Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Hey Dems In Congress Finally Do Somthing
Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Sat 02/16/08 05:43 AM
not to sound off topic but we really need to do away with this party system. In order for the people of this country to be truely represented we need to go back to the original way of running the governmen, the way our forefathers set it up to be run in our constitution.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 02/16/08 05:52 AM
The Dem's in the house look like they have grown a pair and are going to stop this crazy patriot act crap. We may take back a freedom or two. Wouldn't that be nice. The dems ride to the rescue restoring personal freedoms in America and upholding the Constitution. I didn't think they had it in them. Sir: Or, is this what you are referring to? Always good to know the TRUTH behind everything: House Republicans stage a walk-out By Andrew Ward and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: February 15 2008 01:35 \| Last updated: February 15 2008 01:35 Congressional Republicans staged a walk-out from the House of Representatives on Thursday amid a bitter dispute with Democrats over legislation to expand powers to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. The protest came as Democrats in the House defied pleas from President George W. Bush to pass legislation already approved by the Senate (Linyy's insert: PlEASE NOTE, ALREADY APPROVED BY SENATE). The existing Protect America Act, which governs wiretapping, expires on Saturday. Mr Bush threatened to delay his departure on Friday for a week-long trip to Africa to help break the impasse. EDITOR’S CHOICE Bush presses House on surveillance bill - Feb-13Bush scores victory on wiretap law - Feb-13Congress votes to outlaw waterboarding - Feb-14US seeks execution for 9/11 plotters - Feb-11Editorial Comment: Abandon military tribunals - Feb-11Red Cross presses Bush on detainees - Jan-30“If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised,” said Mr Bush. “It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.” After months of wrangling, the Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would give the National Security Agency greater ability to intercept phone calls and e-mails of Americans with suspected links to al-Qaeda. Mr Bush wants the House to adopt the Senate bill, which includes a controversial provision that gives telecommunication companies legal immunity for helping the government conduct its eavesdropping. This week, Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House speaker, lost a vote to extend the temporary law for three weeks after some Democrats joined with Republicans. House Democratic leaders have so far resisted the Senate bill and predicted that it could take a further three weeks to agree a compromise. John Boehner, the House minority leader, led the Republican walk-out after Democrats voted to pass contempt charges against two close confidantes of Mr Bush in relation to the firing of several federal prosecutors last year. (NOW, IS THIS NOT CUTE? CLINTON FIRED ALL 83 ATTORNEYS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE, BUT THAT WAS OK? ) “We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us,” he said. The House voted to hold Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, in contempt for ignoring subpoenas to testify about the fired attorneys. The White House says US surveillance laws need to be reformed to keep up with technological advances. The global nature of modern communications networks means many international calls and e-mails are routed through the US even when the participants are foreign. Intelligence officials say that makes it hard to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects because of restrictions on domestic wire-tapping. The Democratic party’s congressional leaders face a tricky balancing act between defending civil liberties and appearing to undermine national security. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 LINDYY'S COMMENT: Please note that if you are not in cohorts with terrorists,what are you so afraid of? Lindyy

Jistme Joined Wed 10/31/07 Posts: 2991	Sat 02/16/08 06:04 AM
Republicans arent the ones trying to move to Canada if they loose Someone let the Republicans loose? Who did that? not to sound off topic but we really need to do away with this party system. In order for the people of this country to be truly represented we need to go back to the original way of running the government, the way our forefathers set it up to be run in our constitution. I'm not too sure what you mean. The party system has actually always been there. It just started getting identifying titles while George Washington was in office. Although the divisions were well in place. The first terminology used was Federalist and Anti-Federalist. The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson. One believed in strong government and a State controlled bank. The other believed in limiting government (Democratic Republicans). Eventually the Federalist movement died off. Then replaced by the Democratic party. While the Democratic-Republicans became the Whig party. Sound familiar?

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Sat 02/16/08 06:17 AM
Republicans arent the ones trying to move to Canada if they loose Someone let the Republicans loose? Who did that? not to sound off topic but we really need to do away with this party system. In order for the people of this country to be truly represented we need to go back to the original way of running the government, the way our forefathers set it up to be run in our constitution. I'm not too sure what you mean. The party system has actually always been there. It just started getting identifying titles while George Washington was in office. Although the divisions were well in place. The first terminology used was Federalist and Anti-Federalist. The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson. One believed in strong government and a State controlled bank. The other believed in limiting government (Democratic Republicans). Eventually the Federalist movement died off. Then replaced by the Democratic party. While the Democratic-Republicans became the Whig party. Sound familiar?

cutelildevilsmom Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 8862	Sat 02/16/08 06:26 AM
The Dem's in the house look like they have grown a pair and are going to stop this crazy patriot act crap. We may take back a freedom or two. Wouldn't that be nice. The dems ride to the rescue restoring personal freedoms in America and upholding the Constitution. I didn't think they had it in them. Sir: Or, is this what you are referring to? Always good to know the TRUTH behind everything: House Republicans stage a walk-out By Andrew Ward and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: February 15 2008 01:35 \| Last updated: February 15 2008 01:35 Congressional Republicans staged a walk-out from the House of Representatives on Thursday amid a bitter dispute with Democrats over legislation to expand powers to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. The protest came as Democrats in the House defied pleas from President George W. Bush to pass legislation already approved by the Senate (Linyy's insert: PlEASE NOTE, ALREADY APPROVED BY SENATE). The existing Protect America Act, which governs wiretapping, expires on Saturday. Mr Bush threatened to delay his departure on Friday for a week-long trip to Africa to help break the impasse. EDITOR’S CHOICE Bush presses House on surveillance bill - Feb-13Bush scores victory on wiretap law - Feb-13Congress votes to outlaw waterboarding - Feb-14US seeks execution for 9/11 plotters - Feb-11Editorial Comment: Abandon military tribunals - Feb-11Red Cross presses Bush on detainees - Jan-30“If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised,” said Mr Bush. “It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.” After months of wrangling, the Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would give the National Security Agency greater ability to intercept phone calls and e-mails of Americans with suspected links to al-Qaeda. Mr Bush wants the House to adopt the Senate bill, which includes a controversial provision that gives telecommunication companies legal immunity for helping the government conduct its eavesdropping. This week, Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House speaker, lost a vote to extend the temporary law for three weeks after some Democrats joined with Republicans. House Democratic leaders have so far resisted the Senate bill and predicted that it could take a further three weeks to agree a compromise. John Boehner, the House minority leader, led the Republican walk-out after Democrats voted to pass contempt charges against two close confidantes of Mr Bush in relation to the firing of several federal prosecutors last year. (NOW, IS THIS NOT CUTE? CLINTON FIRED ALL 83 ATTORNEYS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE, BUT THAT WAS OK? ) “We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us,” he said. The House voted to hold Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, in contempt for ignoring subpoenas to testify about the fired attorneys. The White House says US surveillance laws need to be reformed to keep up with technological advances. The global nature of modern communications networks means many international calls and e-mails are routed through the US even when the participants are foreign. Intelligence officials say that makes it hard to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects because of restrictions on domestic wire-tapping. The Democratic party’s congressional leaders face a tricky balancing act between defending civil liberties and appearing to undermine national security. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 LINDYY'S COMMENT: Please note that if you are not in cohorts with terrorists,what are you so afraid of? Lindyy Lindyy while i respect you I do not want the government having free reign to harass citizens without due cause.Laws like this only keep the honest people honest,they don't affect the real hard core criminals.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 02/16/08 01:11 PM
LINDYY'S COMMENT: Please note that if you are not in cohorts with terrorists,what are you so afraid of? Lindyy Lindyy while i respect you I do not want the government having free reign to harass citizens without due cause.Laws like this only keep the honest people honest,they don't affect the real hard core criminals. CLDMom: I understand your concerns, I do not think the public has been properly informed of his matter. "House Republicans stage a walk-out By Andrew Ward and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: February 15 2008 01:35 \| Last updated: February 15 2008 01:35 EDITOR’S CHOICE Bush presses House on surveillance bill - Feb-13Bush scores victory on wiretap law - Jan-30 “If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised,” said Mr Bush. “It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.” After months of wrangling, the Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would give the National Security Agency greater ability to intercept phone calls and e-mails of Americans with suspected links to al-Qaeda. Mr Bush wants the House to adopt the Senate bill, which includes a controversial provision that gives telecommunication companies legal immunity for helping the government conduct its eavesdropping. “We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us,” he said. The White House says US surveillance laws need to be reformed to keep up with technological advances. The global nature of modern communications networks means many international calls and e-mails are routed through the US even when the participants are foreign. Intelligence officials say that makes it hard to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects because of restrictions on domestic wire-tapping. The Democratic party’s congressional leaders face a tricky balancing act between defending civil liberties and appearing to undermine national security. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 I just copied some of the important aspects of this act. See, it is not going to be used against ordinary people CLDMom, like you and me. Only the people who are contacting terrorists. There has already been attempted actions by terrorists that were thwarted because of the surveilance/wiretap measures. We are living in an age of terorism CLDMom, and we must keep one step ahead of terrorists to maintain our safety. CLDMom, it is not harrassment to wiretap calls, e-mails of people working with the terrorists - it is for the safety of our country and your little children and their future. A wiretap of someone dealing with a terrorist is not hurting the average person such as you and me, our calls will not be affected. But it is protecting our country and our freedom and wellfare. Lindyy

karmafury Joined Sun 11/12/06 Posts: 10156	Sat 02/16/08 04:38 PM
Republicans arent the ones trying to move to Canada if they loose Who says that we want them.

HMontana Joined Thu 12/20/07 Posts: 5037	Sat 02/16/08 05:25 PM


HMontana Joined Thu 12/20/07 Posts: 5037	Sat 02/16/08 05:32 PM
.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 02/16/08 06:16 PM
Republicans arent the ones trying to move to Canada if they loose Who says that we want them. Who said they care what YOU want? Kindly explain who you are referring to as "WE". Surely you jest when you refer to 'we' as being that YOU speak for everyone Lindyy P.S. A Republican

leahmarie Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 1482	Sun 02/17/08 12:49 AM Edited by leahmarie on Sun 02/17/08 01:31 AM
Republicans arent the ones trying to move to Canada if they loose Someone let the Republicans loose? Who did that? not to sound off topic but we really need to do away with this party system. In order for the people of this country to be truly represented we need to go back to the original way of running the government, the way our forefathers set it up to be run in our constitution. I'm not too sure what you mean. The party system has actually always been there. It just started getting identifying titles while George Washington was in office. Although the divisions were well in place. The first terminology used was Federalist and Anti-Federalist. The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson. One believed in strong government and a State controlled bank. The other believed in limiting government (Democratic Republicans). Eventually the Federalist movement died off. Then replaced by the Democratic party. While the Democratic-Republicans became the Whig party. Sound familiar? JISTME...... Your definition of Federalists and Anti-Federalists is very vague and tells us almost nothing. Actually it was the creation of the Constitution that brought the two parties about. After the Constitution was completed each state had to ratify it. At this juncture, people divided into two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution since they felt it gave too much power to the national government and not enough power to the state government. The main complain was that there was no Bill of Rights. We had just fought the British for our rights, and the Anti-Federalists wanted to ascertain that our rights were protected. On the other hand, the Federalists believed that the separation of powers into three independent branches was in effect a Bill of Rights since all three branches would be equal, meaning that no one branch could assume control over another. The Federalists didn't want a Bill of Rights for fear that they might leave out a particular right and that would mean that right could be violated. Therefore, they said it is better not to list specific rights. Finally, in order to get the Constitution ratified, the Federalists agreed to draft a Bill of Rights, which is why the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution. Incidentally, it wasn't just Alexander Hamilton, but also John Jay and James Madison who were at the forefront of the Federalist Party. The three of them authored The Federalist Papers (85 essays), urging Americans to accept the newly-written Constitution with its stronger central government. I will give you credit for mentioning Thomas Jefferson as leading the Anti-Federalist movement. He feared that the Federalists were not doing enough to protect our individual liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution. Jistme..... You mention Democratic-Republican Party. Something interesting is that the term Democratic in this time frame was a derisive one. When the term Democratic was stuck in front of the Republican Party, it was very denegrating since Democratic referred to the very recent Reign of Terror following the French Revolution of 1789 and the mob rule associated with it.