Slashdot Mirror

If they send enough bills, then the GOP will accuse the Democrats of wasting Congress's time by bullying the Senate and refusing to produce workable legislation...

Name one piece of workable legislation that the Senate has proposed or passed in the new Congressional term.

I'll save you the trouble. They graciously decided to back-pay furloughed government workers at the end of the shutdown, and they've done f-all else in 3 months.

The Speaker of the House was Dennis Hastert (R–Illinois). The change which greatly expanded delegated certification was mandated by Congress, not the FAA. It was a part of HR 2115 "Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act" in 2003. Refer to section 227 - DESIGN ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATES. https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

The change which greatly expanded delegated certification was mandated by Congress, not the FAA. It was a part of HR 2115 "Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act" in 2003. Refer to section 227 - DESIGN ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATES. https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Why? Because he wouldn't cough up the money? That knife?

It's fascinating law. I believe that the latest version is available at recent amendments to it are recorded at https://www.congress.gov/bill/.... As best I can understand it, the law includes voicemail and text messages. I believe that it was deliberately crafted after Richard Nixon's impeachment.

The Data Care Act would be one such item, introduced by DEMOCRATS. The Republicans are against it and claim it is "detrimental" to the "free market". And the fines are working. Right to be Forgotten, for example has had Google make massive changes to how they operate in the EU. GDPR changed how Google, Facebook, etc all operate in the EU. Democrats protect privacy and the consumer. Republicans not so much.

Congratulations, you've been fooled.

The Data Care Act was an abomination that would have gutted state-level privacy laws because of federal supremacy:

(2) DUTY OF LOYALTY.—An online service provider may not use individual identifying data, or data derived from individual identifying data, in any way that—

(A) will benefit the online service provider to the detriment of an end user; and

(B) (i) will result in reasonably foreseeable and material physical or financial harm to an end user; or

(ii) would be unexpected and highly offensive to a reasonable end user.

That's IT . That's fucking useless - and it would have overridden all state-level privacy laws.

And guess who gets to define "detriment"? The same damn bureaucracy that's subject to regulatory capture.

If Google were writing a law to "regulate" itself, they'd call it The Data Care Act.

And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.

You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.

https://www.nti.org/learn/trea...

and we even attempted to pass legislation on this--- MANY TIMES-- but warmongering asshats like the GP get butthurt over such things immediately, so we have never actually passed it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Because we just *GOTTA* fucking have space lasers. /s

And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.

You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.

https://www.nti.org/learn/trea...

and we even attempted to pass legislation on this--- MANY TIMES-- but warmongering asshats like the GP get butthurt over such things immediately, so we have never actually passed it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Because we just *GOTTA* fucking have space lasers. /s

And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.

You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.

https://www.nti.org/learn/trea...

and we even attempted to pass legislation on this--- MANY TIMES-- but warmongering asshats like the GP get butthurt over such things immediately, so we have never actually passed it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Because we just *GOTTA* fucking have space lasers. /s

Literal partisan blinders. You think Bill Kristol is a Democrat??

ThinkProgress reports that its traffic from Facebook has been slashed by eighty percent due to a âoefact checkâ by the Weekly Standard which, through a series of moronic mental contortions, found ThinkProgress guilty of reporting fake news about Brett Kavanaugh of all things. In a twist of irony which would be delicious if it weren't so disgusting, the Weekly Standard is one of Facebook's authorized "fact checkers", and happens to be the brainchild of none other than bloodthirsty psychopath and rehabilitated #Resistance hero Bill Kristol.

And gosh, look at all those Republican co-sponsors of the pro-censorship, anti-BDS law. Both wings of of the right wing capitalist war party suck.

The company's lawsuit contends that the law which bans Huawei equipment without evidence and trial is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Anyone that's even heard of a clue, let alone has half of one, knows that national security is a valid and perfectly constitutional reason to prohibit government agencies from purchasing equipment or services from a foreign actor.

They are challenging John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA 2019), specifically Section 889.

Nothing in the law prevent private businesses from buying Huawei equipment but doing so could effectively lock them out of doing business with the federal government. It's just like the Kaspersky Anti-Virus situation where people a free to use it but it's a big no-no for the federal government.

The US did NOT sign the Paris accord; President Obama supported it, but per the US Constitution, the US cannot "sign" a treaty or accord unless it's approved by the Senate - and it never was.

You're wrong, of course. As evidence, your use of quotation marks when in fact, the US did, through the legal actions of President Obama sign its agreement to the Paris Accord which is an extension of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which the Senate ratified back in 1992. That treaty expressly authorized ratifying parties to participate in further negotiation. Which the US did, multiple times, in Kyoto, Bali, Cancun, Durban and Copenhagen. Not just Paris.

Notice how Congress made no action to impeach President Obama nor did the Senate reject the Paris Accord. You can even find statements by members of Senate leadership directly expressing the US's status with the accord as entirely legal. Hence it was, and is, still binding on the United States. That is why the Trump administration is still bound by it, because they could not act to withdraw the US until November 2019 and even then, it will be in effect for another year. Yep. Another year.

Sorry, but your incompetent legal analysis is defied by the actual facts. You do know you can't just make things up, right?

What we really have is a claimed intent to withdraw. A meaningless political statement which really hurt him outside his base. Knowing Trump, he will likely forget to follow the legal process and the US will be subject to the Paris Accord anyway and his successor will simply laugh at the idea. That is assuming Trump is even President then.

Looking less and less likely every day.

He is somewhat unhealthy. Looks like he is going to die soon.

"The Green New Deal was full of all manner of handouts and other ideological bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with humanity being better stewards of the earth."

That is quite a claim, any way you can back it up becasue I don;t see mentions of any giveaways here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text


So please, you have the full text of the bill above, Where are these "All manner of handouts" you claim to be there.

A bill of attainder is a finding that a person is guilty of a specific criminal act. "Every veteran before 1918 gets an extra $10,000 of social security" isn't a criminal conviction, and therefore is not a bill of attainder. You will notice it applies to very few people, approximately one.

Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person. Most of them don't name the person, they just use criteria specific enough to apply to only one person:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

More commonly, Congress would pass a law saying something like "all Presidential candidates must ... any commercial real estate holdings valued at more than $5 million". Gee, I wonder which presidential candidate had over $5 milion in commercial real estate. That law pretty much covers everybody, right? :)

A bill of attainder is a finding that a person is guilty of a specific criminal act. "Every veteran before 1918 gets an extra $10,000 of social security" isn't a criminal conviction, and therefore is not a bill of attainder. You will notice it applies to very few people, approximately one.

Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person. Most of them don't name the person, they just use criteria specific enough to apply to only one person:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

More commonly, Congress would pass a law saying something like "all Presidential candidates must ... any commercial real estate holdings valued at more than $5 million". Gee, I wonder which presidential candidate had over $5 milion in commercial real estate. That law pretty much covers everybody, right? :)

A bill of attainder is a finding that a person is guilty of a specific criminal act. "Every veteran before 1918 gets an extra $10,000 of social security" isn't a criminal conviction, and therefore is not a bill of attainder. You will notice it applies to very few people, approximately one.

Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person. Most of them don't name the person, they just use criteria specific enough to apply to only one person:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

More commonly, Congress would pass a law saying something like "all Presidential candidates must ... any commercial real estate holdings valued at more than $5 million". Gee, I wonder which presidential candidate had over $5 milion in commercial real estate. That law pretty much covers everybody, right? :)

So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.

I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.

First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.

Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposed by Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.

Also ISPs. Remember that Rubio cosponsored the resolution to strip away privacy protections which limited ISPs from spying on you and selling your data. And he did so with the excuse that these protections were "unfair" since the they didn't apply to other unrelated tech companies like Google / Facebook / Apple, etc.

Now here he is introducing "privacy protections" (never mind that this actually reduces your effective privacy, since it stops states from introducing real protections) which would limit only Google / Facebook / Apple, etc. and would not apply to ISPs.

Law requiring noxious weed control. Milkweed is a noxious weed. In this case, the Government requires elimination or at least strict control of milkweed, then decries the loss of Monarchs due to the control.

And do what? Create a resolution which will die in the Senate? Hell, the last time the Senate voted on a related resolution they were opposed to NN: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Good point. Can you look it over and get back to us?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Senator, I did not—I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants or—and so I do not have the involvement with that.

NPR, 2007:

Kavanaugh used to clerk for the Supreme Court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he advised the White House lawyers at that meeting that Kennedy would probably reject the President's claim that American combatants could be denied access to a lawyer.

Well, so apparently he's perfectly capable of lying when he shouldn't be lying.

So you're saying you don't like the ongoing (since the 90's?) Republican trend of putting industry foxes in positions to "guard" our public henhouses for the explicit purpose of NOT regulating them, eh?

Nope, this is truly a bi-partisian problem.

Aren't you one of the outspoken Trump supporting morons?

Not really. While I support somethings he has done and tried, I do not like everything, nor do I count myself as a fan. I do feel he was the lessor of two evils (Hillary/Bernie).

But I think he's an idiot many times that sometimes gets things right in spite of himself. I liked the SCOTUS appointments, that was one of my chief concerns in the previous election.

I'd much rather a more middle road candidate, slightly liberal socially, slightly conservative fiscally, and overall for less intrusive government, especially on the federal side.

While I'm thinking NOW would be the best time in recent history for a valid 3rd party candidate to run due to the main party pulling to such extremes....I'm not optimistic that I'll see any such candidate in my lifetime.

So, I choose who will at least address some of my main concerns as best as I can.

Some of the Dem stuff coming up on the horizon really scares me...this state one: NY SB 9191 ...which will require anyone wanting to get a gun, to hand over all social media credentials so the police can ascertain if you post things too radical to allow you to have a gun.

This linked article is by a democrat leaning person, as they say they don't care if the 2nd amendment is run roughshod over....but they are concerned about the implications of the 1st and 4th amendment violations being proposed here.

Look at federal House Bill 7115 3D Firearms Prohibitions Act .(Which has precious little to do with 3D printed gun or gun parts if you read it).

Even if you support the parts essentially banning the sales of gun parts and the long time right to home gunsmithing, and all...and the 80% lowers, there is a part on there that wants to prohibit you from even posting or talking about how to build your own gun, etc. Isn't that 1st amendment?

I mean, I'm no fan of the old Anarchist Cookbook, but I don't feel it should be banned either?

So, no....neither party right now is a fan of freedom.

You just have to pick and choose what parts mean the most to you and think you can win with whomever you "support".

We can't let customers go around telling companies how to run their business! The businessman is sacrosanct! He must be protected against all offenses! I say we must prohibit all boycotts! Amazon must protect itself and push for legislation that forces people to buy their services, just like the insurance companies demanded from Obamacare. Those that raise their voice in protest should be shot!

I actually skimmed through the bill, it's short at 38 pages.
It does nothing about liability or handing out money to companies working on self-driving tech. However, you're right that it preempts state/local laws regarding self-driving cars. Mostly it establishes committees and tasks various bodies with reviewing/researching/planning. It also log-rolls a couple unrelated auto regulations mandating 'improved' headlights, and a warning indicator to remind you if someone is in the back seat when you turn the engine off (baby in a hot car etc.)

Free credit freezes are due this month thanks to Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155/text?format=txt/

TITLE III--PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS

SEC. 301. PROTECTING CONSUMERS' CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 605A of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15
U.S.C. 1681c-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``90 days'' and
inserting ``1 year''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) National Security Freeze.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `consumer reporting agency' means a consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p).
``(B) The term `proper identification' has the meaning of
such term as used under section 610.
``(C) The term `security freeze' means a restriction that
prohibits a consumer reporting agency from disclosing the
contents of a consumer report that is subject to such security
freeze to any person requesting the consumer report.
``(2) Placement of security freeze.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving a direct request from a
consumer that a consumer reporting agency place a security
freeze, and upon receiving proper identification from the
consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall, free of charge,
place the security freeze not later than--
``(i) in the case of a request that is by toll-free
telephone or secure electronic means, 1 business day after
receiving the request directly from the consumer; or
``(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3
business days after receiving the request directly from the
consumer.
``(B) Confirmation and additional information.--Not later
than 5 business days after placing a security freeze under
subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall--

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

So now that I showed you that a Republican introduced a bill already about this, and is clearly better, you're going to admit that the Democrats are the real enemy of the US?

I didn't think so. You probably think of yourself as an independent as well, right? I imagine you live in a Dem area that is failing, complain about it, yet is petrified to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. They own you.

Here's the one they're talking about - https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which BTW wasn't introduced on Tuesday. It was introduced in June. Democrats know how to stuff ballot boxes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

So now that I showed you that a Republican introduced a bill already about this, and is clearly better, you're going to admit that the Democrats are the real enemy of the US?

I didn't think so. You probably think of yourself as an independent as well, right? I imagine you live in a Dem area that is failing, complain about it, yet is petrified to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. They own you.

Here's the one they're talking about - https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which BTW wasn't introduced on Tuesday. It was introduced in June. Democrats know how to stuff ballot boxes.

So am I, and always vote for him, but it's difficult to reconcile someone who both champions against government abuses such as mass surveillance and FISA, but also consistently votes to impede a citizen's right to possess firearms.

Not just sensible gun control measures, but absurdities such as voting against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in support of allowing gun and ammo manufacturers to be sued into oblivion for the acts of criminals.

I suppose some leeway must be granted in considering the kind of company he keeps. It just goes to show that no politician is ever ideal.

I'm shocked, shocked that's the case. Again: throwing up a link to a wall of text isn't a citation, it's laziness, which is easily demonstrated. I hereby assert that a cheeky page inserted a line into the 2017 federal omnibus bill stating Ray Morris is incredibly lazy and likes to make up nonsense, a bad combination. If you disagree, feel free to read said bill to prove me wrong.

Last week WaPo reported that Trump appointed Roseinstein to the DOJ. An outright lie.

Presidents do not appoint Attorney Generals (nor Deputies), they nominate them. That's a technical inaccuracy, but not a lie.

Trump did nominate Rosenstein — and the Senate confirmed him.

The specific grant of power to Congress with regard to armies is

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

The primary reason for the grant of power is to provide for defense of the country and the justification for limiting the appropriations is to prevent a power buildup in the army to avoid the army curtailing individual liberty.

Federalist No. 26 provides some potential insight into this grant of power.

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

This line alone shows that Hamilton was suggesting that a permanent standing army was acceptable primarily because Congress would have the opportunity to curtail its power ever two years by voting on the military.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

Here we see that Hamilton is writing that the standing army becoming a threat to individual liberty can only occur if successive generations of members elected to the House of Representatives (by the people) agree to continually increase the funding of the military to the point of oppression and he argues that because of this the justification is thus present that the representatives, having acting unfaithfully with regard to the electorate, have given the people justification to dissolve the United States and to form each county as its own independent nation (I believe States in this regard is referring to nations and not states of the United States).

https://www.congress.gov/resou...

S.2393 is not a term extension at all but an expansion of the scope of existing state law copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings, whose expiry had already been set at 2067 by the previous term extension. In particular, "sound recording" under U.S. copyright law does not include the soundtrack of "Steamboat Willie", "Plane Crazy (sound version)", or any other motion picture.

Here's the summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Summary: S.J.Res.52 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Restoring Internet Freedom." The rule published on February 22, 2018: (1) restores the classification of broadband Internet access service as a lightly-regulated "information service"; (2) reinstates private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service; (3) requires Internet service providers to disclose information about their network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of service; and (4) eliminates the Internet Conduct Standard and the bright-line rules.

The tweet shows that they're forcing a vote on S.J. RES. 52, and the text of that resolution is available online. It would simply nullify the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order and do nothing else.

Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.

No but certain questions are yes and no. For example we don't understand gravity completely but it's "settled" that mass causes gravity and not pixie dust. That doesn't mean that science stops looking at gravity in detail.

No--we know that mass and gravity are connected. We have *guessed* that mass is the cause, but in reality we have no idea.

References: Here and here

Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.

That's as idiotic as saying "yeah smoking has severe consequences, do we need to stop doing it?"

As a full-time employed scientist that has worked in academic, government, and private sector environments: I sure see a lot of people who know about smoking's severe consequences and yet choose to continue doing it. It is a political question. The science question is answered with "there's a consequence". The political question is simply "can we live with that consequence?"

Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).

Bahahahaha. Climate scientists have been studying the inputs for like 50 years and you think they didn't think about this issue or investigated it. Again that's like tobacco companies trying to argue that lung cancer could be caused by other things thus smoking can't be the cause of lung cancer.

You talk about it as though scientists have looked into it, decided it doesn't have an impact, and stopped. Shall I remind you that space weather is a large field employing thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers, and that the government continues to fund research on that very thing?

If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).

Well that's like saying gravity is settled and we don't need to spend any money on LIGO or research on gravity.

Newtonian mechanics and gravity are not the same thing. GP is right; no one does research on Newtonian mechanics, so it is, in a sense, "settled". As in, "this is useful, but not correct enough to continue, especially since the paths of general relativity and particle physics have been opened and prove to be more accurate than Newton's laws."

Here is the text of the bill https://www.congress.gov/115/b.... Talk about propaganda the bill is just chock a block full of it (that just had to fill it full of Russia propaganda, lame, really lame).

Even the title is bull puckey, the ads don't have to be honest in the slightest, it just has to be stated somewhere in it, that is was a paid political advertisement. Although I find the description of a paid ad as a qualified ad to be some what disturbing.

Of course paid political commentators, corporate stink tanks (more stink than think), in fact nearly any commentator what so ever, need declare nothing. Sort of tied to a person or entity spending more than $500 on ads and what is or is not a political ad and when that content is and is not a political ad (context counts).

Is it too much to ask the US government to quit it with the bullshit double speak, The honest ad Act, should bloody force honest ad content, doesn't matter who paid for what as long as it is bloody honest. The act as it stands, does not care one whit about honesty or the truth and place dishonest ads placed properly above honest ads placed improperly and the properness being very interpretive.

Or that it's not made particularly clear that SESTA was renamed to FOSTA in the Senate. And it was presented to the President on 04/03/2018 so come 4/13/2018 we should have some answer on whether it'll be law or not. Feel free to call it laziness that it's not made at all clear where you'd look for a lot of information.

A Mass Murder has 3 fatalities past the shooter, as per Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012. This certain qualifies as the Attempted Mass Murder as per stated.

God damn you are a fucking idiot deflecting things as badly as the Russian trolls/Ivans around here! Guess who actually added the rider which is disputed here? Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA-9]" - an exclusively conservative Republican from Georgia. Pointing out who and especially which party is genuinely responsive for an instance of rights violations is crucial for acting against it in a way that politicians actually feel and fear.

Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right

So how do you explain the 114 Republicans who voted for FOSTA?

FOSTA makes websites responsible for misuse by users, so one set of nudes that turns out to be a prostitute advertising makes the website owners into felons. FOSTA does nothing to the people actually committing the crimes, either, as it's sole purpose is to take away the section 230 protections that website owners had up until now.

The House passed FOSTA a few weeks ago and the Senate passed it four days ago. It's not a coincidence that Google started taking down anything that might be pornographic before Trump signs it and it becomes law.

So tell us again why porn sites have nothing to fear from the right.

(1) If the content is outside the US, they can place liability on US ISPs that don't censor it.

If you actually read the bill your outrage will likely lessen quite a bit. The bill has nothing to do with ISPs. It repeatedly talks about websites, and it also talks about deliberate intent to facilitate sex trafficking.

But what's wrong with approving the sex trade among consenting adults?

You're debating a different legal issue.

(3) How is prostitution different from many traditional marriages,

Sorry, now you're well out in left field.

It's cute, fun, and traditional when people spend a lot of money on a wedding and the state stamps its approval, but when it's done by the poor without the state's sanction, it's automatically a terrible thing.

Equating sex trafficking with marriage is about as silly as you can get.

In the US, you can NOT readily buy "assault weapons"...aka fully automatic weapons.

Before gunsplaining, it's usually a good idea to have a handle on what you're talking about, especially if your complaint is that your opponent doesn't know their terminology.

An assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more (one or more, in some cases) features from a list that usually includes a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and forward grip. This isn't a definition I've made up, it's the definition defined in law, both in the original Federal AWB (TITLE XI--FIREARMS, Subtitle A--Assault Weapons), and in laws by various states such as California.

You appear to be confusing the term with "Assault rifle". An assault rifle is, indeed, a select fire rifle that includes either a burst or automatic fire mode, in addition to a semi-automatic capability. This is defined in some military code somewhere that I can't be bothered to look up right now. Assault rifles (not Assault weapons) are restricted, though not banned - anyone can buy one made before the mid-1980s if they're prepared to get a stamp from the ATF.

People demanding "assault weapons" be banned may be arguing for a dubious ban, but not because weapons classified as assault weapons are already banned. Far from it, the only nationwide ban on assault weapons expired during the Bush presidency.

That's the George W. Bush presidency.

That's the second Bush, the guy who fell off a segway, not the older guy who's his dad. Sorry, but I just want to make sure you know what I'm talking about because just as "Assault weapons" and "Assault rifles" have one word in common, the two presidents have words in common too, infact both "George" and "Bush" are parts of their names.

Please do not interpret this as support for the AWB. I don't support it. If you really give a rat's ass what my opinions are on gun control, check my journal.

Well, let's play Guess That Shill. We've paid democrat shills, US deep state shills from things like this and this. We've corporate shills too, and definitely republican shills.

Personally, I noticed how Bernie Sanders was treated by the press, and how after the election with the flick of the switch all of the usual mouth pieces were on the same page with blaming fake news and russian collusion. It was actually impressive how well that was coordinated.

So now I wonder, who benefits the most from making the Russians appear as the all pervasive devil to eliminate any need for reform or accountability and keep our attention diverted. Any from that list? Which commentors are just ordinary people playing devils advocate since the subject of Russian activity is neither all or nothing? Could we actually have Russian shills too? Maybe! You decide whats more likely, while I enjoy my daily vodka ration. Cheers!

Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama

Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day

Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures

It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs

The bill is sponsored by Devin Nunes, a Republican

Trump tweets about moving the capital of Israel and the next day there are protests in the streets. The body count for that tweet was, I believe, 4 dead Palestinians.

He didn't just tweet that out though. They actually formally announced it during a press conference :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk596vBap7c

So no, in this case, it's not a tweet. And let's go further on that, something the media didn't do. This wasn't a Trump decision. It was a bi-partisan vote in congress that made legislation forcing the executive branch to move the embassy to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 established this :

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf

So really, your beef and those "4 bodies" are on the hands of Congress, which voted 90% in favor of said legislation, on both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans). So you know, just the little things you might want to know about what Trump does, before you accuse "Tweeting". This is far bigger than a single tweet.

Do you have a better example ?

It was introduced into the House on 11/02/2017, evidence. You call that the last minute? Explain your claim please.

That's about a third of the time that the Affordable Care Act had between introduction and signing.
The version of the tax bill the Senate voted on had hand-written notes. I'd call that rushed.

The tax bill that the parent was talking about was not handled the same way. That was kept under wraps until the last minute, so that the public wouldn't find out about it and wouldn't have enough time to organize opposition.

It was introduced into the House on 11/02/2017, evidence. You call that the last minute? Explain your claim please.

Then we agree. 'free market' solutions are completely inapplicable when our last mile connection has all the characteristics of a utility. Once it is regulated as a utility, then how ISPs can be set up in competitive exchange carriers, and we can have our choice of ISP much the same way we can choose between VPN services.

You were wondering though why republicans don't seem to understand NN. Just consider how they voted overwhelmingly to let ISPs invade the privacy of consumers and sell their data. They are beholden to the ISPs and that support depends on them misrepresenting NN.

On the other hand, they don't even have to understand something in order to make their customary noises of 'if you don't let mega corporations rape and pillage, then you're a communist and why do you hate America so much". There seems to be very few exceptions to this, which makes it very predictable.

There is no Constitutional right to travel. If there was, we'd be seeing sex offenders leaving the country in big numbers. Our sex offender laws are some of the worst in the civilized world and we have this ludicrous paranoia about them despite extremely low percentages (6% after 10 years is typical) of repeat offenders. They tried to pass an international version of sex offender registration which died in committee but would have basically blocked sex offenders from leaving the country, even if they never wanted to come back.

Ignoring those people, ask any of the nutty people that call themselves "sovereign citizens" and think they have a "right to travel." Ask the people who have been forced to show ID even when they had committed no crime and were not even suspected of such.

There is no Constitutional right to travel...but there should be.