McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance 209
jriding sends word that the majority leader of the U.S. Senate has introduced a bill that would extend the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act until 2020: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night to extend through 2020 a controversial surveillance authority under the Patriot Act. The move comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both chambers is preparing legislation to scale back the government's spying powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the hunt for clues of terrorist activity.
republicrats (Score:5, Insightful)
or better known as assholes
Re:republicrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously how much are we spending on the witch hunt for terrorists?
Can they show results of thwarted attacks to merit such spending? If not the assholes should be removed from office.
On a side note I'd be interested to find out if there are any ties between these people and those that have the contracts to provide hardware for this project.
Re:republicrats (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right the R or D matters little. The reasons are actually pretty simple.
Both parties threaten their junior members to tow the party line or they will work against them next election. And of course, holding power becomes the most important thing to members over time as the perks are without parallel, esp. power and ego stroking.
Majority of congresscritters don't really care that much about rule of law or the opinion of their constituents.
The reelection rates are so high that their is little actual reason for them to change their ways.
D & R do have different issues, e.g., Rs like guns, Ds like abortion on demand. But they share more in common, desire for power, using gov. to solve all problems, discounting personal liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's not what is happening. It's just a simple matter of the congressmen not needing to give a shit about the voters.
How can that be so in a democracy? Simple: in the US, you allow the politicians to draw the borders between electoral districts. So they redraw the borders to ensure they have a safe seat. Once you have a safe seat, there is no need to care about the people who voted
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about legislation that has been introduced in the United States Senate here, and they can't redraw their districts, as their districts are the borders of the state that they allegedly serve.
Gerrymandering is strictly a phenomenon of the US House of Representatives at the Federal level.
But thanks for the condescension.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a reminder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]. So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]. Good English means toe does actually work better than tow. So toe the line when it comes to English especially when using idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org], otherwise the 'm' becomes a 't'.
Re: (Score:1)
Even worse - it's not that the original spelled a word wrong, they picked the wrong homophone.
Re:republicrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.
It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.
Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point. Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one and....frankly....
Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing. Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your
Re: (Score:2)
Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.
Keeping that in mind, maybe it's just better to let this minor meaningless slip-up go?
Re: (Score:2)
For those who haven't yet learned, you "toe the line" because it comes from the idea that some arbitrary line drawn on the floor is the limit that your toes must not cross. Failure to observe that limit has severe consequences.
You can see this concept in operation when Alex is inducted into prison in "A Clockwork Orange" and he was quite literally forced to toe the line.
To "tow a line" sounds like for some absurd reason you're dragging a rope behind you. It doesn't have nearly the same chilling effect.
Now c
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least I hope you found it helpful to learn the proper spelling of "toe the line". It's like a bunch of runners at the beginning of a race, think of it that way. "Tow the line" is more of a speedboat analogy, I'm not sure how it applies.
Maybe others found this helpful as well.
Note: not the GP AC.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I didn't make the original comment, so much for your assumptions.
Secondly, I am well aware of that, and your comment is a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about. The original poster used the appropriate phrase in spoken conversation, an idiomatic expression which is well understood and even common. He clearly understood what he was talking about.
Now you, without even bothering to see who said what, actually claim that spelling has shit to do with understanding?
I read the original comment,
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Re:republicrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, it does matter. The GOP party leaders and their conservative faction (i.e. non-Tea Party, non-Libertarian) fetishize the military and security establishment. And they will _always_ defend and fund the NSA and similar organizations, no matter what they tell the public, or what the public demands. These leaders are more heavily involved with the defense industry than most politicians, and their electorate is blinded by the notion that the military and police can do no harm (unless they're trying to take your guns way), and gripped more than most by politics of fear.
Yes, the Democrats supported the Patriot Act and its subsequent renewal. They were more than complicit. But you simply cannot equivocate all the various factions. And in this case, the heart of the problem lies squarely in the GOP camp, along with a few outliers (e.g. Diane Feinstein, who is considered a hawk and well outside Democratic and liberal circles on this issue).
I'm tempted to defend Obama here by saying that if Bush were still in office, he'd probably have a televised national speech explaining why the NSA needs these powers to prevent a WMD attack or something. And by contrast, Obama has not publicly come out in favor supporting renewal. However, Obama is clearly working behind the scenes to push renewal. OTOH, every president inevitably fights to hold onto and expand their powers. It's the nature of the office, so it's not worth drawing a distinction between R & D, here. What we can do is blame Congress for clearly abrogating their responsibility of reigning in the executive.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tempted to defend Obama here by saying that if Bush were still in office, he'd probably have a televised national speech explaining why the NSA needs these powers to prevent a WMD attack or something. And by contrast, Obama has not publicly come out in favor supporting renewal. However, Obama is clearly working behind the scenes to push renewal.
So...you're advocating against transparency?
~Loyal
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Less transparency would be a good idea in congressional votes. Money and party interests require accountability. Force congress to vote anonymously and suddenly you've severed those ties and allow policy to return from the extremes to sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: republicrats (Score:2)
There has been amazing commentary on why this is. The largest, and most unified group of republican voters are evangelical Christians and within that group, the existance of Israel is seem as a prerequisite to the second coming.
Being all for Israel is a less controversial stance than many others that still panders to a key bloc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cruz is a lunatic, a House member who happens to be in the Senate. He has no interest in governing. Wyden is a thoughtful and respected leader, whereas Cruz is 'worshiped'. Wyden is trying to STOP Feinstein, Cruz complains McConnell didn't go far enough in his abject obstructionism.
Both sides have their extremes but the extremes in the Dem caucus are a far
Re: (Score:3)
That or they are the hidden beneficiaries via these hidden contracts to hidden purchases to hidden budgets for hidden agendas.
Re: (Score:1)
ZERO actual terrorists (criminals) worth a shit imprisoned.
ALL your privacy STOLEN.
You and your friends in jail for a little weed, unpaid tickets, bitcoin, and whatever other victimless crime they dream up.
Military industrial corp complex... country sunk deeper in debt trillions a year chasing nonexistant vapors.
INNOCENT PEOPLE MURDERED BY AMERICAN MILITARY / CIA.
MANDANTORY 5 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR ALL CONGRESS.
Re: (Score:3)
See, and that is the problem right there. Its so easy to see the problems, and you are right. The prison and military industrial complexes, as well as several others, are a huge problem but.... and this is a Ron Jeremy hairy ass but.... there is no way anything remotely as simple as "Term Limits" is going to fix shit.
You think the big industries can't find bodies to fill seats on a more regular basis?
The bigger problem, really, is fundamentally flawed structure that isn't scaling well, especially since enti
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to put it:
D and R are both F'ing us in the A
Re: (Score:3)
People wanted to do it before 9/11 as well, what stopped them at the time?
Re: (Score:2)
People wanted to do it before 9/11 as well, what stopped them at the time?
Because people still believed in Freedom back then. More or less.
Re:republicrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Before 9/11, terrorism was some nebulous thing that happened in some far off land. It was sad to watch on the evening news but then you changed the channel to a sitcom and everything was alright again.
Right after 9/11, the horrors of terrorism came up close and we couldn't ignore them. This, in itself, is fine. The problem was that these people saw that we were scared and jumped in promising to stop terrorism. All they needed in return was a little of this liberty - just a little bit - we wouldn't even notice it was gone. We quickly agreed in our panicked state - shouting down the minority who said it was a bad idea by yelling "Are you taking THE TERRORISTS side? Are you with THEM?!!! DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!!!!!"
Slowly, we began to come to our senses, but were still on edge enough to be scared into approving anything if the politician said "Terrorism" enough times.
Hopefully, by now, we've regained enough sanity that we can a) smack around any politician who tries to claim that removing liberty will prevent terrorism and b) start the long, hard process of getting back the liberty we were scared into giving up years ago.
Re:republicrats (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to be a single issue voter, you just need to prioritize your issues. For example, for me it might be:
1) Against surveillance state.
2) Free trade.
3) Less regulation
4) Small government
Regarding #1, the Democrats are the better bet. Regarding #2, at least in the past 25 years the Democrats have supported free trade about as well as Republicans. #3 leans slightly in favor of Republicans, even though they nix many regulations I think should be necessary, including certain (but not all) financial industry regulations, and net neutrality; and unfortunately they still support morality regulations. #4 leans heavily in favor of the Democrats, because while Democrats support social agencies, it's been Republican support for the defense and security industries that has really exploded the size and cost of government in the past 15 years, for almost no social gain whatsoever.
Party platforms on policy don't matter nearly as much as _actual_ policy.
The situation could easily change. I'd have no problem voting Republican in the future. But as it currently stands, and based on a weighting of all those factors and more, I basically try to vote a Democratic ticket at the federal level.
I'm familiar with the Arrow Paradox regarding prioritized ordering and voting. But simply because some method is proven to be technically impossible in all cases doesn't mean it's not functional or practical in actuality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a conflict they just don't understand. Yes, you can know more if you spy on all human interaction, but that isn't the point. It's better to not know some stuff that could be known, so that all of the innocent people can communicate freely and without reservation. I'm much more frightened by totalitarians than terrorists. I can put it no better than this: The Loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the blessed Democrats are not complicit in this at all. I mean they have rallied to get rid of the Patriot Act, right? Oh wait, no they haven't, not even our President who compromised on government snooping oversight and totally bailed on his campaign promise. I loathe people who want to just throw blame. Oh and you are a pussy and a douche bag for posting anonymously.
Message from the Ministry of Love (Score:1)
McConnell's bill is double plus good! Support it, or it's Room 101 for you.
Re:Message from the Ministry of Love (Score:5, Funny)
ungood refs unplaces; update fullwise.
Re: (Score:1)
NSA: Send more "Chicks with dicks!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Second!! (Score:3, Insightful)
How about no. I'm not okay with this law being extended. I want my constitution back.
Re:Second!! (Score:5, Funny)
You want a government that actually OBEYS the Constituttion?
What are you, some terrorist/anarchist???
Think of the corporate profits...ugh.... I mean the children!!!!
Our constitution wasn't written for the people (Score:3)
Paging Mr. Hamilton... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I was going to make a joke about how somebody should "appropriately deal with" Senator Burr, but then decided against it because the jackbooted thugs at the FBI (or whatever) might not be amused.
Let this just be one more example of the damage the so-called "Patriot Act" has done to our formerly-free society.
Not just about terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just about terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget subsequently using that information to commit institutional perjury as they engage in "parallel construction" so that the information they didn't legally obtain can be laundered into making it have the semblance of being legal, and make sure when they do charge you they can hide the facts of the case.
Papers please, comrade.
Sadly, these people who are sworn to defend the Constitution need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy of it -- because they don't seem to understand what the fuck it says.
Re:Not just about terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them. this country has such a deeply rooted problem with power that I am starting to think the only way to fix it is to start over.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them.
No, I don't believe that's true. While they might know the words, they haven't really studied it, or its history, enough to UNDERSTAND the intent of the words when they were written.
Further, many of them think they don't have to... that it's a "living document" that changes meaning over time.
I call bullshit.
---
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, founding father
Re: (Score:2)
What they'd fail to realize, of course, is that compulsively stuffing their brains full of conspiracy theory nonsense isn't the same as "studying".
Of course, there will also always be those who claim any skepticism or examination of facts outside the mainstream "official" story is "conspiracy theory". Despite the fact that skeptics have in fact routed out skullduggery and real conspiracy a rather alarming number of times throughout history, and despite the fact that they have not studied those issues themselves.
Or those who don't realize that many individuals acting to the same purpose, in all good will and without coordination, can have the effect
Re: (Score:2)
Ad-hominem? Where? Do you even know what that term means?
Yes, indeed. Apparently better than you do. It still applies even when the argument is implied rather than stated explicitly.
I know who you are, and I understood the context of your comment just fine, even if other readers here don't. Hey, there's a word for you: context. Do you even know what the term means?
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.
I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".
Re: (Score:2)
If they are too lazy to care and to react, they are too lazy to understand it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy...
Or, you know, need to be voted out of office, not reelected to a 40 year career by people only looking for a bigger 'tax cut'(handout)
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is we're stuck choosing between the corrupt right-wing extremist who wishes to force us to divulge any and all personal and social information for profit and to ensure his power goes undisturbed, and the corrupt right-wing extremist who wishes to force us to divulge any and all personal and social information for profit and to ensure his power goes undisturbed. Sometimes there's also independents but they're basically set up so as to never actually have a chance when it's actually important.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not stuck with anything. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced with having to pay attention and seeking suitable candidates. The non voter is the biggest voting block there is. If they settled on somebody, we could be rid of the republicans and democrats for good. All you need to do is tune out the bullshit coming from the carny hucksters that are winning today. That alone will reduce the value of the campaign dollar to zero immediately, and would settle this silliness over 'Citizens United'.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that it isn't necessarily politicians that are abusing this system. It is the agencies manned largely by bureaucrats with a few appointies leading them. Changing the political leadership will do little to stop all of this unless that leader ship change happens encompasses both houses and the presidency, and has a strong will to end the abuses.
You can actually look to the DEA situation right now as an example of how troublesome the long term bureaucrats can be. The current head of the DEA is b
Re: (Score:1)
The president could abolish the DEA tomorrow if he wishes. It exists at the pleasure of the executive.
Re: (Score:3)
Take away the authorization, pass a strict ban on the practice...does
Re: (Score:2)
You can start letting people go who are accused based on it as judges typically do.
Re: (Score:2)
Mush-Mouth McConnell strikes again (Score:1)
Does this really surprise anyone?
Once a power is granted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Write your Congresscritters (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Write them on paper. It gets better results.
Re: (Score:2)
You've leapt to the conclusion my 'representatives' are not miserable, lizard-brained fascists, endlessly voted for by the staggeringly stupid mouth breathers in this intellectually-forsaken blood-red rectangle of a state.
Re:Write your Congresscritters (Score:5, Informative)
I think everyone needs to write to the people of Kentucky and tell them to stop electing Mitch McConnell. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with Congress. He's been a senator for 30 years. He's been involved with politics since 1964, when he was 22, so essentially his entire adult life. In '64 he graduated with a degree in political science and then began as an intern for a senator the same year. 3 years later he got a law degree, and probably decided that some sort of military service would look good on his record so he joined the Army Reserve and spent 5 weeks stationed at Fort Knox while in law school before being discharged. He assisted another senator, then was the Deputy Assistant AG under Ford, then got elected to his first office in 1977. I can't find any record of private employment not associated with a politician, despite the degree in law. Then he became a senator in 1985 and he's still one today.
The Center for Responsive Politics puts him as the 10th richest senator, with a worth between $9.2 million and $36.5 million. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a "public servant" to pull down over 30 years, but that's why it seems like career politicians are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's a lot of votes that have been purchased over the years. McConnell is a great example of why every member of congress needs term limits. The notion of a career politician needs to be retired and replaced by ordinary people coming out of the private sector to help run the country, and then going back into the private sector once their service is finished.
Also, he looks like a turtle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
FUCK that little bitch Mitch, and ram burr up Burr's ass.
God damned lifelong political carnage wreakers on America.
Re: (Score:2)
Term limits do nothing except increase the probability of having bad/corrupt representation.
I suggest that we give them a try before making statements like that as if they're facts. Congress (that would be both the Senate and House) have never had term limits since the Constitution was created. I would counter your suggestion by claiming that term limits would help combat the type of de-facto oligarchy that we see today.
Think politics has gone downhill over the last 30 years? That's about how long it's been since term-limits started getting popular.
Thomas Jefferson of Virgina wrote in 1789 that he saw term limits as necessary "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would just make it that much more important for the politician to grab as much money and power as they can before they're out.
I see it as making the notion of a career politician obsolete, so that becoming a politician is no longer a way to lifelong wealth, and as such it would encourage those people to find their wealth elsewhere and leave the governing of the country to people who are legitimately trying to help.
Re: (Score:2)
email phone calls handwritten letters requesting a meeting
Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.
Re:Write your Congresscritters (Score:4, Interesting)
(Ugh, html stripping.)
email < phone calls < handwritten letters < requesting a meeting
Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.
Re: (Score:1)
(Ugh, html stripping.)
email < phone calls < handwritten letters < requesting a meeting
Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.
Did the postal worker from Florida with his satchel filled with addressed and stamped letters change anything or even get noticed by the politicians? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Insert obligatory "...CARRIER LOST" joke here.
Re: (Score:3)
Writing a strongly worded email may feel good, but it will just get re-directed to a spam filter and deleted. Plus, mountains of emails are mostly invisible to the national media.
If Americans really believe in this issue and want things to change, you need more than armchair protesting by letter-writing. You need large-scale protests in the street. Get a million people out in the streets of major cities, and those types of crowds won't be able to be ignored by the media or your elected representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.
Good luck. You'll need it.
Now if you really want to get this done: Become a corporation (because they are now people after all) and use the billions of votes called "money" that you have to convince them to vote against the bill. The more Dollar Votes you give them, the better!
Re:Write your Congresscritters (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd be surprised. One letter with no contribution from an unknown doesn't do much, no. But you better believe a Congresscritter keeps track of what he gets large amounts of such mail from his constituents on. Because, while you can't get elected without money, having money doesn't guarantee you election (as the number of people who have tried throwing massive amounts of money at an election only to fail miserably shows). He may or may not do what they want, but he *will* pay attention.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican party. (Score:1)
But remember, the Republicans are the party of small government! They want to get it small enough to fit into every American's phone, bedroom, and uterus!
Re:Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican party. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good old Republicans.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sen. Rand Paul, a fellow Kentucky Republican, who pledged to end the NSA program — which he called “unconstitutional surveillance” — if elected. This is the only guy who pledged to shut down this entire unnecessary clown show.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He's also a kook who believes in using the police power of the state to force women to bear children they do not want, and he supports a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. He's a Benghazi nutter. He opposes the separation of church and state. He supports prison for Snowden. He does not believe Americans have any right to clean air or clean water. You want to vote for this guy just because he stated he's opposed to NSA spying?
Who's crazy again?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really trust any campaign promise? If elected indeed. After people are elected the average year over year gain in net worth is 15.4%. The highest is Pingree (D-ME) at a whopping 73,039%. She has been on the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Agriculture comittees. Eight out of the top ten representatives that increased their net worth are on committees relating to agriculture, military, or homeland security. Two of them are laughably on the ethics committee.
The pattern is clear.
Source with plenty of [ballotpedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Uses Elderly instead of Boomers
> Thinks GenX watches Glen Beck
> Thinks GenX is conservative survivalists
> Thinks Millenials owned houses
> Thinks Millenials don't culture war
> Modded +5 insightful.
Remember when Slashdot wasn't filled with idiots? AC remembers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great, but you were too soft on millennials. .
Not one to call names (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not generally one to call people names, but Mitch "The Bitch" McConnell needs to sack up or shut up. I will admit, it takes a lot of bravery to willfully ignore potential surveillance information on principle when the costs could be high. Nobody's saying that surveillance can't work. But we're supposed to be the land of the brave, not the land of the Chicken Littles engaging in surreptitious and unconstitutional spying because we're worried that a couple of jihadists might attack us in what amounts to the existential equivalent of a stubbed toe.
Besides, I don't trust anything that hides inside it's own shell at the first sign of trouble. And God help us if he gets stuck on his back again.
Was samzenpus hit in the head today? (Score:1)
Small typo (Score:2)
It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the cluesless hunt for terrorist activity
There, fixed that for you
No Point to 2nd Amendment if Ignoring the Others (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans like to talk up the Constitution, which I'm a big fan of, but they really only care about a single amendment. And the only point of having that is to defend against the loss of the others. But what's the point of it? If they won't even vote to defend the others, they sure won't fight for them.
It's simple... (Score:1, Troll)
Our "leaders" want books banned, surveillance on innocent people, and yet,
none of them have to abide by ANY law.
I have long suspected that McConnell is/has-become a communist -- I've always known
he was an idiot. Too bad the people of Kentucky don't realize that. An education would help them,
but then McConnell would surely put a stop to schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Public education predates communism as much as book burnings, surveillance and succeeding in not abiding by the law.
Re:It's simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it's true that the two have been synonymous in that it took a Totalitarian government to impose a communist economic system (or something close to it) in practice, but you can just as easily pair Totalitarianism with other economic systems, including Capitalism.
It's called protecting America (Score:3, Interesting)
When they're looking at you, fine. But congress freaked out when the CIA was looking at THEM. It's fair to say they think rules are great for us, but they should be held to a different arbitrary self made standard when it comes to applying the law to themselves:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Da! Republican comrades protect glorious homeland! (Score:1)
It is all for your own good comrades, and for the greater glory of efficient capitalism!
S.1035 (Score:1)
Took me a while to find it . . . S.1035 is the bill I wrote my congressmen, I'm sure that's going to get me on SOME list.
One word: Gyrocopter (Score:2)
Existing tech should have had Whitehouse security standing by (not to mention other layers of the security envelope) but didn't.
The tech was fine, clearly the users of it failed. No measures need to be extended, no new and sweeping permissions are required, no new intrusion tech is required.
What's needed are simply intelligent people paying attention. No bill is going to provide that.
Re: (Score:1)
We can only hope.... from TFA Sen. Rand Paul, a fellow Kentucky Republican, who pledged to end the NSA program — which he called “unconstitutional surveillance” — if elected.
Re: (Score:1)
Except he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Obummer pledged to close Gitmo, except Congress made sure he couldn't.
Rand Paul also doesn't know shit about the Constitution, because he wanted to try alleged terrorists in absentee before making drone strikes; with is explicitely illegal.