Slashdot Mirror

And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

There is close to nothing about Dodd Frank I approve, and generally the handling of the financial crisis was abysmal by both Bush and Obama. But what do you expect when you have bankers as advisers?

Ok, so what important things Republicans stand for these days?

And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted.

Riiiight. Which is why every single Republican Senator and Congressman voted against it.

If you read that Washington Post article I linked above, you will see that the complaint of the progressives is that Obama gave the Republicans everything they said they wanted, but they still opposed it. The progressives thought that Obama was making a stupid, unnecessary compromise that wouldn't even work, and they turned out to be right. Even when Obama gave away the store, the Republicans still opposed him in every way they could.

What really happened was the exact opposite of what you say. Obama and his advisors crafted a heath care bill which was so liberal, not only did it lose all the Republicans, it was in danger of losing a good chunk of the moderate-center Democrats as well. All the compromises you claim were made to appease Republicans, were in fact put in to appease moderate Democrats. Most of them didn't like it either, but were under enormous pressure by the far-left wing of the Democrat party to get this passed while they still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (10 months from 2009-2010).

I don't know where you get your idea of "far-left wing." I went to City College of New York at a time when I could sit at one lunchroom table with the Communists, another table with the Trotskyites, and another table with the Socialist Workers Party. Those were the people who were supporting Fidel Castro, fighting against the Vietnam war, and sitting in with Martin Luther King (and getting arrested in the process). So maybe you could call them far-left.

The left wing of the Democratic Party in Congress is probably represented by the Progressive Caucus, which includes Bernie Sanders and John Conyers. I don't know why you call them "far" left, unless it just makes you feel good to throw out inflammatory adjectives.

The Progressive Caucus supports a single-payer, Canadian-style system, where the government replaces the insurance companies, and negotiates with drug companies. That's not Obamacare. The Progressive Caucus members weren't even allowed into Obama's White House Health Care Summit in 2009, until they complained. Obama first promised them a single payer option, and then took it back when Karen Ignani, head of the insurance industry lobbying organization, threatened to pull another "Harry and Louise." Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, was always hostile to the Democratic left and in one famous incident called them "fucking retarded." (Which you can look up on Google.)

You can't blame this one on the Republicans. Its legacy will rest entirely upon the Democrats because it was 100% Democrat-drafted, passed, and signed.

Obamacare was modeled on a Heritage Foundation plan. I can blame it on the conservatives, Democrat and Republican:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
The irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare
The Democrat's version of health insurance would have been cheaper, simpler and more popular. But we enacted the Republican version. So why are they so upset? Because it an achievement for the Obama administration.
By Robert Reich October 28, 2013

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the...
The Heritage Foundation disowns its baby

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted.

Riiiight. Which is why every single Republican Senator and Congressman voted against it.

What really happened was the exact opposite of what you say. Obama and his advisors crafted a heath care bill which was so liberal, not only did it lose all the Republicans, it was in danger of losing a good chunk of the moderate-center Democrats as well. All the compromises you claim were made to appease Republicans, were in fact put in to appease moderate Democrats. Most of them didn't like it either, but were under enormous pressure by the far-left wing of the Democrat party to get this passed while they still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (10 months from 2009-2010).

You can't blame this one on the Republicans. Its legacy will rest entirely upon the Democrats because it was 100% Democrat-drafted, passed, and signed.

Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."

In other words, you can't use IMAX to generically mean large-format movie. This is because once you let that happen, it becomes incfreasingly difficult to protect the trademark, and that is where the confusion comes in.

NAFTA received 78% of its NO votes from Democrats and 59% of its YES votes from Republicans. Overall, despite having their party leader in the White House pressuring them, 60% of Democrats still voted NO; 75% of Republicans voted YES.

Are you done deluding yourself with this "Both Parties Are The Same!" BS?

Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.

1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)

The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:

There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.

That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:

Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

NSA should not have wanted th

Or check out Massachusetts of today: Around 40% Republican leaning, 60% Democrat leaning, which is close enough that we could elect a Republican governor last year when the Democrats nominated an idiot. We're gerrymandered enough that all 9 of the reps are democrats.

And yet, all of the local democrats still whine that only the evil Republicans do that Gerrymandering thing; Democrats do a virtuous public service of shaping districts solely for the purpose of ensuring that everyone gets a fair vote which will coincidentally go to a democrat, in districts shaped like this one: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

Yep, there's no way that those borders were arranged by the democrats in the state legislature so that a democrat could win, nope, not at all.

If we must have districts, then we need a neutral law like "districts will be designated by strict east-west lines across the state, at a latitude determined by the census so that each district gets an equal number of people in it". No screwing around, just divide the state equally... Or use one of the proportional voting systems (whereby a state like MA that is 60/40 split democrat/republican would likely end up with 5 or 6 democrats and 3 or 4 republicans, and maybe with the occasional green party member) -- we even use IRV here for some city council elections, and it works fine.

Also section 215 is not even dead - if you look at section 705 of the USA Freedom Act:

705.Sunsets
(a)USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (50 U.S.C. 1805 note) is amended by striking June 1, 2015 and inserting December 15, 2019.

(b)Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking June 1, 2015 and inserting December 15, 2019.

So they just voted to extend the Patriot Act provision for domestic spying instead of letting it die June 1.

I agree - it seems to actually allow more data to be sucked up, too (like VoIP calls) and removes legal responsibility from corporations that give this data to the government.

There are plenty of bipartisan actions by congress. People don't pay attention to that, though.

There are plenty of bipartisan actions by congress. People don't pay attention to that, though.

There are plenty of bipartisan actions by congress. People don't pay attention to that, though.

Can anyone state in clear, concise and precise language exactly what we'd seek to achieve?

You would need to de-elect the Republicans & Democrats in the House of Representatives who worked together to keep the surveillance funded (a yes vote would have barred funding)

That's a pretty clear and measurable goal. The beauty is that you don't need to get rid of all of them (but it would be a great bonus). You just need to get rid of enough of them that if it is brought up again it would pass. How you go about accomplishing this goal is another matter entirely.

And his opponent, John McCain, failed to vote either way. It's worth noting that not a single Republican senator voted against the act, so we can guess what McCain would have voted.

To re-iterate a sentiment uttered elsewhere in the comments: no matter whether you vote D or R, you are voting against your own interests. We need new parties to replace the current ones.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

If your congressman voted YEA and you don't agree, write to him/her.
They are representing you.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

REP. YEA -> 184
DEM. YEA -> 141

REP. NAY -> 45
DEM NAY -> 55

Well, not a big difference but still...

Vote was reasonably even across party lines.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

71% of (D) voted for it.
80% or (R) voted for it.

9 congresscritters didn't vote, split 5(D), 4(R).

I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today.

Thank you for posting the bill number, since neither slashdot nor the hill thought we should be able to look it up and see who voted for this bullshit.

It appears in the Senate it was passed by voice vote by a bunch of cowards that did not want their name attached to the bill.

I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today.

Thank you for posting the bill number, since neither slashdot nor the hill thought we should be able to look it up and see who voted for this bullshit.

It appears in the Senate it was passed by voice vote by a bunch of cowards that did not want their name attached to the bill.

I believe the bill in question is S. 2685, as found at Congress.gov or GovTrack.us.

It was a little trickier than usual because there are now several bills called "USA FREEDOM" in various permutations (H.R. 3361 as well as the S. 1599 that you found). The backronyms vary a bit.

To answer your question about how to gerrymander large cities out into other parts of the state, just look at the congressional districts for blue cities in red states (and presumably red cities in blue states, if those exist). You can see a nice zoomable map here:
Congressional district map

For examples, see Austin, TX and Durhan, NC.

The basic plan is to take a tiny slice of the city and extend that out into a huge swath of lightly-populated land.

Give me a break.
411 voted Yea, including 180 democrats.
Only 10 democrats voted Nae.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

This is the very definition of a bi-partisan bill. Your attempt to demonize the republican party and therefor cast your party, the democrats, as some kind of protector of the people is a joke. The democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans. And... this wasn't a bad bill anyway! The US government shouldn't have control over the entire supply of an Element!

You appear to be correct, there was likely a draft and it was on the books about 6 weeks after 9/11.

9/11/2001 was the hijackings. The USA PATRIOT Act was introduced on October 23rd, 2001, passed the House on the 24th, passed the Senate on the 25th, and was signed by George W. Bush on the 26th. So about 6 weeks from the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

The bill was 131 pages, creating or amending some 100 laws/sections.

Text (and original bill PDF): https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

Someone had to have a draft prepared ahead of 9/11. I would bet it was probably drawn up from the neo-con PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which was released in September 2000. The document even referred to "a new Pearl Harbor": Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". PNAC was a pretty scary and very powerful group (Bush appointed about 20 people from the group to positions in his administration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Democrats voted for it too and Republicans voted against it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

It was bipartisan and it was "congress"

Facts, y'know...

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

Then suddenly the republicans started saying no to everything. They even asked for "X" and when offered "X", they STILL said "no".

See, that is what I'm talking about. Do you have an example of "X"? I'm guessing no. Because nobody would ever come back and offer the same thing that was originally presented. They offer something slightly different. So you're just repeating polarized talking points. As long as the masses are believing Obama's talking points (GOP is bad), the Democrats have no incentive to compromise. They can just point fingers and wait until they have a super majority.

Looking at the voting history of Congress, I see the same basic thing regardless of which bill I look at. If the sponsor has a D on their name, all the "R"s vote no. If the sponsor has an R on their name, all the "D"s vote no. Occasionally about 1/2 of one side votes with the other. Overall, their records appear to be the same.

This bill was introduced on May 12, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. The text of the bill below is as of Jun 09, 2004 (Reported by House Committee).

It was never signed into law as it never made it out of committee. That link you so nicely offer up also offres this:

H.R. 3754 (108th): Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act Introduced: Feb 03, 2004 (108th Congress, 2003–2004) Status: Died (Reported by Committee) in a previous session of Congress

How about this one. Its currently alive. S. 2588: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

while you're right that was a customer service agreement, a simple internet search will show you a ton of references to the text of the actual law.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

no that was icann's policy. here's the law. you want me to do any of your other homework for you?

come on don't be egomaniacal or lazy. you can google this yourself. its a law. https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

The abovie summary conflates the FCC process with Congress. The ammendment to HR 5016 would have cut funding to the FCC, with an eye to making it impossible to enforce regulations. It seems the amendment was defeated. Late the morning Save the Internet and similar groups sent out email alerts, and that seems to have done the trick, at least for this vote. We need the FCC to reclassify ISP's as common carriers and Congress to refrain from obstructing the FCC.

The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 is now in Congress to revive the expired "Fast Track Authority," and should be opposed by anyone against TPP, TISA, etc. I was originally supportive of Fast Track, but I think it has been badly abused and is dangerous to the constitutional separation of powers. It has expired; like Frankenstein's monster, it would be best if were not resurrected.

Maybe not for a bag of sweet leaf

In the past every single power the government has given itself has gone to the front line on the war on drugs. So yeah, it will come for your bag of sweet leaf.

Cue 172 Republicans telling us how important states rights are, as long as the state doesn't try to allow people to smoke a bit of weed.

Here you go. House and Senate.

Here you go. House and Senate.

The Constitution controls what the Government may or may not do, that is why I said law.

        ``(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private
area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under
circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.
        ``(b) In this section--
                        ``(1) the term `capture', with respect to an image, means to
                videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
                        ``(2) the term `broadcast' means to electronically transmit
                a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or
                persons;
                        ``(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the
                naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or
                female breast of that individual;
                        ``(4) the term `female breast' means any portion of the
                female breast below the top of the areola; and
                        ``(5) the term `under circumstances in which that individual
                has a reasonable expectation of privacy' means--
                                        ``(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person
                                would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy,
                                without being concerned that an image of a private area
                                of the individual was being captured; or
                                        ``(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person
                                would believe that a private area of the individual
                                would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that
                                person is in a public or private place.

S. 1301 (108th): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

America is a vassal state of Israel. Israel gets to decide when and where America goes to war in the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1881/text

Actually, this is incorrect. Go back and look at the voting record for the 2006 bill. It was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it was cosponsored by two Democrats and 1 Republican.

And, the Postal carriers' union thinks it was a great bill

forget the fact that the democrats have 40 job creation bills [majorityleader.gov]they haven't acted on.

Check out some of these "Job Creation Bills"

H.J. Resolution 37, where, "“Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices" Yup, real job builder there.

House Resolution 2018, which seeks "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes." Wow, that'll create a bunch of jobs right there!

It's a bit tricky to read, but read sec. 802 A where they define the liability to be for all current and former employees. That is the part you appear to have accounted for, and is certainly good policy even if many fortune 1000 companies don't meet it or even close.

However, sec 802.2.B states that they have to perform that computation for the year 2038. (In other words, for current employees as of 2038 who might put in up to 47 years before retiring). The kicker is a few more paragraphs down where they are required to use that fund to buy federal bonds. In other words, they must pre-pay that whole thing to a safe fund for the workers but then they must loan it to the general fund where it becomes subject to default. That doesn't sound at all like a prudent financial move or like rules as strict as a private corporation would face.

GE is not allowed to use the pension fund to buy GE bonds.

Found it, the law was H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. It passed with more than 2/3 of both houses.

Under an all-republican congress with a veto-proof majority.

The Republicans didn't have anything near a veto-proof majority in the Senate; they had only 53 seats at the time of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The vote was 54-44, with only Hollings (D-SC) crossing party lines to side with the Republicans. Fitzgerald (R-IL) voted "Present" and Inhofe (R-IN) didn't vote. So even if the Republicans picked up Fitzgerald and Inhofe, they would have still needed to flip 11 Democrats to override a veto, which was highly unlikely.

Bush, Democrat in disguise?

H.R. 6407 (109th): Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
Signed by the President Dec 20, 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407

If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.

They aren't hostages - you missed that completely. I'll give you a hint.

They are Prisoners of ___.

Three letters, starts with a "W". Any guesses?

The Law of ___ (see above) allows prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict - no requirement for charges or trials at all.

John McCain was held as a Prisoner of ___ for 5.5 years by North Vietnam.

I think it is an interesting comment on your thought process that you might consider Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plotter of 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people and currently a Prisoner of ___, as a "hostage".

By the way, this is legally equivalent to a Declaration of War.

Can you think of any other field other than IT where being willing to put in the long hours that excellence sometimes demands results in efforts to dock your pay - but not those hours? That is incredible to me...to deliberately attempt to destroy the motivation of some of America's best and brightest. The results are easy to predict: Just project the same miserly approach upon America's research and development...upon American innovation, which an apt analog as so much of IT's efforts are aimed at doing something "better".

The truth is the United States of America doesn't want to be the world's technology leader anymore...our nation's business leaders - and so their pets in Congress - just want to control the world through their control of the dollar.

That goal is, in my opinion, unusually asinine even for a people and society increasingly constrained by greed given that the dollar can be blown to kingdom come with the simple declaration "Sorry, we don't take dollars anymore." (With the caveat that the statement must come from somebody who has the industrial infrastructure and position as a primary supplier in global trade required to back the value of their proposed dollar replacement.)

That goal of controlling the world through the control of the dollar...it is an open admission that Corporate America's leaders and the politicians who represent them are aware that either they're too lazy or they lack the competence and talent to lead in any other way. Or both.