Obama and Clinton to Support Dodd's Filibuster

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    The two front running candidates have committed to support Senator Dodd's filibuster of the retroactive amnesty for the telecom industry.

    Those of you who do not want to see the telcos walk free from breaking the law, and thus close the only remaining hope for the truth to come out, please contact you senators and urge them to support the filibuster. It takes very little time to do this, and is extremely important, if we want to win back our country.

    Click on the Link, and you will go to the Congress.ORG main page.

    1. In the upper right-hand area, you will see a dialog box to enter your zip code.
    2. After you enter it, you will get a new page with all of your elected representatives.
    3. Click on the one you want, and you will usually get their home page.
    4. All of the pages are different, but it is usually easy to find the "Contact" section.
    5. You will need to enter your information, as well as your message.
    6. The whole process takes <10 minutes for a short message.
    7. I also include the source of my information (Crooks & Liars, MoveOn, MacRumors, etc.). It is good to let them know how widespread 'public awareness' has become.
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    Could you please give a quick summary of the issue? A sentence or two? Even from the links, I can't get an idea of what this is about. What do the telcos want?

    Have some sympathy with an international audience, thanks. ;)
     
  3. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #3
    I think basically the telcos don't want to be held accountable for the illegal wire-tapping of American phone lines that has taken place since 911.

    From EFF:

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/1...serves-legal-decision-warrantless-wiretapping
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    well did a little searching on it. The bill would allow for no court order telephone spying on terriost suspects (that part I do not agree with) and also grants immunity telephone company that took part in the wire typing of people that Bush launch shortly after 9/11. It only grants immunity to the ones that took part after 9/11. That part I believe they should be granted because they got pressure from the white house and to top it off it put the nation in to a panic and chaos. The people demand something to be done. I think they should be protected at least on all done from 9/11 up until when ever the bill pass just because it was 9/11 and most of them I willing to bet where closer to 9/11 than they are now.
     
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #5
    You can't win back what you didn't lose in the first place.

    Nice to see these candidates hooking their wagon to this non-starter.
     
  6. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #6
    BV - The WH, through is various agencies (FBI, CIA, but mainly Homeland Security) requested phone records and conservations of thousands, tens of thousands, millions (the investigation is just underway and the actual number is unknown). The information was for private American citizens. There was no court order, or subpoena, attached to the request. Furthermore, there was no reason given except "national security". This not only violates federal and state laws, it also is in violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

    Qwest refused the request without a court order, the majority simply provided the information, breaking the law. The WH wants to make the FISA (see link) permanent. A provision was added to provide 'retroactive immunity' for the telcos who had already broken the law. The majority of the senate went along with it. Senator Dodd had the courage to call BS. He put a 'hold' on the legislation, but that is not likely to keep it from coming to the floor. That is where the filibuster comes in.

    Did that answer enough? Here is a link to FISA, which discusses the matter in much more detail, and is quite current.

    :)
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    Freedom of speech is a non starter? I thought that was the corner stone of the Constitution?
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Huh? What about rule of law? That's been lost under Bush since he got in.
     
  9. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #9
    Filibusters are undemocratic and should be illegal. That's really all there is to say about this issue, whether or not you like the law...
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    I heartily disagree, the filibuster is merely a manuever in Congress and can be a way for the minority view to hold some sway, provided they have the stamina.

    It's an obnoxious move, and it's been used in many times where I've disagreed with its use, but it's a part of Congressional operations.

    The question you should ask yourself of course is whether you dislike the filibuster because of the method or because you dislike those who are currently employing the method.
     
  11. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #11
    I don't like it because of the method, even though it seems most of the time Democrats are doing it. The point is, it is preventing the representatives of the people from voting on something. It's COMPLETELY anti-democratic. Talking about rubbish to prevent the representatives of the people from voting on an issue? C'mon.
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    it can only be played out in the senate and right now with out 60 votes to stop one the other side can just lock things up. Normally just the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill.

    Personally I like how the Texas Senate works. While they can filibuster the only difference is they can not do it as a team since the chair has to call on people to speak and well when some one finishes speaking they chair will make sure that they call on some one who will not let it go on.

    Heck in Texas when it happens they just wait it out because at some point the person is going to have eat or sleep. In the US Senate a filibuster can in theory go on forever.

    It said some of the stories out there on them from filibuster. For example reading names from a telephone book. one that one former senator was known to do was state the senate needs some more God in it and he would read from the bible in his filibuster.
     
  13. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    No they are not. What ever gave you such a stupid idea?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Actually, lately it's been the GOP mostly, since they're the minority right now.

    Doesn't matter if we like it or not though, it's a legally provided for tactic, even if inane most of the time. Besides, this is all about improving the bill, because right now it's not something anyone should support. You can spy all you want, but legally, Constitutionally, it needs oversight so it can't be abused the way it currently is. They should kill this bill, at least until they can find out what's really going on and what they're trying to hide.

    Anyone else think it's ironic though that these were the same people saying you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide?
     
  15. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #15
    Excuse me? Do you even keep up with what's going on with this Congress. The Republicans have filibustered almost every piece of legislation.
     
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #16
    The Republicans are on track to set a record number of filibusters, absolutely smashing previous records if this continue at this pace, according to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html.
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17

    The only reason it seems like the Democrats are doing it most of the time is they been the minority quite a bit lately. What ever party is the minority will be the one doing the filibuster. Republicans did it when they where the minority.
     
  18. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #18
    Yeah, I really noticed a shortage of people expressing themselves. :rolleyes:
     
  19. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #19
    Guess that will be proven in a court of law, won't it?

    The courts have ruled on the side of law enforcement on matters of privacy for years now. They can basically monitor whatever they want that's technologically feasible. However, if they want to introduce what they think is evidence, then they need a warrant.

    These interpretations of privacy and law enforcement's ability to eavesdrop for national security predate Bush by a lot.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    So we just let continue because evryone else does it. That's your answer for everything.
     
  21. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #21
    If it's not something anyone should support, then it should not get passed. What happened to democracy? And don't say it died with this administration, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about blocking a bill by just talking for an extended period of time so the representatives of the nation can't vote on it. That's more ludicrous than Ludacris. Are you people feeling the irony here at all? You are actually supporting blocking the representatives of the people (who, by the way, are majority democrat) from voting on in issue because.....wait for it....wait for it.......because that bill might be infringing on the rights given by democracy?
     
  22. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #22
    You really should become knowledgeable about issues before you begin posting. Others can make up their own minds, but I am not going to educate someone too lazy to make themselves informed.
     
  23. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #23
    So what are you here to do? Please, explain to me where I am wrong. If I am, it happens. But just dismissing whatever I say with your rude remarks isn't helping anything. As a side-note, I simplified my previous posts to get to the point more quickly, as I realize that filibustering can be ended and is permitted in some cases. My point and opinion still stand. But here's the catch, I am open to listening to other opinions. Wow!! So please, enlighten me on your viewpoint; it's not often that you get to try to convince someone on something where they are open to your ideas even if they currently hold a contrary one. There's no need to get uncivil, which is exactly what you're doing.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    We already have.
     
  25. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #25
    Not from what I can see. You guys have said that it is the Republicans doing it most of the time now, but besides that nothing of substance.
     

Share This Page