• commentary
  • TUESDAY JUNE 24 2008 6:00 AM

Democrats: Worst Party Ever

The current Democrats are the weakest, most spineless fucks ever to grace the halls of Congress. After months of attempting destroy the 4th amendment, it seems they have finally succeeded – and their reasoning is more disgusting than the Republicans. Democrats are destroying the Constitution to gain a few votes in swing states. At least the Republicans stand for something, as vile and sickening as it may be.

In case you hadn’t heard, the House passed a FISA bill last week. Headlines could have easily read, “George Bush Wet Dream Turns Out To Be True.” The bill gives immunity to telecom companies who broke the law and expands warrantless wiretapping. That’s exactly why Americans gave Congress back to the Dems in 2006 – so they could help Bush use the Constitution as toilet paper.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s what Republicans said about the bill:


“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.


“I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.


Holy fucking shit. “Better deal than they even had hoped to get.” Why not just say,


They raped themselves! All we had to do was look at ‘em funny!


Even I am shocked at how the Democrats appear to be totally spineless, completely fearful and entirely lacking principles. They embody everything the Founding Fathers were opposed to. A party like the Republicans was expected, which is why the framers created a system that would put a stop to their insane power grab. What was not expected was that the opposing party would go along to gain a few votes and to pad the bank accounts of corporations.

So, what did the Dems give up? Well, the President broke the law – apparently committing these things called “felonies.” Bush spied on our phone calls and emails without warrants because he believes he is above the law. The House voted to protect the President from prosecution, permanently block lawsuits that would have revealed what he did and at the same time, legalized the illegal spying in the past and in the future. House Democrats called it a “compromise.”

This is the kind of compromise where you don’t want to have sex with someone, so you let them fuck you in the ass. The Democratic version of “compromise” always means the Republicans get what they want. In this case, only one Republican voted against the bill. One the other hand, 105 Democrats “compromised.” They were totally bipartisan! Yeah, Washington!

Senator Russ Feingold said it best…


The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.

I do think this is a total farce with regard to the immunity. It basically guarantees the immunity. It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law. It may prevent us from ever getting to the core issue … which is the president ran an illegal program that could’ve been an impeachable offense.


Well, don’t worry about that, because the Dems got their buddy telecom companies a "get out of jail free" card.



Hey, no worries. I’m sure the Founding Fathers would have been totally cool with the President opening and copying every piece of mail they received from overseas. Why would they have a problem with that? When has that kind of power ever been abused?

Here’s how this is going to work from now on: Our courts can no longer determine if the government was actually after a terrorist or innocent Americans - or opposing political parties. (You fucking retards.) Judges will actually be barred from examining the actual reasons for the spying. Judges will only be allowed to dismiss lawsuits based on spying – the Attorney General will have all the power to say whether or not the spying was "designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack." This would be the same Attorney General who can’t figure out if waterboarding is torture – or whether or not members of the Bush White House are in contempt for refusing to testify in front of Congress. Yeah, that guy. The Dems just gave that guy all the power.

Once the Attorney General utters the secret words, judges cannot look into the issue any further. It’s pure lawlessness – like the Wild West, without those oppressive Sheriffs. Judges don’t get to actually decide whether or not the Attorney General is making a valid claim. Once he says the secret words, it’s over.

And bestest of all, the Dems did it to pick up a few seats. Right now they have a 35 seat majority in the House and they want to build that shit up to 50. So, fuck the Constitution, let’s get some Dems up in that bitch!


"For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it.


Phew! Thank God you made those districts competitive!

This is a fantastically moronic view of where the country is at this time. Dems made massive, nearly unparalleled pick ups in 2006 – because Americans want the Bush White House to be held in check, yet the Democratic answer is to give him everything he wants, so they won’t lose seats in the next election. They are so cowardly and stupid it is shocking. Karl Roves entire election strategy in 2006 was built upon FISA and national security, attempting to brand the Dems as weak on terrorism. And yet, the Democrats cleaned the GOPs clock. Republicans were obliterated. And apparently the Democrats learned nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Democrats believe the way to show how awesome they are, is to trample on the Constitution. Trampling isn’t even the right word. This is obliteration.

And just to add a little icing on the coward cake, they took a page out of the Patriot Act handbook. House members were only given 24 hours to read the bill and decide on whether or not they should shit all over our rights. Just seems like a few years ago Democrats were complaining loudly they were only given 24 hours to read the Patriot Act before voting on it. And now they are doing it to themselves on a bill that also destroys our civil rights. Well done.

Our neo-con morons will say this bill was necessary, because we need to prevent another 9/11 before it occurs. They argue that if the telecoms aren’t given immunity, they won’t want to help us catch terrorists. Everyone seems to forget that the warrantless wiretapping program started BEFORE 9/11. I’m going to write that again, for the idiots. The warrantless wiretapping program started before 9/11. Got it, you fucking dipshit? (Not you, the idiot who believes the Bush bullshit. The coward who is willing to throw out everything this country stands for, so they can feel save in a place that will never be attacked, like Alaska.)

By the sounds of it, Dems have enough votes to overcome a Dodd/Feingold filibuster. Obama is coming in soft on this one. Previously he vowed to do all he could to stop the bill, now he is basically saying we need the bill, although he has said he will try to get the amnesty removed. Either way, if the bill passes and Obama votes for it, I will not vote for him for President. Sorry, can’t support someone who tosses away the 4th Amendment. Hello Jesse Johnson!

In the future, you will turn on the news and hear a court dismissed all the lawsuits against telecoms. You won’t know why. You won’t know what the government said to have the cases tossed. The plaintiff’s lawyers won’t know either. The judge won’t be able to say a word. No one will know. Just Bush and his boys. Ah, sweet democracy – given to you by the Democrats.

Feel free to take a look at this video of George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley (far from a liberal) as he describes what this bill does to our Constitution.



“It’s what any criminal would love to do.”


“Evisceration of the 4th Amendment.”


Way to go Democrats. Don’t forget to donate to the Dems this elections cycle. They know you will, because they know you fear the other side more. Too bad there really isn’t much of a difference. Oh, wait, there is. One party is full of complete and total cowards who have no principles. The other stands for what they believe in.

You can still call or email your Senator to put a stop to this bill. If you don't know what to say or write, check this shit out.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Senator ******,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the warrantless wiretapping law that just passed the House. (H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008).

This law is not necessary for protecting our country. As you are well aware, FISA already allows the government to tap any person's calls for 72 hours so long as it can retroactively prove to the highly permissive FISA court that there was probable cause. Amending FISA will not make us safer. It will only send a message to the Bush Administration that ignoring Congress, violating criminal law, and violating our rights as American citizens are acceptable. It will also reinforce the idea that voting for Democrats is useless because, even with majorities in both houses, they continue to get steamrolled by the Republican minority.

I am also against giving immunity to lawbreakers, regardless of the who told them to do what. If the president told me to break the law, I wouldn't. Would you?

I urge you to vote against this law in any form, and to use the power of the filibuster to prevent it from coming to a vote if necessary.

Thanks.
********

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next

Comments
ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

USA
December 2005

JUN 24, 2008 01:54 PM

VOTE FICUS

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 24, 2008 01:55 PM

SilverJimmy said:
Here is a sweet opportunity for anyone who lives in SFV in Los Angeles (District 27). Your Congressman, Brad Sherman -- a Democrat who voted FOR this bill and is thereby a douchebag -- is having a conference call TONIGHT.


Dear Friends,

[Today], Tuesday, June 24th, I will be holding a "Telephone Town Hall" meeting from 7:00-8:30 p.m. A Telephone Town Hall operates like a large-scale conference call, where you will have a chance to ask me questions about major issues facing our country. I invite you to participate in the discussion and hear what other Valley residents have to say. Just call the toll-free number, 1-866-447-5149 (Pin# 13402), tomorrow between 7:00 and 8:30 p.m.

If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my website, http://BradSherman.house.gov, or call my office at 818-501-9200.

Sincerely,

Congressman Brad Sherman



If you live in the SFV, take advantage of this opportunity, call his ass out!



It's worth noting that Sherman is one of the overwhelming minority of safe Democrats who voted for the bill. He has no excuse. He is clearly a douchebag.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 24, 2008 01:57 PM

i'm not sure i buy that, bean. i think the Dems have a lot of power they're simply not using. i mean, they won some big victories in the midterms, and i think it's fair to say they won those victories based on the fact that people don't like and don't trust Bush anymore. i might even go so far that the midterms were a mandate by their constituents to oppose exactly the sort of things that they're supporting right now. i mean, why the fuck did we put them in office, if they're just going to roll over like this?

ckdexterhaven said:
VOTE FICUS


shit, it's that monkey from the future! ugly sucker.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

JUN 24, 2008 02:03 PM

motorfirebox said:
i'm not sure i buy that, bean. i think the Dems have a lot of power they're simply not using. i mean, they won some big victories in the midterms, and i think it's fair to say they won those victories based on the fact that people don't like and don't trust Bush anymore. i might even go so far that the midterms were a mandate by their constituents to oppose exactly the sort of things that they're supporting right now. i mean, why the fuck did we put them in office, if they're just going to roll over like this?

ckdexterhaven said:
VOTE FICUS


shit, it's that monkey from the future! ugly sucker.



I know I'm not Bean, but, I'm pretty sure there's only a thirty seat majority in the House and a one, possibly, two seat majority in the Senate.

Not exactly a resounding mandate with which to battle a veto-happy President with nothing left to run for and an agenda that seems to become more radical daily.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

JUN 24, 2008 02:07 PM

motorfirebox said:

ChrisSick said:
Not to be a complete ass or anything, but weren't many of the same faces now expressing total shock and outrage at this story just recently over here all of five minutes ago deriding famous troll Stockula for bringing this up as a negative for Obama?


that thread really didn't remain on-topic long enough for most people to weigh in with what they thought about it. personally, i view this as a big black mark on Obama--a failure on his part to stand for something that i feel is very important.

but, y'know, what am i gonna do? vote for McCain?



I understand I jumped the gun a bit and painted a broad stroke across most members. I just find it amusing that there are two threads discussing the same story form different angles, one a troll hatchet job, and one a liberal actually criticizing the liberal party. While I'm heartened to see people willing to criticize the party closest to their views, if only to keep the Party honest, I'm disheartened to see the candidate not get the same treatment.

In general, I credit that, at least as much as your statement that liberals don't have anyone else to vote for, with Obama being willing to hedge his bets, pick up some independent votes, and probably not lose any Democratic.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 24, 2008 02:11 PM

eh. it's not much of a majority, but it is a majority--the first they've had in over a decade. i'm not saying the people are, y'know, ravenous for the blood of anyone who had anything to do with illegal wiretaps. but you'd think the relatively sudden, relatively major shift in power would be good for something.

phrogg

phrogg

Greenville, SC
August 2005

JUN 24, 2008 02:58 PM

So, in other words Nancy, let's gain 10 more seats in the House and then we'll have the punch to defend the constitution? Whatevs...

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 24, 2008 03:04 PM

motorfirebox said:
i'm not sure i buy that, bean. i think the Dems have a lot of power they're simply not using. i mean, they won some big victories in the midterms, and i think it's fair to say they won those victories based on the fact that people don't like and don't trust Bush anymore. i might even go so far that the midterms were a mandate by their constituents to oppose exactly the sort of things that they're supporting right now. i mean, why the fuck did we put them in office, if they're just going to roll over like this?



This is the sort of ad Greg Davis in Missippi's 1st Congressional District is running:


He's got other ones with ominous music and a voiceover pointing out that, omg Obama endorsed Childers (the Democratic incumbent who narrowly won a special election in May but is still up for election in November). The message is clear: Childers is a liberal and liberals are baaaaaaad. And while Childers is leading in polls, he's not leading by much.

Rude_Ruca

Rude_Ruca

I'm lost
December 2004

JUN 24, 2008 03:13 PM

Rude_Ruca said:

ericwine said:

smokebombhill said:
Which Republican voted against the bill? Just curious.



Tim Johnson of Illinois' 15th district.

Here is the roll call.



Wow, that's quite the spread. Thanks for posting.



Rude_Ruca said:

ericwine said: (The question made me curious, as I naturally assumed the Republican no vote was Ron Paul, but he was one of the 13 members who didn't vote on the bill.)



I am not surprised that Ron Paul didn't vote in the slightest. He seems to be a very nervous little man when it comes to getting his hands in on anything ::ducks from the libertarians flinging poo::


felony187

felony187

Denver, CO
June 2007

JUN 24, 2008 03:22 PM

bean said:

motorfirebox said:
i'm not sure i buy that, bean. i think the Dems have a lot of power they're simply not using. i mean, they won some big victories in the midterms, and i think it's fair to say they won those victories based on the fact that people don't like and don't trust Bush anymore. i might even go so far that the midterms were a mandate by their constituents to oppose exactly the sort of things that they're supporting right now. i mean, why the fuck did we put them in office, if they're just going to roll over like this?



This is the sort of ad Greg Davis in Missippi's 1st Congressional District is running:


He's got other ones with ominous music and a voiceover pointing out that, omg Obama endorsed Childers (the Democratic incumbent who narrowly won a special election in May but is still up for election in November). The message is clear: Childers is a liberal and liberals are baaaaaaad. And while Childers is leading in polls, he's not leading by much.


If the people of Mississippi would check the fact they would see that the trend is that their unemployment rate goes up when taxes are cut. Odd how that works. But I do see where your coming from on this. Logic is not how most people approach politics
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2253900/Mississippi-Unemployment-Rate-by-County-Map
.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/laust28000003

The second one is a monthly breakdown.

hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

JUN 24, 2008 03:36 PM

I'll reiterate my earlier post. My Congresswomen spoke out to this, and I am quite sure that she is representing her constituancy.Maybe those in other districts need to take these debates up with their reps before bitching about them on boards.

Unless you live in Simi Valley, in which case there is no hope.

scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 04:10 PM

hk85 said:
I'll reiterate my earlier post. My Congresswomen spoke out to this, and I am quite sure that she is representing her constituancy.Maybe those in other districts need to take these debates up with their reps before bitching about them on boards.

Unless you live in Simi Valley, in which case there is no hope.



we're pretty fucked here in AK, too.

hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

JUN 24, 2008 04:38 PM

scylis said:

hk85 said:
I'll reiterate my earlier post. My Congresswomen spoke out to this, and I am quite sure that she is representing her constituancy.Maybe those in other districts need to take these debates up with their reps before bitching about them on boards.

Unless you live in Simi Valley, in which case there is no hope.



we're pretty fucked here in AK, too.



I did time in AK, in a punk rock band at a place called the Rock U, it was in the basement under some country music club. Not Chillikoot Charlies, we didn't have a sign out front or sawdust on the floor.

If it weren't for Anchorage I wouldn't know how to drink or play pool.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 24, 2008 04:41 PM

bah. it just irks me that Bush's general approval is so ridiculously low, due in large part to the way he's weakening the three-branch system, yet nobody will actually do anything to prevent further damage, nor to reverse the damage that's been done.

LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

JUN 24, 2008 04:46 PM

This one is so complicated.

I do personally believe that Bush violated the 4th amendment by using surveillance without getting an act of government to approve this action.

I subscribe to the telecom company that refused to comply -- there is more than one that refused.

with regard to Barack Obama I am attracted to him because he does not subscribe 100% to the conventional democratic platform, simply because I do not believe either party has found perfection.

That said, when i found out an old friend of 27 years wrote the brief countering the ACLU in the appeals court, protecting the governments right to use this, I screamed and fought and used personal insults and stopped talking to him.

But here is what I know: this is the best they can do right now while being politically expedient.

BTW, as a liberal New Yorker, member of ACLU who had friends die in the world trade towers while other friends ran for their fucking lives, while I raced around town trying to find countless children (ANd we lived with military helicopters overhead and near Lincoln center where there was a quick makeshirt military base of multiple tanks and soldiers in full combat fatigue with assault weapons)...

Then when surveillance cameras instituted in public places and ID & bag checks at every and any event, people complained little and complied.

it is a tough call and I can't blame anyone who feels passionately about either side. I guess overall, it is my own belief that the USA has to improve their surveilance strategies in the post 9/11 world.

And, as

ChrisSick said:
I know I'm not Bean, but, I'm pretty sure there's only a thirty seat majority in the House and a one, possibly, two seat majority in the Senate.

Not exactly a resounding mandate with which to battle a veto-happy President with nothing left to run for and an agenda that seems to become more radical daily.




Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next