Slashdot Mirror

it isn't. it's this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2886 which also died in committee. This bill is likely to do exactly the same, unfortunately.

You mean the House Republicans who passed not one but two bills as alternatives to replace sequestration

Republicans passed those bills in the 112th Congressional session.
Which means those bills are dead right now, since we're in the 113th session.
They'd need to be resubmitted and brought back for a vote if Republicans were serious about putting them into play.

*Here's a summary of the Democratic proposal from Feb 14th which the Republican House leadership has refused to allow a vote on.
And the full text of the bill HR 699: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr699/text

The real problem is that Republicans think that cutting spending is the only way to fix the budget,
despite the fact that taxes are at historic lows and austerity is actually a really shitty idea (see: europe).

*skip down to the last section if you don't want to read a bunch of political posturing

If this is the bill, then it was introduced in August 2012 and since then died... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6245

I believe this is the API the GP is looking for, which is for congress: govtrack.us

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

It only takes one Democrat president to veto it. Funny how you drop party label for that.

In that case, don't forget that it was Republican Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX21] that introduced the renewal in the House that started the renewal. Honestly, both parties are the problem and the labels mean little at this point.

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

Washington State voted no because they know the gov is going to use them warrant less eavesdropping against it. Colorado apparently had 1 senator too stoned to vote no.

Well, I guess all the senators that voted yes are cool with them being wiretapped. After all, it's for their safety.

guess it's time for encryption to go mainstream, of course, it will be illegal to use any encryption soon...

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

It only takes one Democrat president to veto it. Funny how you drop party label for that.

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

No more Aspergers, Pluto is not a planet, life starts at conception, etc...

Decided by scientists, decided by scientists, decided by religious extremists.

That list is not parallel. Whether you agree or not with a naming decision, better it be based on sound evidence. Naming has important consequences for how something is treated, money is allocated, and perhaps more importantly, how language is used. That's why we have pro-life and pro-choice, instead of anti-choice or anti-life - names matter. They convey information, hopefully accurately. When the word planet is used, we all have a common understanding of what that implies. The PATRIOT ACT and Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act were named that way for exactly that reason, because names matter.

"So you think the US can stop you from purchasing wine while in Italy on vacation?... No, but that's an absolutely fucking retarded comparison. 1). Purchasing wine is not illegal in the US or Italy. 2). The transaction occurs on Italian soil, therefore the participants are subject to Italian law."

So do you think this bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year (HR 313: criminalize any drug activity by U.S. citizens overseas, even if legal in the foreign country) is valid or not?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr313

"Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands..."

But the U.S. House of Representatives did pass a bill last year to reverse exactly that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr313

Hunh... I was just totally wrong on this.

I googled "HR 6407 votes", and ended up on these pages: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/h172 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/s204. I saw the "HR 6407", and didn't see that they were for a different congress... from 1946.

I withdraw my assertions unequivocally, and apologize for the really shitty things I said.

Hunh... I was just totally wrong on this.

I googled "HR 6407 votes", and ended up on these pages: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/h172 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/s204. I saw the "HR 6407", and didn't see that they were for a different congress... from 1946.

I withdraw my assertions unequivocally, and apologize for the really shitty things I said.

It was the Republicans who voted for the law, while most Democrats opposed it.

Are you joking, lying, or just completely ignorant?

The PAEA changed how the Postal Service would be allowed to handle the retirement benefits. It was passed in 2006, and was brought before Congress by Republican Tom Davis. It passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote, and passed the Senate with unanimous approval.

In the 109th Congress, Republicans held a fairly slim majority in both houses. There were 48 Democrats in the Senate (none of whom registered an objection - they gave unanimous approval); there were 202 Democrats in the House (few, if any of whom registered an objection if it passed by voice vote);

And this dastardly Republican corruption of justice and our beloved Postal Service was co-sponsored by Rep. Davis' fellow neocon Republithugs:
-- Republican John McHugh of New York;
-- Democrat Henry Waxman of California;
-- Democrat Danny Davis of Illinois;

Clearly, it's all a Republican plot, and the poor beleaguered Democrats who fought against this tooth and nail were simply steamrolled on this issue! No friend, make no mistake about it - if the Republicans are "setting them up to fail," the Democrats are happily providing the soundtrack.

Republicans have stalled the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 with a Senate vote of 51–47 against the legislation.

Last I heard, the democrats had a majority (and the tie-break vote) in the senate. Why blame this on the republicans?

Many Senate Republicans took their cues from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses that framed the debate not as a matter of national security, but rather as a battle between free enterprise and an overreaching government. They wanted to let companies determine whether it would be more cost effective — absent liability laws around cyber attacks — to invest in the hardware, software, and manpower required to effectively prevent cyber attacks, or to simply weather attacks and fix what breaks afterwards.

Not that I advocate waiting can cleaning up the mess later, I fear that all we would be doing is creating a safe harbor for companies by the proposed approach (basically I did the government recommendations, still got hacked, no problem). It would be much better to clarify what companies would be liable for and how much. I think better tradeoffs could be made rather than with a proscriptive government approach. See Section 706 of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text .

Even if this doesn't pass, for federal infrastructure and infrastructure deemed important to national security, Obama can unilateral impose most of these things as an Executive order for government entities and contractors.

As written the bill attempts to force IT that causes the interruption of life-sustaining services, catastrophic economic damage (vs just severe degradation of national security or national security capabilities) which is a much wider scope. You might argue as written, this bill is so vague that could be construed to apply to Amazon, or Google, or even a small airline or bus or telephone company that has the only service for an isolated area. Also as with many bills, it comes with its share of government overhead (appropriations for national education and awareness programs, recruiting for various government agencies, etc)...

I guess it's still divided government, and very few people want to write a good bill, but just try to force their bill and blame the other side for not being able to pass them... Sigh...

Was it the Union or Congress?

I thought it was Congress that mandated that they prepay it all for the life of an employee when hired.

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They (and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy) required that the Post Office prepay pensions to the extent that no other business is required to do.

Lest you doubt this statement: The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 required the USPS to prepay pensions for all employees for 75 years in advance within 10 years.

That's right, 75 years. The USPS is required to prepay pensions for the next 75 years. Let that sink in.

Is there any other business you can think of that is required to stash away the pension funds now for its employees not yet born?

Oh really?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres45
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[

Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

When Broun explained his reasons for voting against climate change legislation in June 2010, he called the entire concept of man-made global warming a conspiracy perpetuated by certain members of the scientific community

supported by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum

" It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists "
I know many believers who were also outraged by the statements.

" and acting outraged"
I can't speak for everyone, but I WAS outraged. Unlike you I don't presume to speak for an entire group.

" because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion"
cursory? CURSORY? he is in a position to determine POLICY. that isn't not cursory. Some high school teacher making those comments at there own church is one thing, this is someone who tries to determine police for the whole country.

" had the gull to act like religion was more important then science."
no. he had the gall to say the thing he doesn't like were real even though there are warehouse full of evidence, even though they are facts, he acts like they aren't, and he is provably wrong.

Pay Attention.

Oh really?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres45
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[

Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

When Broun explained his reasons for voting against climate change legislation in June 2010, he called the entire concept of man-made global warming a conspiracy perpetuated by certain members of the scientific community

supported by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum

" It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists "
I know many believers who were also outraged by the statements.

" and acting outraged"
I can't speak for everyone, but I WAS outraged. Unlike you I don't presume to speak for an entire group.

" because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion"
cursory? CURSORY? he is in a position to determine POLICY. that isn't not cursory. Some high school teacher making those comments at there own church is one thing, this is someone who tries to determine police for the whole country.

" had the gull to act like religion was more important then science."
no. he had the gall to say the thing he doesn't like were real even though there are warehouse full of evidence, even though they are facts, he acts like they aren't, and he is provably wrong.

Pay Attention.

Bill hr254 has died in committee for over a decade.

The sludge industry makes billions spreading you and your neighbors sh!t on farm fields....and they like to do it in secret, cause, well, you know - its disgusting/revolting/dangerous/creates superbugs/un-american/u pick the description.

In the end, u r eating the end of the line of a sewage treatment plant.

I wonder how much of our healthcare problems in this country are caused by using effluent, septage, or sewage in food production for people?

I think this is as big, or a bigger issue, than GMO.

If you think GMO is bad, stop eating cheese - most cheese consumed in USA comes from GMO organisims that are centrafuged to pick out the enzyme which causes milk to curdle.

This is a great reminder to contact your Representative and ask them to support the latest iteration of the H.R. 3806 One Subject at a Time Act in the House and Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act in the Senate. Both bills are endorsed by DownsizeDC, which is one of the originators of the idea, according to their site.

This is a great reminder to contact your Representative and ask them to support the latest iteration of the H.R. 3806 One Subject at a Time Act in the House and Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act in the Senate. Both bills are endorsed by DownsizeDC, which is one of the originators of the idea, according to their site.

it's not the prerogative of the president to pass legislation.

You make it sound as if the House and Senate didn't pass the same bill.

This is complete non-news, really. The ADA isn't forcing anything directly - ie, yes, the ADA lawsuit is largely irrelevant, if Netflix wants to avoid this they need to sue the FCC. Though in general I have no idea why the ADA would bother with this silly lawsuit around the Americans With Disabilities Act when this is already covered by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.

The FCC ruled months ago that Internet content would be required to support closed captions, they have a whole document with various requirements and deadlines based on the types of content and provider. And being in the industry, I can tell you content owners and distributors are already starting to work on it.

You can read the requirements yourself, but yeah, the point is *broadcast* (OTA, cable, or satellite) TV is required to have CC by the FCC, and now the FCC is using above Act to require any program that has been broadcast to have CC with Internet distribution. Technically they have no control over content that has never been broadcast (new release movies, Youtube, etc) but given it does include movies that have been broadcast on TV it's probably going to be available for all feature length content.

And as far as quality, they have said it must comply with CEA 708, which is an absurdly overcomplicated standard (probably designed by the subtitle/closed caption software insdustry). Luckily almost no one uses all of the ridiculous parts of it (but in theory you still have to be compliant if they do and someone files a complaint).

http://www.fcc.gov/document/closed-captioning-internet-protocol-delivered-video-programming-1

There has been at least one bill in recent years--HR 3012--which would have made legal immigration easier for highly skilled workers, and which was passed with an overwhelming majority in the House (389/15), only to be placed on hold indefinitely by Sen. Chuck Grassley in the Senate. The way I see it, 389 votes in favor of such reform suggests that the majority of Americans support such a move, but there seem to be many (largely) political hurdles to overcome before anything concrete actually gets done about it.

For example, imagine if the only way you could send letters was the US postal service. Fed Ex and UPS would be illegal.

The USPS is the only way we can send letters. It is illegal to send letters through parcel carriers like FedEx and UPS. This has served us very, very well for over 200 years, until Republicans decided to kill it by passing completely insane "reforms", such as funding pensions to be funded for 75 years into the future. In other words, the USPS is required by law to have pension funds for employees that have not even been born yet.

When you think about it, the ability for anyone in the country to send a letter to anyone else in the country for less than a dollar is really fucking incredible. You won't get that from FedEx and UPS. We need the same kind of guaranteed service from nationwide internet.

Actually there is http://govtrack.us/ . You can bulk download from there. They even give you instructions on rsyncing all their data, plus have a rather nice API available.

This guy clearly doesn't understand the job he's applying for. We live in a REPUBLIC.. which means we elect people to vote on our behalf for/against proposed laws.

Our founders knew that people did not have the time to read, understand, and vote on each and every issue.

Do you really think technology changes that? In the 2009-2010 congress, there were: 9239 proposed bills, 998 acted on by the congress, 26 failed, and 366 enacted = 10629 bills.

Each one hundreds or even thousands of pages long.

So seriously ask yourself: do you have time to read a several hundred page law, filled with legalese and references to other laws, 29 times per day every day of the year?

There's a reason why our REPRESENTATIVES have dozens of staff.

. You don't get penis-privacy-but-not-face-privacy. At least, that's not how I understand things to work.

Yes you do,

‘Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism
‘(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

Further more Rutger's is in New Jersey and

b. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.
2C:14-9. Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges

When your alone with a sex-partner, in what is effectively your bedroom, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even with a non-present room-mate.

And while we're on the subject, I bring up this only for perspective sake.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1858

I'm sure most of you will recognize the sponsor.

Anyway, read the summary. Everything we are talking about in this thread is moot. Any state level legislation would be trumped by this (think marijuana). This legislation requires the collection of DNA from every child born in the US, and that that data be posted, available freely, ON THE INTERNET.

So what the fuck is UCLA whining about?

Great. First we have the McCarthyist Enemy Expatration Act and now the Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy. Two really different things, the first being far more egregious than the latter. This is how you get clueless people to think they are supporting something good when all they can remember is "that expatriation bill".

Democrats blocked that bill because Republicans attached an amendment at the last minute that defines legal sexual relations as being only between couples who are heterosexual, married, and Christian.

ROTFL. Of course, this is a lie. The Republicans are not that crazy.

better one with pretty graphs and links to the actual reps and what state they are from! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

Here's how each representative voted (or not):

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

But does anyone know where to find the details about what each of the various amendments was? ('amendment 10' isn't really all that useful)

Here's how each representative voted (or not):

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

But does anyone know where to find the details about what each of the various amendments was? ('amendment 10' isn't really all that useful)

This bill was introduced by Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-MI8] with the 112 cosponsors. Isn't it great when both parties work together? Brought us the Patriot Act, and now this. If one is yours, feel free to contact them.

But it's a damn sight better than the Republican solution - fuck the people that can't pay, let them die.

Please show me the Republican bill looking to overturn EMTALA: http://www.govtrack.us/

Until you do, get your talking point out of my sensible argument.

Just recently there was a bill before congress to eliminate overtime for IT employees. Nobody else, just IT employees.

The bill being referred to by the parent was the CPU act (cute acronym). The status is here. Thankfully it seems kinda stalled but three more cosponsors signed on since it was first read on Oct 20, 2011.

Ron Paul is the sole sponsor of the Sanctity of LIfe Act of 2011 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 so I think it fair to say that he certainly believes that the definition of where human life begins is a federal issue.

For some people, this is a big reason to support Ron Paul.

Personally, I think that there are moral, medical, scientific, legal, philosophical, and theological arguments against the idea of a human zygote being the same sort of thing as is delivered about nine months later. This is not to say that I think the same thing can be said for human fetuses at 10, 20, 30, or 40 weeks of gestation. I'm not someone who thinks that a woman, the day before her expected due date, should have unqualified freedom to choose an elective abortion.

Philosophically and theologically, I think the crux of the matter is not the human part, but the rational part. In philosophical terms, when does the rational part of the human soul develop? In theological terms, at what point does God grant humans the sort of soul that makes them into the image and likeness of God? I don't think that there are any clear answers to those questions. I don't know that many people would disagree that it happens some time before birth. Yet Christians (and other faiths) have been all over the map at whether or not it happens at conception. For example, for much of the Medieval era, it was thought to happen at `quickening', the point at which the fetus can move on its own.

Medically, the question is who is most capable of making decisions regarding the health of both mother and child. I'm not certain that the state should be putting itself between the woman and her doctor on that question.

Scientifically, the question is getting exceedingly murky. If it turns out that pluripotent stem cells are biologically equivalent to fertilized eggs with regards to their capacity to develop into human beings, then all sorts of procedures become problematic, e.g. IVF, some forms of stem cell therapy, et cetera. For example, cells can be removed from an embryo non-destructively. After such removal both the existing embryo and the cell which was removed are still alive. But the cell removed can develop into a human being so it seems that such a removal is less a removal of a stem cell and more the creation of a new human person if it is true that life begins at conception (or its equivalent).

No, it doesn't. He's sponsor of a bill that would expand the definition of murder to include fertilised eggs. Please note that this change could mean that any sexually active woman on birth control could be legally considered a serial killer, since many of the birth control pills prevent the egg from implanting, but not fertilising. Also, any woman who has a miscarriage could be prosecuted for manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or a host of other crimes.

His actions don't match the rhetoric and would have wide-ranging and potentially very negative consequences.

Your statement is completely ignorant of the facts.

Or is it? Ron Paul is the sponsor of an act that would make abortions legally murder. Maybe he isn't the person you thought he was.

allow the states to decide because as a true libertarian

A true libertarian would want to forbid any government from interfering, regardless of whether it's federal, state, or local.

That is pretty damn "clear" for a "clouded" political position, wouldn't you say?

No, see the link above. He's clearly not doing what the propaganda says he would. Ron Paul's got his good points, for the OP pointed out one of his big problems. He's a corporate-libertarian and a social conservative.

(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/, search for "end birthright citizenship", this would require repealing (or amending) the 14th ammendment which states, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.''
(b) you don't understand what the gold standard is if you thing banks are on a gold standard: hint, no banks would have needed to be bailed out if they were
(c) citation please
(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''
(e) the civil rights act is generally thought to be explicitly constitutional based on the commerce clause and the 14th amendment.
(f) wrong. states have no abilities to grant new rights. rights already exist and are not limited to the bill of rights. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to take away those rights, e.g. the right of two people to get married. and, seriously, you think states have the right to declare what sex acts in your bedroom are legal and which are not?

On all of those specific issues, I think it pretty easy to decide if Obama is better than Ron Paul or vice versa depending on your views. Take just three issues:

(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

Do you really want to live in a US where citizenship is something earned rather than something imparted by birth? If so, Ron Paul is your man. If not, Barrack Obama.

(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 [govtrack.us] which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''

Do you really want all murder and manslaughter criminal laws to immediately apply to the unborn unless states take action to revise the language of statutes currently on the books? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.

(f) The elimination of the federal right to privacy in light of state sovereignty

Do you want to live in a nation where states can outlaw specific sex acts conducted in private, e.g. oral sex between lawfully married spouses? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.

I'll concede that there are some issues where I prefer Ron Paul's positions to Barrack Obama's positions. For example, I'm for decriminalization of drugs at the federal level and ending the drug war.

There are also issues where I think both are wrong. For example, with regard to the size of the military, I think Obama errs in keeping it too large but that Paul would err in keeping it too small.

Generally speaking, what is at stake for Ron Paul is an effort to turn the US Constitution into the Articles of Confederacy. The Federalists first won that debate when they US Constitution was ratified. The intellectual descendants of the Federalists won again in the US Civil War. And again with the rise of federal trustbusting. And again with the fight over the New Deal. And most recently with regard to civil rights.

Personally, I don't want to return to a nation where lunch counters can turn away customers simply because of the color of their skin. Nor do I want to live in a nation where state run schools can legally segregate based on race. I find it problematic that states like Maryland (where I currently live) can deny granting divorces to lawfully married gay couples (who either moved to Maryland or were married out of state where same-sex marriage is legal) because they do not recognized gay marriage. And I think that, on balance, these sorts of issues end up being more important than the places where Ron Paul has a more attractive position than Barrack Obama.

This was my exact first thought. We wrap so much up in the 'protect our children' blanket, that it should be obvious at this day and age that practically anything that claims to be for children's sake will be turned against us, quickly.

Here's the latest one I can think of.

Why are people still willing to fall for this?????

After reading the article, you can tell submitter left off a significant portion of the context in the summary. Even in the Republican's statement of opposition to the amendment, it's clear that they don't want employers access to employee passwords. It's probably useful to also look up the bill that the amendment tries to fix. H.R. 3309 is a bill that outlines new procedure for the FCC in its rule making process. It mostly has to do with transparency, 30-day public overview of new regulations, etc. You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3309/text

So in a bill that is altogether unrelated to pro-privacy legislation, some rep proposes a highly specific instance where the FCC would be immune to the outlined procedure. It's kind of like adding an amendment to a general police powers bill that suspends proper procedure in a highly specific instance like when they catch a carjacker. Sure that sounds good to people who have suffered from car jacking or are afraid of what carjackers can do, but does it make sense to be in this bill or would it be better in a separate bill? I understand the sense of urgency that people feel, and I'd probably agree with those who want some federal rules on what employers can demand of their workers. However, it's also not unreasonable when you read the amendment to think that it doesn't really belong in this particular bill.

The more I think about the context, the more it looks like a way for a rep on one side to embarrass the other side without trying to do anything significant. You can probably put this in the same category as "think of the children" amendments that come from the Republican side meant to embarrass their opposition politically in the realm of public opinion. Only this time it comes from the Democrat side. What saddens me is that since the summary puts Republicans in a bad light, we at /. are more willing to take the summary at face value, and don't get as many nitpickers willing to pore through the context to find the bullshit.

Also, it appears there was legislation to try and fix this... but it never went anywhere:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1558
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-623

Also, it appears there was legislation to try and fix this... but it never went anywhere:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1558
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-623

Nooo..the TEABAGGERS wanted them to go under, because honestly they are what we used to call back in the day a "Barry Goldwater conservative" that actually believes in smaller government and personal responsibility. If you look at the votes the majority of the reps voted for the money,

You are wrong. Look at the votes yourself: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1424

Yeas: 172 Democrats, 91 Republicans
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans

More than HALF of the Republicans in Congress were against the bill -- it only went through with Democratic support. And this was PRIOR to the Tea Party politicians making it into office. And the discrepancies between the parties grow even larger if you consider the "stimulus" bills that followed (where Republicans were almost 100% in opposition). So don't try to call the Republicans the shills that believe in "socialized rich corporatism", because the voting record clearly shows the Democrats more in that camp.

But I agree with you on one thing at least: both parties suck.

ACTA: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf.
SOPA: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:.
PIPA: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968.

Also discuss the differences in what they are. ACTA is an international trade agreement, like the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the TRIPs treaty, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, NAFTA, etc. It's not legislation, but rather an agreement between signatory countries to pass legislation in their own countries. Accordingly, ACTA sets out minimum standards that each country has to meet. Contrary to what some people think, it doesn't need to be ratified by Congress, because it's a non-enabling treaty... instead, Congress has to write legislation implementing it, at which point they get to weigh in on what it means. Until they pass that legislation, ACTA effectively has no teeth in the US.

SOPA and PIPA are house and senate bills, respectively. They implement many of the provisions of ACTA, but they differ in important ways. Reading them side by side is probably a good thing. Note, however, that even if both were passed, a joint committee would then figure out a compromise position, so neither one is what a final statute would look like.

That's my point - people talk about the "supermajority" as if it was something Obama had and wasted, but it was only so if all of the Dems (and "dems" who are just not republicans) voted in lockstep and on a large, complex bill such as healthcare or changing the tax code, it's not a guarantee.

But he did by definition have a supermajority. If he had passed something less extreme, his party would have been lockstep behind it, just like they were with the stimulus bill and the minimum wage bill and all the other garbage that got jammed through during his presidency. The point is that he forced through a very unpopular and extreme bill that even his own party was opposed to -- that's why he is attacked for it. No one was compromising and working to come up with something sensible -- instead they were tacking on riders to buy votes to force that terrible legislation to pass as quickly as possible. And that's Obama's fault. The fact Republicans were summarily ignored and not even included in the bill design process is Obama's fault. The fact he pushed a bill that even his own party could not support is Obama's fault.

The President is not an emperor, even with a majority.

Yet even in this country, the President has a considerable amount of sway in pushing agenda.

The republicans *were* invited to the table on healthcare. More than invited in fact

What kind of revisionist history in this? Look for yourself: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3590 THREE of the 40 original co-sponsors are Republicans. And the final bill was intentionally shut off from Republican dialogue: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations In fact, the only time Obama seriously took into account inviting Republicans to the dialogue was when he lost his supermajority and he suddenly needed a Republican vote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-07-obama-health-care_N.htm

since they spent their entire time just saying "no" to everything

The reason they were saying "no" was because by the time they were invited to the table, the Democrats had already written like 90+% of the bill and were essentially looking for a rubber stamp -- they didn't want significant or radical changes to the hundreds of pages that had already been penned. They also wanted the bill to pass quickly for political reasons.

he probably should have decided to cut out the Republicans more than he did and attempt to force things through. As it turns out, going the bipartisan route just allowed the repubs to gut everything and still say no at every turn.

*rolls eyes* You libs believe whatever you want to believe, despite what the facts show -- Obama made no attempt to work with Republicans until he absolutely needed them (after he lost the supermajority) -- and Blue Dog Democrats (which even you admit to) were the ones forcing him to gut the bill to change things (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS). You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too -- you claim Obama didn't have a supermajority because his own party was obstructing the passage of the bill, yet you blame Republicans for obstructing the bill instead. Heck, it's the Blue Dogs to blame for the stripping of the "public option" provision: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

I do have numbers; they were easy to get. Support was evenly mixed.

The original sponsor was R. There were 32 cosponsors (including the original sponsor), 16 D and 16 R.

It is true that more republicans withdrew support than dems: 6 R withdrew vs 2 D.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261