Obama And Congress Extends Patriot Act

UNTflyer · February 28, 2010

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100228/D9E4T02G0.html

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

Hmm, still following a lot of those "failed policies" of the Bush administration. It's totally different from the other side of the desk, isn't it?

UNT90 · February 28, 2010

I think any intelligent person knew that, once in office, the whole "Patriot Act is a Nazi blueprint and must be abolished" would go away. Any intelligent person should have known that this was simple campaign rhetoric. Once seeing the results that this act yielded in the fight against terrorism, any intelligent person would understand that this was needed to address a new type of threat to national security.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-strongly-refutes-cheneys-comments-alleging-no-abuses-under-patriot-act

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005459.html

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=657

Like I said, any intelligent person.

meangreenacct · March 1, 2010

In reading the quote you highlighted in the article, it seems that the Democrats did try to change things in the Patriot Act that they do not like. I don't think it has anything to do with all of a suddent changing their minds once they are in power, and everything to do with the fact that a party with only 41 Senators can stop our government from doing anything.

untbowler · March 1, 2010

In reading the quote you highlighted in the article, it seems that the Democrats did try to change things in the Patriot Act that they do not like. I don't think it has anything to do with all of a suddent changing their minds once they are in power, and everything to do with the fact that a party with only 41 Senators can stop our government from doing anything.

So lets see they had 60 prior to one month ago, so why did they not make the changes then. Poor pitiful Democrats they can not even get their own party to go along with their policies.

They just do not like it when Repubs use the filibuster that one of their great Demigod presidents instituted (Woodrow Wilson) and used quite a bit during the Civil rights debates in the 60's (Robert Byrd and Gore Sr.).

Guess it sucks being in the majority, where complaining because petty.

Edited March 1, 2010 by untbowler

BeanCounterGrad'03 · March 1, 2010

They just do not like it when Repubs use the filibuster that one of their great Demigod presidents instituted (Woodrow Wilson)

This is news to me...I thought history has generally seen Wilson as one of the weaker presidents.

yyz28 · March 1, 2010

Clearly the Sarcasm Detector isn't working properly today...

BeanCounterGrad'03 · March 1, 2010

Apologies...my detector must be on the fritz :huh:

meangreenacct · March 1, 2010

So lets see they had 60 prior to one month ago, so why did they not make the changes then. Poor pitiful Democrats they can not even get their own party to go along with their policies.
They just do not like it when Repubs use the filibuster that one of their great Demigod presidents instituted (Woodrow Wilson) and used quite a bit during the Civil rights debates in the 60's (Robert Byrd and Gore Sr.).
Guess it sucks being in the majority, where complaining because petty.

Hasn't the 60 always included Liebermann? If so, I don't think he really counts...so they never had a true super majority, at least not when it comes to national security issues.