ummm, yeah, okay. all i've heard ANYONE say about hillary is the following:
"omg i just don't like her she seems kind of like a bitch i don't trust her she'll probably kill all of our children and rape old people"
i'm not saying she is perfect but i would like to see some sources, quotes, SOMETHING specific from a credible news source. besides the vague "omg she is such a bitch i don't like her"
i haven't met anyone who has successfully backed up their opinion about hillary. or barack, for that matter.
hillary is a piece of shit
Moderator: aquaphase
Wake up, sleepy dreamers.
Your job isn't to like or trust them, they are all corrupt. Vote for the best for the job.
Clinton '08, the least incompetent.
[/DBP]
Your job isn't to like or trust them, they are all corrupt. Vote for the best for the job.
Clinton '08, the least incompetent.
[/DBP]
"Mere 'I prefer my friends to stay in my computer' 1975"
i don't trust ANY politicians.
i don't like hillary specifically because she favors censorship and monitoring what people see and hear and is all about political correctness (re: bullshit). i want to make those decisions for myself, not have some douche in washington make them for me.
i don't like hillary specifically because she favors censorship and monitoring what people see and hear and is all about political correctness (re: bullshit). i want to make those decisions for myself, not have some douche in washington make them for me.
dread stuff
NEW ETSY NEW ETSY NEW ETSY
[But if I cross paths with him on Farm Town I'll harvest the fuck out of his trees and not even say thank you.] -jimbo.
NEW ETSY NEW ETSY NEW ETSY
[But if I cross paths with him on Farm Town I'll harvest the fuck out of his trees and not even say thank you.] -jimbo.
Seems like the type of approach needed...What problem do you have with this?
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Printable Format
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.
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Printable Format
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.
I like connecting things.
-
ifihadahifi
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:16 pm
can i just say... the constitution doesn't protect privacy. and saying that the patriot act is an invasion of privacy is the same as saying "i don't actually want to fight against the patriot act". it is unconstitutional on many levels, mostly because it pretty much the innocent until proven guilty idea, eat least during the unwarranted search/seizure. It also defines terrorism ridiculously. So ridiculously that if you jay-walk during a peaceful protest, you are a terrorist. Breaking any law in an effort to coerce the government is now terrorism. So PETA are terrorists. Because throwing paint on a fur coat is the same as blowing up a building.
In any case, I don't think any of the three are especially interested in decreasing the government's power, but I think Obama will likely do the least harm with that power. McCain would do harm by accident--he is too easily swayed in my opinion. I still don't know about Hillary. I can't read her, which makes me more nervous than someone who I can read as an evil piece of shit.
In any case, I don't think any of the three are especially interested in decreasing the government's power, but I think Obama will likely do the least harm with that power. McCain would do harm by accident--he is too easily swayed in my opinion. I still don't know about Hillary. I can't read her, which makes me more nervous than someone who I can read as an evil piece of shit.
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
no, she might have if she wasn't so bitter and ruthless after Obama during the primary. I know each person is out to win it and politicians are cough*sometimes*cough ruthless...but jeez stick to the issues and leave the mud slinging to the wrestlers.So, any one else got a clue as to what Hillary is angling for at this point?
Do you think she actually has a chance at veep?
I do wonder who it will be tho.
John Edwards - he's pretty and has expereince running as a VPno, she might have if she wasn't so bitter and ruthless after Obama during the primary. I know each person is out to win it and politicians are cough*sometimes*cough ruthless...but jeez stick to the issues and leave the mud slinging to the wrestlers.So, any one else got a clue as to what Hillary is angling for at this point?
Do you think she actually has a chance at veep?
I do wonder who it will be tho.
Robert Byrd - He's old and may pull some of the geriatrics from McCain
A Kennedy who doesn't have brain cancer - WIN ONE FOR THE KENNEDYS!
Some random governor no one really knows or cares about, who goes to a white church.
Stewart/Colbert!
back in college (this was probably... march of 06), my totally non-modded friend said if barack obama won the presidential race, he'd get a tattoo of barack's face on his body. at the time, we were all like, okay who is this guy? but now things are getting exciting.
dread stuff
NEW ETSY NEW ETSY NEW ETSY
[But if I cross paths with him on Farm Town I'll harvest the fuck out of his trees and not even say thank you.] -jimbo.
NEW ETSY NEW ETSY NEW ETSY
[But if I cross paths with him on Farm Town I'll harvest the fuck out of his trees and not even say thank you.] -jimbo.
-
ifihadahifi
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:16 pm
Return to “Slapdash Incongruities”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests