BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

Democrats: Worst Party Ever

TUESDAY JUNE 24 2008 6:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By FearTheReaper.

TAGS: Democrats, FISA, Republicans

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 ... 

11 | 12 | 13

Next

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

JUL 11, 2008 12:27 AM

About a week ago I decided I wasn't voting for Obama. This didn't sway my decision at all, it was already made, but it further supports it. I was never really in his camp, we don't agree on a lot of things, including this.

I backed Kucinich during the primaries, and will back Nader in the general, as it is these men who most closely align with my views. Oregon has been won by a Democrat every election for the last 24 years, so it's not like it'll make any difference. I'm voting with my conscience.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JUL 11, 2008 12:28 AM

lithocarpus said:
From my one Senator that voted against it:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Thank you for writing to express your opposition to H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I share your concerns and regret to inform you that this bill was signed into law on July 10, 2008, one day after Senate passage.

I am disappointed that the Senate voted 69-28 to pass the FISA Amendments Act, wh ich will deny American citizens the opportunity to seek justice in a court of law. Simply put, this law is a fig leaf that attem pts to hide the truth about the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program at the expense of the rights of our citizens.

In an effort to restore balance to this legislation and stand up for the rights of the American people, I proudly co-sponsored the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy ame ndment, which would have struck the section from the bill (Title II) that effectively grants immu nity and blocks the courts from ruling on the legality of this program. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected 66-32.

I believe it is the re sponsibility of the Congress to provide every tool needed to track down terrorists and protect our citizens. I voted to go after al Q aeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I will continue to support measures to achieve that goal. But we have another responsibility of equal importance - and that is our duty to uphold the Constitution and the rights of our citizens, and this law fails to strike a balance between these important responsibilities.

Please know that I will continue my efforts to expose the truth about the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program and to protect national security while safeguarding America 's precious civil liberties.




Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me again about this or other issues of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator


Bless Barbara Boxer, the finest Senator this state has ever had (well in my lifetime anyways). And the other one? No, not so much. frown

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JUL 11, 2008 12:45 AM

AceT said:
About a week ago I decided I wasn't voting for Obama. This didn't sway my decision at all, it was already made, but it further supports it. I was never really in his camp, we don't agree on a lot of things, including this.

I backed Kucinich during the primaries, and will back Nader in the general, as it is these men who most closely align with my views. Oregon has been won by a Democrat every election for the last 24 years, so it's not like it'll make any difference, but I'm voting with my conscience.

Good for you, I voted for Nader in 2000 as well. It was a sympathy vote for a party that is more in line with my own political views. I was certain that my vote wouldn't spoil the Democratic challenger in my state (California) and I was right. Now Florida on the other hand... I won't vote for Nader again, they'll need to bring in some new blood if they want to gain traction. Then again, as it stands today, the Green party platform will continue to be marginalized in American society (not enough people are ready for the challenges of a greener society), so what does it matter? We're all doomed anyway. (I just don't know when to quit though, I have a problem with hope).

I don't completely support Obama, though I did. I may not be as starry-eyed over him now, especially over the FISA vote, a large number of other Democrats also voted with him (I guess to close the loop-hole and clean it up... Or was it really just to stave off lawsuits against the telecoms? Oh well, fuck it all.). Obama may not be perfect, but then again, he's the best thing we've got going against the party of crazy. This year, I may have to swallow my pride, but I will vote.

One thing's for sure, I'm not donating a damned penny to another candidate for a very long time... Its kind of funny actually, today the Obama campaign called me up asking if I would make a contribution of $160 to the campaign. A year ago, I did give $80. It was a good bet then, but now I'm afraid all bets are off. Needless to say, I declined. I just wish I were witty enough to let them know that I would no longer be contributing to his campaign because the FISA vote and my eroded confidence in the competence of the government, no matter who is in charge. Oh well, hind sight is 20/20.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 11, 2008 12:53 AM

VOTE HELLBOY 2008!

He'll solve our problems.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
You fucking morons.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

JUL 11, 2008 01:20 AM

Like I said though, FISA is just one issue. We also disagree on universal health care, gay marriage, subsidizing ethanol, Cuban policy, and capital punishment.

On most of these issues and others, he meanders to the correct position, talks a lot, but ultimately does nothing or votes the other way. And that to me is the epitome of the Democratic Party, and I'm fucking tired of it.

He's a pussyfied version of the man I'd like to see president. And yes, I know a pussyfied version is the best we can hope for, but that doesn't mean I have to support him. I'll be happy to see him president, but he's not the one I want.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JUL 11, 2008 01:22 AM

Amen. :I

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 11, 2008 01:23 AM

Tiwaz said:

motorfirebox said:
probably the same way Obama did--against it, once it was too late to stop it.

I'm pretty sure Obama voted for both the amendment, which did not pass, and the bill, which did pass with immunity, unless I'm confused. I think that's why FTR is mad.


whups. too many fuckers fucking thing's up; i'm getting my fuckeries confused.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

JUL 11, 2008 09:23 AM

I just heard from my Senator, who, because he's an easily lead tool, voted for the FISA bill, that the telecoms are only protected from civil lawsuits. They can still be prosecuted for criminal acts (like if a federal prosecutor decided to go after them for breaking federal law, i.e. wiretapping phones without warrents) and does not provide immunity for Bush & Co. Now, if we can just get our judicial branch to do their jobs . . .

And before anybody has a go at me, I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm trying to see if anything good can come out of a crappy situation.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 11, 2008 01:20 PM

wow, and i put an apostrophe in "things". epic fail, mfb.

regarding criminal prosecution--maybe i'm just feeling optimistic, but it seems like a lot of judges have been ruling against the Bush administration recently. is there a recent general trend towards legally telling W exactly where he can stick it?

trebor

trebor

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

JUL 15, 2008 09:09 PM


That move belies their real intention: ensuring an overwhelming Democratic majority for 2009 and beyond.

Now, some might say that they should protect the American people and our rights at all costs, and that pandering to their constituents smacks of a cold political calculation. That's one way to look at it, but in the end, I'd rather politicians err on the side of representing their constituents. If they're going to pander to someone, let it be to their constituents. Ideally, representatives should be free to protect the rights of citizens without risking their seat.



What is the point of ensuring an overwhelming Democratic majority if when on important issues such as this you are not going to use that majority to stand up for the right thing?

One of the biggest problems with our government today is that so often votes are driven by what fits the political interests of the party or by what makes the opposing party look bad. Not only should politicians be putting principals ahead of politics, I think many voters are yearning for candidates who will put their principals first.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUL 15, 2008 09:14 PM

trebor said:


That move belies their real intention: ensuring an overwhelming Democratic majority for 2009 and beyond.

Now, some might say that they should protect the American people and our rights at all costs, and that pandering to their constituents smacks of a cold political calculation. That's one way to look at it, but in the end, I'd rather politicians err on the side of representing their constituents. If they're going to pander to someone, let it be to their constituents. Ideally, representatives should be free to protect the rights of citizens without risking their seat.



What is the point of ensuring an overwhelming Democratic majority if when on important issues such as this you are not going to use that majority to stand up for the right thing?

One of the biggest problems with our government today is that so often votes are driven by what fits the political interests of the party or by what makes the opposing party look bad. Not only should politicians be putting principals ahead of politics, I think many voters are yearning for candidates who will put their principals first.



It's not an overwhelming majority at all.

trebor

trebor

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

JUL 15, 2008 09:34 PM


It's not an overwhelming majority at all.



What I was trying to get at was some would justify this vote by reasoning "The Democratic Party only has a slim majority at the present time. By compromising on this issue we will not risk losing that majority and be able to expand it in time, allowing the party victories on a much broader range of issues in the future". When does this majority become large enough that politicians in the party will actually vote on principal?

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUL 15, 2008 09:46 PM

trebor said:


It's not an overwhelming majority at all.



What I was trying to get at was some would justify this vote by reasoning "The Democratic Party only has a slim majority at the present time. By compromising on this issue we will not risk losing that majority and be able to expand it in time, allowing the party victories on a much broader range of issues in the future". When does this majority become large enough that politicians in the party will actually vote on principal?



when there's a member of their party in the oval office and they have enough of a majority to shut down filibusters or resistance.

the same majority they always need.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

11 | 12 | 13

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Marty Krofft
SuicideGirls Interview: Nikki Sixx
SuicideGirls Interview: Alex Borstein