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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next

Louis_XIV

Louis_XIV

France
August 2007

JUN 24, 2008 05:00 PM

Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:04 PM

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



ouch. schooled from beginning of the 18th century.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:11 PM

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:14 PM

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



^^^
See, Bush isn't the only head of state to not understand the law. wink

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:16 PM

Also, bean pretty much said everything else I was gonna say.

This stuff sure isn't pretty, but that's the legislative branch. What's important to note is that with a Democratic administration, this would not have been an issue in the first place.

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:16 PM

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



and the future strikes back! take THAT history!

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 05:22 PM

Subrosa said:
Also, bean pretty much said everything else I was gonna say.

This stuff sure isn't pretty, but that's the legislative branch. What's important to note is that with a Democratic administration, this would not have been an issue in the first place.



if the Democrats don't change if they get a stronger majority, then there should be articles like this one. until then i'm not really going to fault them for trying to hold on to what they've got until better times ahead.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

JUN 24, 2008 05:28 PM

Two of my legislators (Susan Davis and Barbara Boxer) have my back on this one, but Feinstein might as well have the AT&T logo tattooed on her forehead.

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

JUN 24, 2008 05:36 PM

Subrosa said:

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



^^^
See, Bush isn't the only head of state to not understand the law. wink



I'm sure His Most Christian Majesty understands his own laws fairly well. biggrin

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 06:19 PM

ericwine said:

Subrosa said:

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



^^^
See, Bush isn't the only head of state to not understand the law. wink



I'm sure His Most Christian Majesty understands his own laws fairly well. biggrin



well, yeah. he is the law.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUN 24, 2008 06:32 PM

scylis said:

ericwine said:

Subrosa said:

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



^^^
See, Bush isn't the only head of state to not understand the law. wink



I'm sure His Most Christian Majesty understands his own laws fairly well. biggrin



well, yeah. he is the law.



Actually, he is the State.

L'etat, c'est moi'


Or are you thinking of this guy?


felony187

felony187

Denver, CO
June 2007

JUN 24, 2008 06:40 PM

_kungfoo_ said:

scylis said:

ericwine said:

Subrosa said:

Subrosa said:

Louis_XIV said:
Your "democracy" still confuses me. This bill legalizes something that happened back in 2001. Isn't this a ex post facto law ? And aren't ex post facto laws explicitely prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution ?



No. An ex post facto law is something that makes something that happened in the past illegal. If the the telecom companies were already tried and then this bill retroactively said that everything that the telecom companies did was illegal and they should be tried again, THAT would be an ex post facto law.



^^^
See, Bush isn't the only head of state to not understand the law. wink



I'm sure His Most Christian Majesty understands his own laws fairly well. biggrin



well, yeah. he is the law.



Actually, he is the State.

L'etat, c'est moi'


Or are you thinking of this guy?




What a magnificent codpiece.

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JUN 24, 2008 06:50 PM

_kungfoo_ said:

scylis said:

ericwine said:
I'm sure His Most Christian Majesty understands his own laws fairly well. biggrin



well, yeah. he is the law.



Actually, he is the State.

L'etat, c'est moi'


Or are you thinking of this guy?




and as the State, he gets to make the laws.

i doubt he's Dredd, but i also doubt he'd overlook such a magnificent codpiece.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUN 24, 2008 06:58 PM

bean said:
A lesson on election-year politics: All House seats are up for reelection this year. Not one Democrat involved in a close race for reelection voted against the bill. Those representatives in close races represent very conservative districts, and this was clearly a case of representatives voting as they perceived their constituents expected them to vote. Pelosi and Hoyer gave a lot of excuses about why the bill was good, but they gave representatives in safe districts freedom to vote however they felt like voting. 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.

If you have a problem with the House passing that Act, talk to the people of Pennsylvania's 10th district, of Mississippi's 1st district, of Louisiana's 6th district. Talk to the people who are worried that their Democratic representative is "too liberal;" People in Kansas' 2nd district, or Florida's 16th district. Until we can impress upon the people in these districts and districts like them that "liberal" isn't a bad word, Democrats in these districts will continue to disappoint us on high-profile election-year votes.



I would certainly agree, that as a nation, the democracy we have is only the democracy we deserve; but wasn't the bicameral legislature born out of the founders' fears of the masses own stupidity (in theory at least)?

Correct if I'm wrong please.

Sick

Sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

JUN 24, 2008 07:06 PM

Headlines? What headlines? It disturbs me quite a bit that this didn't show up once in my daily news-quests last week.

I must not have seen the two-line blurb at the bottom of page 24.

It disturbs me that this wasn't on the front page somewhere in big letters.

And future stories about the courts dismissing cases against the telecoms? They won't exist.

[Note: Really, I think I'm usually pretty well informed, but maybe I just completely missed any attention this got last week.]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 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: Travis Barker
SuicideGirls Interview: David Mamet
SuicideGirls Interview: Al Franken