cut their own local just desserts or gush over the largesse for their home state. Think-tank pooh-bahs will bless us with their deep thoughts over how these details effectuate Gates' "sweeping reforms" of the Pentagon - first announced on April 6.
I will try to restrain my irritation as I read this baloney.
For decades, the media have taken their descriptions of the size of the defense budget straight from the Pentagon's annual press release - without even rudimentary double-checking. This year, they will cite the top-line dollar amount at $534 billion - the amount they reported on Feb. 26. ...
Wrong. That number ignores an additional $6 billion the Pentagon will get in "mandatory" appropriations, mostly for personnel-related expenses. ..
Some, but not all, of the news articles will also ignore the additional $130 billion sought to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barring last-minute changes to the numbers by Gates and OMB, the correct amount for the president's request for the Pentagon in 2010 will be $670 billion.
The articles will also leave out the money being sought by the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons and other appropriations, such as for the Selective Service and the National Defense Stockpile. Again, not in the DOD press release. Add another $22 billion.
Consider the human costs of current and previous wars in the Department of Veterans Affairs - surely, a legitimate defense cost. Add $106 billion.-
100%
hyperbola1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also consider the Department of Homeland Security: Add $43 billion.
Reply
What about the military and economic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan, gifts and loans to Israel and others, U.N. peacekeeping costs, and all the rest from the State Department? Add $49 billion.
Also, there is an account buried in the Department of the Treasury to help pay for military retirement. Add about $28 billion.
Each year, we pay interest on the national debt. People disagree, sometimes strenuously, on how much is DOD's share. About 20 percent of federal spending goes to the Pentagon: That's another $57 billion.
Add it all together, and you get $974 billion - almost $1 trillion.
If you want to know how much we spend for defense in a generic sense, you can about double the $534 billion many articles will report.
... Finally, what about all those "sweeping changes" the think-tank pooh-bahs will declare they see in the Pentagon budget - well, actually, in its press release?
Didn't happen.
...When you read the news articles later this week on the defense budget, consider it all an opportunity to assess the competence of journalism in the U.S. these days. -
100%
hyperbola1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmm, propeller "cut" the link to its own stories! Here it is again. Remember that the author has long been involved in "defence policy" in Congress, on both sides of the aisle.
Reply
http://prop-w-a-dtc01.evip.aol.com/story/2009/05/0...
-
-
-
100%
Tumultuous1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.
Reply
Congress began hearings in September on the fate of the Patriot Act, which will officially expire Dec. 31. The subject of great controversy since its introduction in 2001, it might be renamed the Justice Act and lose a few of its less contentious provisions – but it appears likely to remain for a long time to come.
Before renaming it, our lawmakers need to make sure some of the distinctly anti-justice provisions of the Patriot Act are removed.
When still a senator from Illinois, President Barack Obama had criticized the law, which the Bush administration extolled as one of its great counterterrorism measures. But now the Obama administration has asked the House and Senate to extend some of the act's provisions, calling them useful tools. Liberal congressional Democrats are not pleased.
The Obama administration is straddling the fence on the issue of revising the Patriot Act, claiming that federal agencies have not exploited the act's provisions to spy on Americans. How do they know? Has the FBI given him a press release promising not to gather information on U.S. citizens? President Obama should not play a political game on this issue.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.