NSA Surveillance Reform Bill Passes House 303 Votes To 121

First time accepted submitter strangeintp (892348) writes "The first legislation aimed specifically at curbing US surveillance abuses revealed by Edward Snowden passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. But last-minute efforts by intelligence community loyalists to weaken key language in the USA Freedom Act led to a larger-than-expected rebellion by members of Congress, with the measure passing by 303 votes to 121. The bill's authors concede it was watered down significantly in recent days but insist it will still outlaw the practice of bulk collection of US telephone metadata by the NSA first revealed by Snowden."

Re:A step in the right direction

[scuzzlebutt]

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Dylan Critchfield]

As true as I know it is, I'm doing my best not to lose total faith in humanity. Let's face it, not even congressmen like having their shit ruffled through, right? I could be wrong, but it remains to be seen. We'll see how this plays out.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's time for term limits for Congress.

Term limits for Congress would make the executive branch (NSA) stronger. It would also strengthen staff and lobbyists significantly. If you don't like your old Congressman, vote him out, but don't think about telling me I can't vote for mine. That's not democracy when you want to tell me I can't vote the way I want. Why don't you ask yourself what the real problem you are trying to solve instead of hating on Congressmen.

Re:Slow clap

[Anonymous Coward]

With their numbers, Congress can ram his veto wherever they choose. If they change the bill to be meaningless, we can only assume they are all compromised by NSA spying and should be voted out of office ASAP.

Re:BFDâ¦.

[0111 1110]

C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

If you are going to vote for someone at least vote for someone who makes specific promises about how he would vote in this sort of critical law and what he promises to do to himself if he votes the wrong way. Suicide would be a good start. That would apply to Obama because he has broken most of his promises. Fucking liar. I'd probably only vote for someone with zero experience in politics because all experienced politicians are liars. Most lawyers too. So no lawyers either. And if both options are bad then don't fucking vote. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Or vote for a Libertarian or a Socialist or someone else idealistic. At least you'll get more predictable votes from someone who actually believes in something other than making lots of money for themselves in bribes.

Re:Told you that you were serfs

[ExecutorElassus]

This is all totally off-topic, but there is one part of your argument that merits discussion. Pointing out that a few people have experienced very lucrative social mobility is not evidence of the system as a whole being conducive to it. In fact, such arguments serve the exact opposite goal by thwarting meaningful discussion of social and economic policy. A handy thought experiment from Cracked makes it more clear:

Let's say there are a hundred of you and your friends all locked in a room, and you're all starving. I walk in, and out of my fat wallet I pull a wad of bills that it more money than you'd make in a year. I set it on a table, and say, "the last one of you left alive gets this pile of money." Then, when all your friends are dead, you get rich, and I say, "see? The system is fair: any one of you can become a rich person, if only you try hard enough. It deliberately conflates "any of you can get rich" with "all of you will get rich." And you and your friends are so busy fighting each other that nobody is asking why there was only money for one of you in the first place.

Dr. Dre may have become a billionaire, but he grew up in a neighborhood systematically ghettoized, and the majority of the kids he grew up with ended up dead or in jail, and almost all of them stayed poor.