AT&T Thanks Democrats For Telecom ImmunityIn private party in Denver crashed by Salon.com... ( old news - 04:17PM Tuesday Aug 26 2008) tags: legal · business · telco · privacy · PoliticsThere's a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties occurring at this week's Democratic National Convention in Denver, one of which was hosted by AT&T. AT&T is surely eager to thank Democrats for recently getting them off the hook for handing over American phone and data records to the NSA without a warrant. The move saved AT&T from billions in legal penalties, as it kills lawsuits from the likes of 22-year AT&T employee turned whistle blower Mark Klein -- who discovered (pdf) AT&T was funneling Internet data from multiple carriers directly to the NSA with no judicial oversight. While the press is banned from these parties, Salon.com's Gleen Greenwald, who did an amazing job tracking the FISA fight, went anyway -- and took a camera crew. Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. A 2007 lobbying and ethics law was supposed to cut down on lobbyist skulduggery at conventions, but legal loopholes have quickly been exploited.
Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
|
 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  | HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers said by en102  :All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest. Thats true. However, this case is a bit different being they violated the 4th amendment and broke the law. The telcos crossed the grey line on this one. And they got lucky they were let off the hook. This is a really sad state of affairs for our constitution. And is also where I lost all respect for Obama. I have little faith anymore for our federal government. | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers "They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
There are civil and criminal laws to apply to corporations, of course.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers said by NormanS :"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well. That's not entirely true. You're right that the Bill of Rights originally was only a bar against Congressional infringement. In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement (who were essentially reinstituting slavery by denying rights to freed slaves, either by passage of "Jim Crow" laws, or simply turning a blind eye to private violence against blacks.
The intent of the framers of the 14th was to protect recently freed slaves from state laws recreating slavery. But, by implication it also extended to local laws (not nullified by the state), or private violence that went unpunished by state or local officials.
The intent of the 14th amendment wasn't recognized by the Supreme Court until the mid 1920s when they began what became known as "selective incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment.
Mark | |
| | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers said by amigo_boy :In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers said by NormanS :said by amigo_boy :In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one. I'm very familiar with the 13th though 15th amendments. The 14th amendment was the one that extended the Bill of Rights to state (and by implication) private or organizational infringement. It's a matter of semantics because, although the 14th amendment didn't give the federal government jurisdiction over private/organizational infringement, it gave them jurisdiction over the state that didn't take action over such municipal, private or organizational infringement. It's indirect.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers But what, about my post, didn't mention the extension of Constitutional protection, or control, or whatever you want to call it, to the states? Must I requote my comment?
quote:
...and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
What did I miss, that I failed to convey exactly what you said I didn't?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | 
Alvin
@qwest.net
| The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
And in the greatest irony, it was the 14th amendment, through the Supreme Court and cases brought to it (over 80% of which were about corporations, not freed slaves) was the one that ultimately allowed Corporations to be defined as people and gave them the right to own property and have free speech leading to this problem with lobbyists and corporate domination in the first place.
Now they're able to use their pull to avoid responsibility. | |
| | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers said by Alvin :
The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
You're wrong. Congress and the President did nothing more than restate 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) [1]. That law already defines when telcos are (or are not) liable to criminal or civil prosecution.
So, the so-called immunity deal [2] didn't convey immunity. It says its only applicable *if* 2511 applies. All it did was provide an avenue for the judiciary to make that determination.
We know this was the basis of the Administration's defense of the telcos because AG Gonzalez documented his argument that 2511 applies.[3]
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (see page 88)
[3] »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf (see page 23). | |
| | 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | To quote Thomas Jefferson, "We need a bloody revolution every twenty years, just to keep government honest."
It's been 232 years... Long overdue.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | | | | | | | | | HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
1 edit | "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" This was dead wrong.. A total violation of the 4th amendment. The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. I still can't believe they did this. At least my Telco Qwest did not allow illegal wiretaps. And reading about these parties really burns me up. What corruption. | |
| | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by tiger72 :Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P | |
| | | | Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc.. | |
| | | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by Jonbo298 :There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc.. Unfortunately, if you aren't red or blue, you have essentially no chance of getting into office. There are only 2 Congress Critters in federal office that are not affiliated with either major party, Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Lieberman was formerly affiliated with the Democrats and both caucus with them. Prior to Sanders being elected, the previous independent in the house was in 1950. | |
| | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jimbo2150 :said by tiger72 :Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P At the current rate things are going, that just might work!
There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists...
But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by tiger72 :There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists... But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall. said by jmn1207 :I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. The problem with most 3rd parties is that they spend too much time and money on national campaigns. If they went whole hog in a limited # of selected states they could actually get people elected to Congress(especially the House) and then use their leverage in a non-majority D-R split in Congress to negotiate some of the things they want and gain higher visibility for future elections. Until they do that they are going nowhere in Presidential elections.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" The LP is doing this to an extent, and slowly making inroads... | |
| | | | | | 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | He's got a point, start small and kick some ass. Divide and Conquer as they say.
--
NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM! | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by jimbo2150 :said by tiger72 :Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P I would recommend you find out how your representative and your senators voted. If their votes don't agree with your values, vote their @ss out of office.
It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt.
one telling fact: the republicans couldn't get the immunity provision thru when they controlled congress; they were enabled and abetted by a democratically controlled legislature. | |
| | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by nasadude :It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt. And the Democrats would equally say "especially the Republican Leadership."
What you just said is "Both sides suck, but the Dems suck worse, so vote for Republicans" which undermines the entire point, really.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | 
SLD
join:2002-04-17
Los Angeles, CA | Nader! | |
| | | | | 
DownTheShore
Health Care Reform NOW
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by SLD :Nader! Oh, puleez... 
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals | |
| | | | | |
SLD
join:2002-04-17
Los Angeles, CA | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response. | |
| | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" and does that same consumer protection cover the drug addicts too? | |
| | | | | | |
DownTheShore
Health Care Reform NOW
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| said by SLD :I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response. Not against them at all - in fact I support them. But Nader is a man whose time has come and gone as a viable third party candidate. The only role he has now is as a spoiler, and his presence in the presidential race has already helped the Bush machine one too many times. I don't want to see his presence do the same for McCain.
His voice would be better served organizing people to push the consumer agenda into party platforms - not getting a soundbite on the news stations.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals | |
| | | | | | | |
SLD
join:2002-04-17
Los Angeles, CA
·Comcast
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" The point is that "party platforms" are just corporate-driven agendas. I applaud his ability to "spoil" the race by forcing the major parties to take the third-pary will seriously. Same for the voters - make them aware that there really could be a choice. I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" said by SLD :I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. I'm willing to bet that the minimum wage is increased at some point in an attempt to gather some votes, further adding to the already skyrocketing inflation, and, naturally, congress will surely give themselves a raise at some point over the next 4 years. Anything that else that gets done will most likely be a few passed bills with deceiving names that help a few C-level types at large companies at the rest of our expense. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 18 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" i hate this whole 'outsourcing' issue on how people cry like BABIES all over it. it is a FACT OF LIFE that it happens, you can NOT stop unless you cut off entirely from the world (nothing in or out of the country). i'd suggest anyone concerned with 'outsourcing' should take a good look at history. find me a place in time in which a technology or knowledge or 'jobs' did not get 'outsourced' to another country or place. we live, now more so than ever, in a world with a tightly intertwined global economy in which some competition is not confined to just locally. | |
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" I do agree that outsourcing is inevitable.
The issue that the politicians need to watch is the trade deficit, and who 'owns' the country.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| I think the "Tax and spend" slogan is merely political labelling. It seems to me, both parties are "Spend & Spend" and it doesn't matter if it comes from borrowing, taxing, stealing until we break.
Basically it's massive waste, fraud, and graft all around amongst both parties.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by tiger72 :Really? You really can't believe they did this? Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners. Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual. I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. We generally keep voting the incumbents back into office over and over again and we are going nowhere. There is very little separating a Democrat from a Republican other than the direction the mud is being slung. I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere. | |
| | | |
See 20 replies to this post | |
| 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Yeah both party's do suck. However there never will be a perfect president from either party so you have to deal with BS all the time.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
| | 
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| said by HiDesert :The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. Yeppers.
Dirty politics need power and money, and corporations and online advocate websites helps to grease their very wheels.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org | |
| blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL | 1984 Welcome to Big Brother. They will chip away at all our freedoms in the name of protecting us. Who will protect us from them? | |
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Pols will NEVER pass on chance to collect re-election money I agree... I'd like to see an update to the stats though, as this was published in 1997.
A global economy is where we are, and must deal with it. The golden rule will never really change. "He/She that has the gold, makes the rules".
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Why are you here? I looked at the video attached and I can see why people would not provide answers to the "reporters", who in their right mind is going to discuss anything with an unknown reporter and film crew? | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Why are you here? said by Austinloop :I looked at the video attached and I can see why people would not provide answers to the "reporters", who in their right mind is going to discuss anything with an unknown reporter and film crew? Exactly. Thank you. I was just about to post the same thing.
Good lord people are such idiots. OF COURSE joe or jane average event attender is not going to get all chatty with some agressive OBVIOUSLY agenda-laden "reporter". And then you get all frothed up in a lather with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. | |
| | | | SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA | Hold your nose... I’m very disappointed with the Dems & Obama for this one. But one bad decision can’t compare to John (Bush) Mccain trying to bring down America. | |
| | nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ | Re: Hold your nose... What one bad decision are you talking....Is that a part of the spare change as promised by Obama? So why is Bush any worse? Obama has more flip flops that anyone else whether it be outsourcing or it be drilling or it be our rights! | |
| 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Teh Two-Party system chugs along guzzling corporate spooge ($$$) for our dining and dancing pleasure. Until enough people unite behind third-party candidates, those of us who see through the RNC/DNC dog & pony show will continue to suffer under its reign. The first thing people can do is turn off the TV, radio and two-party oriented blogs -- our media is pravda at this point.
-- | |
| | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Teh Two-Party system said by Titus Pullo :our media is pravda at this point. -- EASY NOW! At least Pravda was open about having an agenda.
Our media operates under some phone cloud of impartiality.
One look at the way they cover Obama shows you that just ain't the case....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Teh Two-Party system said by N3OGH :One look at the way they cover Obama shows you that just ain't the case.... Yeah, tell me about it... like calling his and his wife's fist touch a "Terrorist Fist Bump" ...
It's been amazingly ridiculous what some outfits have done in this election coverage, while all the while ignoring the real issues they should be covering like digging into a candidate's true positions and past records.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | |
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Re: Teh Two-Party system Actually, I was talking about his 7 cover appearances on TIME, but I digress....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | I don't see why third-party candidates are somehow more immune to corruption than anyone else. It's a lot easier to talk about not being corrupted by power when you don't have any. | |
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | gee, i wonder... who AT&T is gonna back? McCain with whoever or obama with biden? I'm placing my bets on obama+biden. just look at biden's record. change obama says? it'll be a change for the worse, which seem impossible given bush and his cohorts right now. | |
| |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: gee, i wonder... said by cornelius785 :who AT&T is gonna back? McCain with whoever or obama with biden? Big corporations will support both candidates at the same time. It is much safer to buy both candidates then it is to back the wrong one.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: gee, i wonder... said by LiamJunket : It is much safer to buy both candidates then it is to back the wrong one. Agree.
To a large degree we have become a single party county run by the "incumbent party."
/tom | |
| | | | | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| Re: I'll say it again said by MoeDumb :Klein was and is an American hero. A-men. | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | I wonder how much Obama costs.... Looks like we have another bought and paid for politician. In fact, it makes it easy for ATT to hand out checks since everyone is in the same place.
 | |
| | nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ | Re: I wonder how much Obama costs.... That might be a good question for Resco  | |
| nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ
| Spare change as promised by the messiah George Obama Say no to war...flipflop....its ok
Say no to outsourcing....flipflop...Its ok well replace them by minimum wage jobs
Say no to trampling civil rights...flipflop....Its ok immunity for Telcos
Say no to further pollution...flipobama...its ok well gat some fat money from the oil companies and openup drilling even at home.
So can any Obama supporter plese tell us what we're getting into if we vote for this flipflopper? McCain atleast has some bone rather than this slimobama having less bones than a jellyfish to stand up for anyuthing.....lol and the hillairyt is his wife claiming outlandish things | |
| |
DMMJ
@wa.gov
| Re: Spare change as promised by the messiah George Obama This took all of 30 seconds for me to find. Do some research and open that little republican mind!
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Spare change as promised by the messiah George Obama said by DMMJ :
This took all of 30 seconds for me to find. Do some research and open that little republican mind!
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
What's funnier is that Obama's VP choice told America that Obama wasn't ready to lead. | |
| | | thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Endicott, NY | You might wish to retract those political statements when posting from a .gov IP address.
That sort of thing could get you into serious trouble. | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | They both flip-flop. Sometimes it's because they were wrong in their position. Sometimes it's wrong to flip-flop, because they are changing their position to suit the target audience. That's usually the case. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Spare change as promised by the messiah George Obama said by KrK :They both flip-flop. Sometimes it's because they were wrong in their position. Sometimes it's wrong to flip-flop, because they are changing their position to suit the target audience. That's usually the case. DING DING DING!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!
Kerry did this and it was one of the things that cost him the election. | |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| In case you haven't noticed-We Have a 1 Party System! Yes, and if you think your well considered vote will change your lot in life you better think again! The totally controlled media WANTS you to think things will change by your vote because you want to believe this if you are one of the 2/3 suffering now expect the only thing to change will be more people in your "club"
The good paying jobs, our technology and wealth have already been transferred away from you and your children.
They (the super rich and powerful worldwide) are throwing Obama out there so you will at least vote for someone, how embarrassing should only 10% actually vote. But does he really vote for regular people or attempt to solve their problems- just look at both Obama and Biden voting for the change in bankruptcy laws after 20 years of lobbying by the banks-or the telecom immunity or a whole list of other laws not helping any middle class people.- and McCain is no better nor are any Congress people.
To all those who say _"its democratic to vote and we will pick the best of a bad lot" Keep it up until you arrive in the ever growing nowhere middle class club! Does your diligent voting stop the largest transfer of wealth in history (debt from 5 to over 9 trillion in just a few years)- where did all that money go! Whereever, it ain't here and we owe it. Don't blame Iraq- that only accounted for 1/10 of it, and please don't blame only Bush, he just blindly agreed to it.
You should really watch some of those old TV shows from the 50's and 60's to remember how it used to be and how it is now! | |
| | wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO | what i wanna know is do they need a warrent from now on, and have to do shit by the book, and just being protected from the past, or is this like evect them for ever, and let them give info out to who ever they feel like? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| the cost of prostitutes Campaign contributions, from the article: quote:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: the cost of prostitutes said by fatness :Campaign contributions, from the article: quote:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
What that really means is that the anti-surveillance, EFF group couldn't even muster $5k for 300 representatives as a counter-offer.
That's what I've always said. Self-styled freedom fighters are such a small minority that they can't affect change through the expected avenues of politics (lobbying, voting people out of office, getting the law changed, impeachment, etc.). They needed smarmy personal injury lawsuits to have a soap box for their cause.
Mark | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: the cost of prostitutes said by amigo_boy :said by fatness :Campaign contributions, from the article: quote:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
What that really means is that the anti-surveillance, EFF group couldn't even muster $5k for 300 representatives as a counter-offer. That's what I've always said. Self-styled freedom fighters are such a small minority that they can't affect change through the expected avenues of politics (lobbying, voting people out of office, getting the law changed, impeachment, etc.). They needed smarmy personal injury lawsuits to have a soap box for their cause. Mark Actually, you are missing something.
Since there is no shame in taking money from special interests, no one cares. Major media outlets barely report anything because they themselves are owned by major corporations (GE owns NBC for example.) None of the media outlets will expose anything about the other's corporate parents because it will come back to bite them when their own corporate parent does something to warrant an investigation.
Take the money out of lobbying and things will clear up. | |
| | 
imakeholsinu
join:2008-01-24
Saint Louis, MO
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by fatness :Campaign contributions, from the article: quote:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
See, they should all be really investing that money back into CUSTOMER SERVICE! | |
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | ugh vomit. | |
| | | joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Greenville, SC | Patricia Madrid Said the other night that democrats would stand against wiretapping, but yet they compromised on a bill that let them get off scott free. Fucking Hypocrites. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
Pols will NEVER pass on chance to collect re-election money
