My Sincere Hope For Obama

[HollyforRP]

So there's a time limit on how long they can "sneak and peak"...that is until they stop... then start sneaking and peaking again.

I'm imagining a scenerio where they peek for an hour and then someone comes in with a pocket watch and says 5 minute break then you can return to what you were doing.

 

[brandon]

Kade: So Obama's reasoning for voting for the patriot act lite is because it doesn't destroy our liberties as much as the original? Wow, that is amazing reasoning. We better support this guy, he only Kind of wants to trample on our liberties.

Hopefully he will vote for things such as allocating 1 trillion dollars to fund the Iraq war, because that is much better then using 2 trillion to fund the iraq war. Maybe he can also drop some bombs on iran, because that is much better then all out declaring war on iran.

Hell, while he is at it he could create some legislation that says we get to keep 25% of the money we earn, because that is a hell of alot better then getting to keep nothing. What a kind thoughtful guy for letting us keep that 25%

 

[quantized]

No, it is not.


Senator Obama:

"Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

I thank the chair and yield the floor."


Please people. I'm begging you... can you please think before you post?

thanks for setting the record straight. i know there is some strong anti-obama sentiments in this forum with vicious attack sometimes. At the beginning i don't really care. But at this stage of the competition where i am left with Obama/Hillary/McCain option, i have to start to comparing them more fairly and make cast the best (read! best! not perfect!) vote for the country this coming election. i would appreciate if posters here try their best to be as unbias as possible.. politics is usually not just balck or white. Our world is not ideal.. so our decisions are not ideal. When i am choosing between the three of them, i will look more at the judgement behind the decisions..

 

[brandon]

thanks for setting the record straight. i know there is some strong anti-obama sentiments in this forum with vicious attack sometimes. At the beginning i don't really care. But at this stage of the competition where i am left with Obama/Hillary/McCain option, i have to start to comparing them more fairly and make cast the best (read! best! not perfect!) vote for the country this coming election. i would appreciate if posters here try their best to be as unbias as possible.. politics is usually not just balck or white. Our world is not ideal.. so our decisions are not ideal. When i am choosing between the three of them, i will look more at the judgement behind the decisions..

Read your own signature for christs sake. If you vote for obama you are trading your liberty in for what you think will be a more secure future.

There is no compromising. Obama isnt a compromise anyway. He is anthema to all this revolution stands for.

He supports the Fed and has the highest spending proposals of all candidates running for office.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are playing inti thier hands. Wake the fuck up. Obama isnt the lesser of the evils anyway. They are all exactly the same. The only way obama would be better then the others is he can speak better. Besides that, there are no differences.

 

[amy31416]

Read your own signature for christs sake. If you vote for obama you are trading your liberty in for what you think will be a more secure future.

There is no compromising. Obama isnt a compromise anyway. He is anthema to all this revolution stands for.

He supports the Fed and has the highest spending proposals of all candidates running for office.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are playing inti thier hands. Wake the fuck up. Obama isnt the lesser of the evils anyway. They are all exactly the same. The only way obama would be better then the others is he can speak better. Besides that, there are no differences.

I was just about to make the same point as you in regards to his signature. Well said.

I've been saying over and over again, and it never gets any response from Obama supporters about his spending proposal being ~75 BILLION higher than Hillary's.

So guess what his man Obama does? BRINGS ON THE ECONOMIC RECESSION HARDER AND FASTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. He won't be getting "free" health care or welfare checks when that happens. And guess what happens to my mother who is just getting to retirement age? No social security, no health care and I will blame people like Quantized who is so ignorant that he:

1. Supports someone based on popularity.
2. Has zero clue about the economy.
3. Is deciding his vote, not on principles, not even on "the lesser of two evils" argument, but on the lowest, collectivist argument of "can he/she win."

And that, my friends, is how the dogs herd the sheep. Congratulations, Quantized, on being just another ignorant American and on learning nothing through your fair weather support of Ron Paul.

 

[quantized]

So guess what his man Obama does? BRINGS ON THE ECONOMIC RECESSION HARDER AND FASTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. He won't be getting "free" health care or welfare checks when that happens. And guess what happens to my mother who is just getting to retirement age? No social security, no health care and I will blame people like Quantized who is so ignorant that he:

if you still do not want to wake up to the reality, there is nothing i can say. Whether you like it or not, this election will be a democrat vs McCain.

so you really think your anti-obama is helping you getting healthcare for your mother? you should seriously think about how a McCain presidency will help you. You go figure. And fyi, healthcare is not anyway high on my list. i do not care for healthcare that those democrats are proposing.

 

[amy31416]

if you still do not want to wake up to the reality, there is nothing i can say. Whether you like it or not, this election will be a democrat vs McCain.

so you really think your anti-obama is helping you getting healthcare for your mother? you should seriously think about how a McCain presidency will help you. You go figure. And fyi, healthcare is not anyway high on my list. i do not care for healthcare that those democrats are proposing.

How dare you imply that I would vote for McCain? I am vehemently anti-unjust war and would never vote for that war-mongering pig.

When will you wake up to the reality that Obama has no firm stance on the war in Iraq, doesn't take Iran off the table and wants to also go into Pakistan?

All that, plus a spending increase of $287 Billion. Great! War AND recession all at the same time!

Do you realize that if we go into Iran, we could likely set off WWIII? Russia and China are allies of Iran, however tenuous that may be. And that, my boy, will be the end of all things as we know them if China gets involved. They have money, they have power and they have sheer numbers and are very resourceful. Plus, they have quite a good part of manufacturing and the people there to work in the factories to build war machines quickly and efficiently.

Use your brains, look at Obama for who he really is, not the pretty cult of personality aura. Obama supporters are, by far, the most superficial voters.

 

[jmdrake]

thanks for setting the record straight. i know there is some strong anti-obama sentiments in this forum with vicious attack sometimes. At the beginning i don't really care. But at this stage of the competition where i am left with Obama/Hillary/McCain option, i have to start to comparing them more fairly and make cast the best (read! best! not perfect!) vote for the country this coming election. i would appreciate if posters here try their best to be as unbias as possible.. politics is usually not just balck or white. Our world is not ideal.. so our decisions are not ideal. When i am choosing between the three of them, i will look more at the judgement behind the decisions..

Did you read my counter analysis? Obama is feeding you a line of bull! His "improvements" are not improvements at all! Worse he voted for the Homegrown terrorism act which institutionalizes the thought police! If you want to vote for Obama because you THINK he will end the Iraq war a little early then by all means go ahead. But if you think he's any better than Hillary or McCain on civil liberties you are fooling yourself! Go back and check the records. Hillary and McCain voted for the same "improvements" that you are fawning over!

Really. Considering that Hillary and Obama both went from "we won't promise to be out by 2013" to "we'll be out by the end of next year" what do you see as the difference between the two of THEM? Forget the 100 year war McCain buggaboo. This is just between Clinton and Obama. What's the difference?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[quantized]

Did you read my counter analysis? Obama is feeding you a line of bull! His "improvements" are not improvements at all! Worse he voted for the Homegrown terrorism act which institutionalizes the thought police! If you want to vote for Obama because you THINK he will end the Iraq war a little early then by all means go ahead. But if you think he's any better than Hillary or McCain on civil liberties you are fooling yourself! Go back and check the records. Hillary and McCain voted for the same "improvements" that you are fawning over!

Really. Considering that Hillary and Obama both went from "we won't promise to be out by 2013" to "we'll be out by the end of next year" what do you see as the difference between the two of THEM? Forget the 100 year war McCain buggaboo. This is just between Clinton and Obama. What's the difference?

Regards,

John M. Drake

OK. Let me admit that i had not research on obama as thorough as i had on RP.

i mainly reviewed obama position on iraq war and he had constrasted himself with the other two. i give credit to him for his speech before the war and he echos many things that RP said in a similar speech against the war to the congress.

As for all the other stuff you mentioned, i think i would like to understand more about his position on patriot act and homegrown terrorism... but let me set this straight. i am prepared that i will not get a perfect candidate in obama. As i had put it, i am voting for the lesser of evil. Clinton and Obama? One thing i dislike about is the secretive administration of Clinton. i favor Obama beliefs in open administration and his desire to engage the americans in politics again and his anti-lobbyist speeches. Yup. speeches again. i am really hoping he meant what he says.. he does look sincere and he does have good track records in making government more transparent... Of course, democrat all have one thing in common. Big spending, big government. i am neutral on these arguments.. i heard the philosophy on both side. In libertarian views, healtcare is bad, nasa is bad etc.. But as a scientist, i like nasa. i want government spending on fundamental research. Healthcare, i am neutral.. but i do not believe it as evil if well managed and if lobbyist not in the picture... It is messy... you cannot have the perfect president...

 

[quantized]

Use your brains, look at Obama for who he really is, not the pretty cult of personality aura. Obama supporters are, by far, the most superficial voters.

have you seen the cnn exit polls? he garnered more votes from educated people than clinton, also the younger crowd vs clinton the older crowd. i do not know how you arrive at the conclusion that his supporters are the most superficial... anyway, this is not something worth getting into.. but just to point out an example of how you like to make blanket statement.

 

[quantized]

When will you wake up to the reality that Obama has no firm stance on the war in Iraq, doesn't take Iran off the table and wants to also go into Pakistan?

His stance is clear. He opoose the iraq war. He made a speech before the war in which the content is strikingly similar to RP's speech to congress. He demonstrated judgement on how the war would be costly and how it will fan anti-american sentiments and also distract us from real target, the AlQeada. i am compelled to give him credit for this. You?

Pakistan? He make it clear that it is a strike against AlQeada not Pakistan. If given overwhelming intelligence of AlQeada presence in Pakistan, he will strike them even without Pakistan approval. For this, i am not sure what will RP stance be. But i tend to agree with his decision in this hypothetical scenario. What is wrong with this?

Iran? i apologies i do not understand enough about his position on this. You fill me in. Link me to the resource if you have.

 

[amy31416]

have you seen the cnn exit polls? he garnered more votes from educated people than clinton, also the younger crowd vs clinton the older crowd. i do not know how you arrive at the conclusion that his supporters are the most superficial... anyway, this is not something worth getting into.. but just to point out an example of how you like to make blanket statement.

Take yourself, for instance, you don't actually know his positions or his economic policy. That's pretty superficial that you're supporting him based on some pretty speeches and not his actual policies, his proposals or his actual voting record.

And this is common among Obama supporters, I was listening to Hannity on the radio a week or so ago and he was asking people in NYC who they support and why. All of them were Obama supporters and when he asked "What has Obama actually accomplished?" Not a single one had an answer-they all answered like you, either with "I haven't really looked into it yet" or "I like what he says." Words to that effect.

I also saw another video, don't recall now, I think it was Hannity again (not that I like Hannity) but a similar question was asked to a row of Obama supporters--NOBODY had a single answer. They don't even know his stances on the Iraq War--there is an assumption that because he is a Democrat, that he will pull out. I don't trust it given that he's changed his answer to the question several times. First 2013 and Iran's not off the table-now 2009 and Pakistan might need some bombing. How is that clear?

And I'll say it again: spending proposal of his-an increase of 287 Billion per year. Just where do you think that comes from?

 

[quantized]

Take yourself, for instance, you don't actually know his positions or his economic policy. That's pretty superficial that you're supporting him based on some pretty speeches and not his actual policies, his proposals or his actual voting record.

Yes. i do not know all his positions on various issues. A large part of me had decide to throw my vote to him because of his stance on the iraq war. That iraq war issue alone is worth me vote. You have to understand that not everyone has the time to research all about the candidate... well.. this is also why i join a forum to understand more about the candidates. but unfortunately, this forum offer quite a bias perspective on obama..

 

[acptulsa]

Yes. i do not know all his positions on various issues. A large part of me had decide to throw my vote to him because of his stance on the iraq war. That iraq war issue alone is worth me vote. You have to understand that not everyone has the time to research all about the candidate... well.. this is also why i join a forum to understand more about the candidates. but unfortunately, this forum offer quite a bias perspective on obama..

Yes it does. And thank you, Amy, some of us were getting tired fingers. Baseless hope is persistent.

Well, welcome to the club. If you do manage to pin Obama down on certain issues--most notably the war--please let us know. He's shifted around like a light-footed boxer so often some of us are despairing of ever getting these down. He changes his stance so much I guess all we can do is hope he'll land somewhere acceptable to us. Oh, we of little faith... Especially after he's come out in favor of gunboat diplomacy in less uncertain terms.

 

[brandon]

Yes. i do not know all his positions on various issues. A large part of me had decide to throw my vote to him because of his stance on the iraq war. That iraq war issue alone is worth me vote. You have to understand that not everyone has the time to research all about the candidate... well.. this is also why i join a forum to understand more about the candidates. but unfortunately, this forum offer quite a bias perspective on obama..

Ok, let me tell you one of his positions.

Moderater: "Will you have all the troops home from iraq by 2013?"
Obama: No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuGi-lVU7QM


And iraq is only one of the 175 countries we are occupying. He doesn't want to bring ANY troops home from the other 174

Honestly, bringing some of our troops home and leaving some there is worse then leaving them all there. The troops that remain will be in greater danger then they are now.

there are only 2 safe courses of action. Bring all the troops home, or deploy half a million troops and secure the country ASAP.

I vote for bring them all home.

 

[amy31416]

Yes. i do not know all his positions on various issues. A large part of me had decide to throw my vote to him because of his stance on the iraq war. That iraq war issue alone is worth me vote. You have to understand that not everyone has the time to research all about the candidate... well.. this is also why i join a forum to understand more about the candidates. but unfortunately, this forum offer quite a bias perspective on obama..

Given the importance of this election and the state of this country, it is more important than ever to research not only the presidential candidates, but the senatorial, the house, the governors, the mayor--everyone.

It's your civic responsibility.

And of course we are biased against Obama, in contrast to Ron Paul, we should be. We're also biased against McCain, if you haven't noticed. Hillary doesn't get much mention here because she's losing.

If you've been reading the forums, other than posting Obama promos, you'd notice that we are working hard not just for Ron Paul, but also for other candidates who can effect true change.

And honestly, while I can't stand her, if you're going to do the "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing, Obama is definitely not your guy. And going between Hillary vs. McCain, it depends mostly on your stances on issues like warmongering, socialism and if you can trust either one of them even a little bit. They're the same thing, one's just a bit more unhinged than the other.

 

[quantized]

Ok, let me tell you one of his positions.

Moderater: "Will you have all the troops home from iraq by 2013?"
Obama: No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuGi-lVU7QM

He said he will begin bringing the troops home once he steps in as president. He make it clear that there is no military solution to the problem. He said he refuse to pledge to have no troops left in iraq because he will not know the situation in future. This is a fair statement. The bottomline is this. He understands that it is a strategical mistake to attack and there is no military solution to the porblem. Therefore, he had been consistent.

 

[quantized]

Given the importance of this election and the state of this country, it is more important than ever to research not only the presidential candidates, but the senatorial, the house, the governors, the mayor--everyone.

It's your civic responsibility. .

Yes. exactly what i am doing now engaging in these forum discussions if you still had not realised it. And to add on what you said, it is not just knowing their positions and records. Sometimes we cannot claim we know the perfect solution to the problem even. E.g. we should scrap universal healthcare... are we all-knowing that we know for sure this is really the right solution?

And honestly, while I can't stand her, if you're going to do the "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing, Obama is definitely not your guy. And going between Hillary vs. McCain, it depends mostly on your stances on issues like warmongering, socialism and if you can trust either one of them even a little bit. They're the same thing, one's just a bit more unhinged than the other.

i am confused. Clinton/McCain/Obama. so who is the lesser evil? pick one. you are not being explicit there...

 

[acptulsa]

i am confused. Clinton/McCain/Obama. so who is the lesser evil? pick one. you are not being explicit there...

The lady has made herself abundantly clear. She's not voting for evil. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[quantized]

The lady has made herself abundantly clear. She's not voting for evil. What's so hard to understand about that?

thought she was trying to help me there with the mutiple choice question. forget it then.