JULY 8, 2008, Senate to VOTE

2

Comments

  • Posts: 8,209
    Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:
    :p He'd just agree with everything Nader said, or decline to comment, based on his voting record. :D

    Looking at Obama's voting record it would be a whole lot of declining to comment or pleading the fifth.

    1,2,3,4 FIF!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nQePE6u2U
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Posts: 4,423
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Looking at Obama's voting record it would be a whole lot of declining to comment or pleading the fifth.

    1,2,3,4 FIF!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nQePE6u2U

    I would actually have no problem with handing Obama the presidency if he stood at his debate podium, listened to what Nader had to say, and then pleaded the "Fiz-if". :D
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Posts: 1,059
    Eliot Rosewater wrote:
    Anyone?

    Anyone??

    All right, I will. I've been pragmatically supporting Obama (i.e. as lesser of two evils or least of three evils) for a while.

    And I'm running out of defense. I'm drifting towards voting 3rd. And if I do, I know I'll remember this chicken shit vote. Christ, most of his own party voted against it, so it's not even as if he'd be going out on a limb.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Posts: 849
    I am a big Obama supporter and will continue to be even on days like today where I don't agree with his vote. Overall I still agree with his agenda and believe he's set realistic goals that have a good shot at making it through the checks and balances of congress without increasing taxes on the middle and poor classes.

    I will never agree with him 100% so if you want me to defend him on this vote its not going to happen from me.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • Posts: 18,095
    Wow :( speechless. This is absolutely fucking disgusting. Seems to be almost on a daily basis now that something is given up... or taken.

    :mad: Fuck every fucking one of them who voted for this :mad: There is NO defense of this... absolutely none!
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Posts: 1,907
    cutback wrote:
    um...

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    anyone remember this?


    Apparently not!!! Words such as these aren't profitable, they're just words on a piece of paper.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • Posts: 2,659
    Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:
    I would actually have no problem with handing Obama the presidency if he stood at his debate podium, listened to what Nader had to say, and then pleaded the "Fiz-if". :D
    lmao...very nice Rhino....I see an SNL skit in there somewhere.
  • Posts: 761
    Eliot Rosewater wrote:
    Anyone?

    Anyone??

    allright, jesus, just got here!

    staggeringly dissapointed!

    I'm hoping this is strategic. Let's say Obama had voted nay. If we are attacked between now and November I wouldn't put it past the republicans (and certainly not Bushco) to play the evidence of such an attack linked to evidence collected from a "mysterious phone call". If properly staged (and run non stop on CNN) the repubs could use it to call obama "weak on defense".

    Plus he knows he's going to overturn it once he's elected anyway.

    It's farfetched I admit, but it doesn't make ANY sense.

    And the bottom line STILL is...

    Until there is a viable 3rd party candidate, I'm still voting for him for the reason that it will be guaranteed...

    he's not John McCain.
  • Posts: 976
    Urban Hiker wrote:
    Mine didn't

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168


    Do you happen to have a link that shows how the House of Representatives voted on this? I did a search on their website but couldn't find one.
  • Posts: 1,312
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Do you happen to have a link that shows how the House of Representatives voted on this? I did a search on their website but couldn't find one.

    You bet, here you go:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437
    Walking can be a real trip
    ***********************
    "We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
    ***********************
    Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
  • Posts: 976
    Urban Hiker wrote:
    You bet, here you go:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437


    Thanks!
  • Posts: 976
    Not sure about the organization ( http://www.aclu.org/), but thought I'd post this just in case someone was interested in supporting by donating money to fund the new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this recently passed bill.

    https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=4981&s_src=UNV080702FLh&s_subsrc=sub_action2&JServSessionIdr009=x4vcancm13.app24a
  • Posts: 4,141
    Its Evolution Baby wrote:
    To play devil's advocate, you have to remember the fear mongering that Bush caused shortly after 9/11. It doesn't surprise me that the telecom companies went along with Bush's orders under the your either with us or against us pledge he was stating shortly after 9/11.

    So I DISAGREE with Obama that the wiretapping should continue. (look I disagree with him Abooks!)

    But I do side with Ammunity for the telecom companies.

    Only because everyone was confused and frightened after 9/11 and I don't think anyone should go to jail because of this.


    that was almost 7 years ago, there's no excuse for voting for this NOW
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Posts: 4,141
    Its Evolution Baby wrote:
    I am a big Obama supporter and will continue to be even on days like today where I don't agree with his vote. Overall I still agree with his agenda and believe he's set realistic goals that have a good shot at making it through the checks and balances of congress without increasing taxes on the middle and poor classes.

    I will never agree with him 100% so if you want me to defend him on this vote its not going to happen from me.


    yeah, i guess only 25% renewable energy by 2025 is realistic for those who don't really want to threaten the power of the status quo
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Posts: 4,141
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    allright, jesus, just got here!

    staggeringly dissapointed!

    I'm hoping this is strategic. Let's say Obama had voted nay. If we are attacked between now and November I wouldn't put it past the republicans (and certainly not Bushco) to play the evidence of such an attack linked to evidence collected from a "mysterious phone call". If properly staged (and run non stop on CNN) the repubs could use it to call obama "weak on defense".

    Plus he knows he's going to overturn it once he's elected anyway.

    It's farfetched I admit, but it doesn't make ANY sense.

    yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, that must be it....radiohead comes to mind....

    you're living in a fantasy world
    you're living in a fantasy world

    or even

    may pretty horses come to you as you sleep

    it makes perfect sense, obama is a typical politician, nothing more and that you CAN believe in

    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    And the bottom line STILL is...

    Until there is a viable 3rd party candidate, I'm still voting for him for the reason that it will be guaranteed...

    he's not John McCain.

    do you think there will ever be a republican you guys won't be afraid of to not vote for whatever corporate whore the dems nominated?


    what a fucking political system we have
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Posts: 761
    El_Kabong wrote:
    yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, that must be it....radiohead comes to mind....

    you're living in a fantasy world
    you're living in a fantasy world

    or even

    may pretty horses come to you as you sleep

    it makes perfect sense, obama is a typical politician, nothing more and that you CAN believe in




    do you think there will ever be a republican you guys won't be afraid of to not vote for whatever corporate whore the dems nominated?


    what a fucking political system we have


    I'm living in a fantasy world? You are going for a guy that can't win in a million years, and if by some one in a million miracle he did win he wouldn't be able to get any thing done because he would have to get legislation by a corrupt congress and senate, their lawyers, lobbyists and a corporate owned news media.

    I fully understand you guys think you're waging some kind of "mini revolution" with nader, but it ain't going to happen

    I'm not counting on real change. Perhaps we can repair our reputation in the world, rebalance the supreme court, and MAYBE restore a little bit of the constitution.

    these are things I know Obama can do and things I am sure John McSame will not do.

    shine on you crazy diamond! As for you Ralph, good luck I hope you get your funding!
  • Posts: 849
    El_Kabong wrote:
    yeah, i guess only 25% renewable energy by 2025 is realistic for those who don't really want to threaten the power of the status quo

    Why the hell would you bring up 25% renewable energy? That is completely off topic.

    And yes he has set the goal. But shit at least he's the first candidate who has a chance of winning to set some sort of goal.

    It may not be perfect but I swear you people forget that 50% of Americans for whatever reason vote conservative. And its the job of the president to be the leader of all Americans not just a specific base.

    So to be an effective President you have to work on compromises that fits the need of all Americans not just what the Fringe Left wants.

    I really think a lot of you think that the issues that matter to you guys matter to the entire population but they just don't. And it sucks that half the population doesn't think in a more positive progressive manner but they just don't. I think Obama says it best when he said that he wants to be the President of all of the United States not just the base that votes for him.

    And I come from a small Sierra Nevada mountain town that was 75% conservative so I know a lot about the conservative base and what issues matter most to them and its nothing that's talked about on this board.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • Posts: 849
    El_Kabong wrote:
    that was almost 7 years ago, there's no excuse for voting for this NOW

    I'm only talking about the immunity part. That they don't get prosecuted for something that happened 7 years ago when Bush played on everyone's fears.

    So you guys want some workers from AT&T, Verizon, etc to go to jail for this when they acted under Presidential orders shortly after a terrorist attack???

    I don't agree with the bill but I do agree with the Immunity. It's not that hard to understand.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • Posts: 8,209
    Its Evolution Baby wrote:
    Why the hell would you bring up 25% renewable energy? That is completely off topic.

    And yes he has set the goal. But shit at least he's the first candidate who has a chance of winning to set some sort of goal.

    It may not be perfect but I swear you people forget that 50% of Americans for whatever reason vote conservative. And its the job of the president to be the leader of all Americans not just a specific base.

    So to be an effective President you have to work on compromises that fits the need of all Americans not just what the Fringe Left wants.

    I really think a lot of you think that the issues that matter to you guys matter to the entire population but they just don't. And it sucks that half the population doesn't think in a more positive progressive manner but they just don't. I think Obama says it best when he said that he wants to be the President of all of the United States not just the base that votes for him.

    And I come from a small Sierra Nevada mountain town that was 75% conservative so I know a lot about the conservative base and what issues matter most to them and its nothing that's talked about on this board.



    Fringe....blah blah blah


    I've already said this to you but here goes the refresher.

    Polls show that the majority of Americans support the things Nader is bringing to the table such as single payer UHC, decreased military budget/defense spending, etc....


    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5230574&postcount=9
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Posts: 849
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Fringe....blah blah blah


    I've already said this to you but here goes the refresher.

    Polls show that the majority of Americans support the things Nader is bringing to the table such as single payer UHC, decreased military budget/defense spending, etc....


    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5230574&postcount=9

    So you really think the conservatives who have voted in Bush for 8 years support Nader's programs. When they critique McCain for being to liberal?

    I also know that if I work hard enough and ask the right polling questions I could have a poll that shows pretty much whatever I wanted it to show.

    Suffice to say I don't trust polling much when it comes to these things. The conservatives I know in the small towns HATED Gore because of his environmental rhetoric and hated Nader because of what they view as an Anti-Gun/NRA stance. Even if they support UHC, lower defense spending, they would still vote Conservative due to National Security, Pro Life, Second Amendment and all the other Conservative issues that top there list.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories