Republicans show signs of Split.

[New Chalcedon]

Democrats. If the GOP splits, the Democrats will easily win a majority for quite a while. Maybe we'll be able to actually get stuff done.

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

[Gauntleted Fist]

We need to work on some sort of code phrase that let's us skip all this strange politics bullshit to get down to the nitty-gritty stuff so we can more easily get back to enjoying life. Something that says "I am a tremendous asshole who hates my fellow human and am irredeemable, please don't bother talking about politics with me."

Maybe it should be something like "Do you have stairs in your house?" or something horrible like that.

Who are you talking to, exactly?...

Ah, I see. Carry on, nothing seen here.

[Dyakovo]

I don't recall him ever saying he would...

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... linger-on/

Barack Obama official campaign position paper, 2008:

Revise the PATRIOT Act. Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.

President Barack Obama, October 2009: writes and sends amendments to Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that successfully remove civil liberties protections from a bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

President Barack Obama, February 27 2010: signs a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act into law without revision.

No, this isn’t news breaking today. But it isn’t ancient history either. Barack Obama broke his core campaign promise on the Patriot Act this year, a broken promise that has lingering effects. There have been no negative consequences for his broken promise, and that is a sadly continuing story.

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/201 ... to-oppose/

Obama is a first-class flip-flopper for in 2005, as a Senator, Obama opposed the core principles of the Patriot Act. In a 2005 speech on the Senate floor Obama himself said:

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law…When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That’s all."

…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books they’ve read and phone calls they’ve made – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law.

No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.

It's reaching back a little far, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize him on opposing the PATRIOT Act while out of the Presidency, but renewing and approving them every time he has the opportunity while in the Presidency.

Further, I don't think it's unfair to criticize the Democratic Party and Democratic supporters for effectively engaging in the same activity.

You claimed he promised to get rid of the patriot act, he didn't. He promised to revise it, and he has.
Now explain to me how this is a broken promise.

[Arkinesia]

That was eighty fucking years ago.

so what? ( don'tbyou know we can learn from history)its still relevent they passed very seccess socialistc policy,like social security, and helped America claw its way out of the GD. We should learn from their example. . . Go American Socialism!!!

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Something that happened 80 years ago is not relevant to the current political landscape.

[Wikkiwallana]

There were no powers granted by the NDAA.

There were too, now they were powers already being used yes, but that doesn't mean the NDAA didn't officially put them into law.

It was controversial when the PATRIOT Act was signed, now it's renewed routinely, there's not even a fight. I believe that was a failing on the Democratic Party's part.

Actually, all but three provisions, at least two of which are good ideas, have been allowed to expire.

[Greed and Death]

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

Only in 2010 did the GOP have just enough of a senate presence to filibuster everything.

Democrats were filibuster proof in 2009.

[Arkinesia]

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

Only in 2010 did the GOP have just enough of a senate presence to filibuster everything.

Democrats were filibuster proof in 2009.

Actually, if we're being technical, the Republicans didn't have a filibuster-grade presence until 2011.

[Caninope]

The original legislation wasn't up for repeal, so even if the NDAA hadn't passed the powers would still have been there... So, no, I don't see any reason to have opposed the NDAA. You're living in a dream world if you think not passing the NDAA would have done anything other than leave the military unfunded.

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

The worst parts of the PATRIOT ACT have been struck down or expired.

The parts that are in effect now are things mostly concerned with the process of tracking and defeating terrorism (such as cracking down on financial aid to terrorists, breaking the wall between the intelligence and law enforcement duties of the FBI) as opposed to outright unconstitutional provisions (roving wiretaps).

[Caninope]

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while there.

[Wamitoria]

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while there.

They had 58 votes. 59 if you count Bernie Sanders.

Lieberman was already voting lock step with the Republicans prior to this point.

[Dyakovo]

And when the GOP maintained just enough of a Senate presence to filibuster everything, yes.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while there.

In theory... The Democrats are not a hivemind.

[Caninope]

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while there.

They had 58 votes. 59 if you count Bernie Sanders.

Lieberman was already voting lock step with the Republicans prior to this point.

2009 had 60 people caucusing with the Democratic Party.

[Wamitoria]

They had 58 votes. 59 if you count Bernie Sanders.

Lieberman was already voting lock step with the Republicans prior to this point.

2009 had 60 people caucusing with the Democratic Party.

One of which voted with Republicans more often then not. That person being Joe Lieberman.

Dems had to water down everything to appease that sleazy fuck.

[Cancerous Conservatism]

All I have to say is, I doubt it.

[Caninope]

2009 had 60 people caucusing with the Democratic Party.

One of which voted with Republicans more often then not. That person being Joe Lieberman.

Dems had to water down everything to appease that sleazy fuck.

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

[Brewdomia]

One of which voted with Republicans more often then not. That person being Joe Lieberman.

Dems had to water down everything to appease that sleazy fuck.

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Unfortunatley, the Democrats are nowhere near as unified as the Republicans.

It can be a good AND bad thing depending on the situation.

[The Blaatschapen]

Republicans show signs of Split.

Why are they holding signs of a city in Croatia?

[Wamitoria]

One of which voted with Republicans more often then not. That person being Joe Lieberman.

Dems had to water down everything to appease that sleazy fuck.

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Lieberman is an independent. We can't control people who aren't actually in the party.

[Caninope]

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Unfortunatley, the Democrats are nowhere near as unified as the Republicans.

It can be a good AND bad thing depending on the situation.

Republicans have been splitting recently.

[Caninope]

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Lieberman is an independent. We can't control people who aren't actually in the party.

Except he's not.

He's a former Democratic VP candidate, former Democratic Presidential candidate, and still continues to be a registered Democrat. He just didn't win the Democratic Primary in 2006.

[Wamitoria]

Lieberman is an independent. We can't control people who aren't actually in the party.

Except he's not.

He's a former Democratic VP candidate, former Democratic Presidential candidate, and still continues to be a registered Democrat. He just didn't win the Democratic Primary in 2006.

And, while caucusing with the Democrats, he was voted in largely with Republican support and has voted with them more times than not.

[Dyakovo]

One of which voted with Republicans more often then not. That person being Joe Lieberman.

Dems had to water down everything to appease that sleazy fuck.

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Except that it has been pointed out that it wasn't.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Republicans show signs of Split.

Why are they holding signs of a city in Croatia?

Oh, aren't you clever...

[The Blaatschapen]

Why are they holding signs of a city in Croatia?

Oh, aren't you clever...

Well, someone capitalised Split in the title of this topic, and it wasn't Zagreb.

[Caninope]

Except he's not.

He's a former Democratic VP candidate, former Democratic Presidential candidate, and still continues to be a registered Democrat. He just didn't win the Democratic Primary in 2006.

And, while caucusing with the Democrats, he was voted in largely with Republican support and has voted with them more times than not.

So he acted like a Republican.

Still doesn't make him any less of a Democrat.