Slashdot Mirror

Yay for less freedom!

Awesome thing is, reducing domestic freedom and funding more war have huge bipartisan support:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Soviet Union, we're catching up! Soon we'll be just as unfree as you were. Fuck yeah, go America!

If people want to actually get results start by:

1. Writing (hardcopy and sent by "snailmail") letters to public officials with formal-language grammar expressing displeasure and politely offering solution of law to override: district representatives for the House, state representatives for the Senate, and President
https://www.senate.gov/senator...
https://www.house.gov/represen...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/con...

2. It does not hurt to submit or virtually sign a petition here: https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

3. Make attempt to contact state level officials to make laws to override: States, under 10th Amendment are not without sovereignty in spite of Article I, Section 8. The FCC would need to take legal action against the state in order to invalidate such laws. It may be to note that Tom Wheeler lost a battle against Tennessee a few years back.

4. Where not restricted by legalized monopolies, either have local governments, or if not possible organized co-ops for internet access (a can of worms in and of itself, but then the customers and the owners will be the same).

5. If still wishing to do protests, make sure a reasonably large crowd also shows up at the the House of Representative local offices. Prominent is good, but keep everything peaceful and non-disruptive at whatever location and invite the local press.

6. If one suspects the FCC to be in the pockets of ISPs, simple discontinue all services of those providers

This bill wouldn't have had any effect at all on the ads in question.

This bill is a straightforward extension of the existing Federal Election Campaign Act so it also covers internet advertising. That's fine and is good. It says that any "qualified political advertisement" must be disclosed. A qualified political advertisement is defined as one which (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, (2) is targeted to the relevant electorate.

The ads in question? They weren't qualified political advertisements. They weren't geared towards any one political candidate. They were general sowing of division and antipathy between groups. "Some of the ads supported Black Lives Matter and other groups bringing attention to the tense relationship between law enforcement and people of color. Yet other ads painted these activist organizations as a rising political threat." (article1). "Some championed activist groups like Black Lives Matter, while others portrayed them as existential threats. Others aimed to split opinions through hot-button issues like Islam, LGBT rights, gun rights and immigration." -- (article2).

So this bill is fine and good and just makes sense. But if there were indeed Russian ads as described in the past electoral cycle, then their propaganda is years ahead of our own legislators.

PS. Here's the full text of the proposed "Honest Ads Act": https://coffman.house.gov/uplo...

And here's the relevant federal law which it amends: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Case in point: the so called "USA Liberty Act"

The Orwellian names they give these things are such a shiboleth. Anyone want to bet that the final version of the bill will be more of a threat to liberty than to actually preserve it?

I guess that means you never saw the congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood that vindicated them, or the fact that full, unedited videos were received and reviewed by all committee members?

In the videos, Planned Parenthood representatives discuss the demand for certain body parts, the manner in which patient consent is solicited, pricing considerations, and the methods by which doctors manipulate procedures to ensure that tissue and organs of fetuses remain intact.

In one video, a Planned Parenthood official discusses how doctors modify procedures to preserve intact fetal specimens that can be provided to research firms in exchange for money. The Planned Parenthood official also discusses how reimbursement amounts can be manipulated.

Clearly debunked! Nothing to see here, Citizen! Move along now. You'll have to ask CNN's Chris Cuomo for permission to look at real news. The media is special, they have more rights than you do. He's an attorney, he should know!

I guess that means you never saw the congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood that vindicated them, or the fact that full, unedited videos were received and reviewed by all committee members?

In the videos, Planned Parenthood representatives discuss the demand for certain body parts, the manner in which patient consent is solicited, pricing considerations, and the methods by which doctors manipulate procedures to ensure that tissue and organs of fetuses remain intact.

In one video, a Planned Parenthood official discusses how doctors modify procedures to preserve intact fetal specimens that can be provided to research firms in exchange for money. The Planned Parenthood official also discusses how reimbursement amounts can be manipulated.

Clearly debunked! Nothing to see here, Citizen! Move along now. You'll have to ask CNN's Chris Cuomo for permission to look at real news. The media is special, they have more rights than you do. He's an attorney, he should know!

This is all about money, always has been, always will be.

"To perform these [Studies of the modern carbon cycle] tasks, the project expects to need significant resources. Specifically, studies of the modern carbon cycle will require about 15 teams devoted to laboratory and field investigations. Analyses of past events will require about another 15 teams for sample acquisition and geochemical analyses. New theory and related modeling to motivate and support the entire effort will require an additional 10 teams. An average of $2.5M/year for each team would result in a $1B, ten-year project. The outcome would be a fundamental understanding of carbon cycle dynamics, revolutionizing earth and environmental science and resulting in a comprehensive, objective evaluation of the long-term risks of modern environmental change. This is necessarily an extraordinary opportunity for enlightened philanthropy, since a project of this scope could not be funded from public resources." from http://www.sciencephilanthropy...

The kooky AGW nuts in the govt/IPCC with their "forcing/feedback" algorithms off by an order of magnitude are doing the same thing. They want giant sums of money, all the while they (NCDC) are manipulating the weather records in HCN, or making bogus studies based on badly situated weather stations situated next to a heat sink. Next thing you know, we'll see one of these weather stations placed next to a nuclear reactor to cook the books further

>

Is that why global temperatures change was essentially flat between 1998 and 2013 and NOAA had to falsify data to make it look otherwise? https://science.house.gov/news...

You should not blindly believe what the science hater (aka "Christian Scientist") Lamar Smith claims. He has proven time and again that the only thing he knows less about than science is honesty.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...

But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

"That the Earth will warm is as certain as sunrise, and that this CO2-induced warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity is similarly not in dispute. If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with and we will find you the appropriate citations."

Is that why global temperatures change was essentially flat between 1998 and 2013 and NOAA had to falsify data to make it look otherwise? https://science.house.gov/news...

What is settled science is that the atmosphere is and always has been IR opaque in the frequency bands that CO2 blocks. Adding more or removing 100PPM does not change that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit and speculation, in that order.

Someone has no idea what they are talking about, that is for sure...

AGW "scientists" cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW fraudsters falsified data to support their AGW lie: https://science.house.gov/news...

AGW is on the ropes, the drip drip drip of facts is slowly tearing it apart. Global warming happens, but evidence for AGW simply doesn't exist. The fact that you think it does just highlights the fact that you are clueless, or you worship "science" instead of practicing it.

And there are the SJW mod points. I get blasted to -1 and you have +4 for for your facist little screed. Your display name is well suited.

Meanwhile AGW has cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW fraudsters have falsified data to support their lies: https://science.house.gov/news...

So I agree, no more fair and balanced hearing of both sides. We know that the AGW "climate scientists" lied their asses off to "prove" AGW. Defund all AGW research, development, mandates, etc. and anything related to AGW. If it is really a thing, the SJW can fund it out of their own pockets and we will see how long that lasts.

DNC goose is cooked. Here is the DNC special prosecutor appointment request from Congress. Check out the last page for signatures.

Tar sands are about $43 per barrel to break-even, and they are in Canada which means they are not part of the Green River shale formation in the USA. A lot of the reason we are not producing out of the Green River formation is because of what was mentioned above (cheaper for us to produce in other US regions), and political roadblocks to actually developing that resource.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that this is a hot topic for Slashdot? So quickly? Where else is everyone seeing this? Facebook? Reddit? Every time the government does this, there is something much much worse going on. It's a distraction. That's what bothers me the most about this. The "outrage" will last just long enough; no one will care by Monday. Anything interesting going on this weekend? Congress? Someone needs to keep an eye out on what legislature is getting slipped in. They did this with the Rebel Flag issue after the shooting. Just a week after getting everyone riled-up (June 18, 2015), the news announces the passing of gay marriage in all 50 states (June 26, 2015). The opposite may be happening; create a controversy so they can pass legislature in response to public demand except they don't tell you what else is attached to it. At least no one will care about Trump and Russia for a while. This is what they are voting on July 27, 2017 10 AM: https://energycommerce.house.g.... I guess they don't do anything on the weekends.

Complete remarks at https://armedservices.house.go...
"The Pentagon always resists change. ... It resisted the creation of the Air Force itself – the great irony here. "

https://scalise.house.gov/issu...

Remember 13 years ago when we all posted links to our American representatives and with their phones and email exploding the DRM trusted PC requirements went away from a potential bill.

Can you all afford 3 minutes of your life

Ok most senators and congressman are too stupid to know what net neutrality is. They gain their information from experts ... experts brought to by lobbyists from Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, to educate our politicians what this issue is. They are simply ignorant.

So here is the link for your congressman. Here is the link to your senator. The people who read these are called scriptwriters and if they get thousands of angry emails I can guarantee you it will at least get your politicians attention.

When I linked this in 2003 or 2004 here Slashdot posted a story a few days later stating congress was confused, dumbfounded, and shocked. The bill died :-D

If you have a Republican write professionally that you do not want big brother government to trample innovation and stop jobs. Explain your I.T. position and career and explain your employer and startups already pay extra for bandwidth and this amounts to a bribe. End it off with if the United States won't allow us to be a leader in technology another cheaper country like China or India will who do not have these problems with Net Neutrality and can operate simply on bandwidth uses without double and triple dipping.

If your senator and or congressman is a democrat explain politely that this is a terrible bill that will hurt lower income internet users and new startups. Explain your I.T. position and career and explain your employer and startups already pay extra for bandwidth and this amounts to double dipping which will hurt America's competitive advantage. Also mention the top 5 technology companies are active Democratic donors to your party including Facebook, Google, and Microsoft and that if America fails to take initiative for regulating tax payer infrastructure then another country with more freedoms like India or China will take the jobs instead and this will help lower income consumers by keeping prices lower.

I just read an article about "telehealth" by a local health care provider. I'd link the article, but they just send me this newsletter via snail mail and it does not appear to be online.

4 years ago they started doing this when a flood cut their patients off from services and they've been expanding it ever since. It mentions many benefits such as saving time transporting patients who may be having a stroke.

They cite a Harris Poll which (shockingly to me) showed that 74% of millennials would prefer seeing a doctor virtually and 71% of them want to use apps to share their health data.

The State of the Connected Patient - 2015 (Press Release)

Download here

(I guess you can download it, but they want your email, phone and company name first. I didn't.)

In other news, Sensenbrenner vehemently opposed, and [is] still committed to repealing the ACA

Impossible. The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None. That they're fully completely and absolutely unproven. Enjoying the "denier" camp yet? Don't question the orthodoxy citizen. And remember: If you're not having a book burning, you're not a true believer. (Courtesy of the House Democrats) Strange, I thought it was Republicans and conservatives who were the "anti-science" and "anti-free speech" party.

Well when Dept of Homeland Security Secretary says something, it's kind of unfair to claim a paper is making something up.

https://homeland.house.gov/hea...

http://www.npr.org/templates/t...

But hey, I get it, media bashing, it's the new cool.

Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...

I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.

Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...

I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.

Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...

I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.

Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...

I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.

Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...

I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.

The vote numbers the author listed are incorrect. It was 215 to 200. No democrats voted for it (like in the Senate) and a number of Republicans voted against it (just 7 more an it would have been killed). If the Senate vote had come after the House vote, it would have been killed for sure. Still want to know why it wasn't filibustered in the Senate. Here's the roll call for these numbers:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Google found a draft (pdf) for the "Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2017". So tell your representative to keep an eye out for that one.

No, not when we can't audit the process of reinterpreting old data downward.
Also, I don't trust the team doing the work.

So, you *do* want things.

I want the nation to continue to exist. Without military and police it will not exist, therefore, military and police are necessary. Moreover, there can not, unfortunately, be a competition among different groups of armed people, so they must be under a single command — this is why I'm willing to hold my nose and accept the government doing both.

Space exploration is not required for a nation to exist. Nor are social programs. If, heaven forfend, all of the six thousand homeless of San Francisco die tomorrow, the city will not be any worse off. Moreover, provision of these folks with food and shelter can be accomplished by competing charities. Therefore, it must not be done by the government. A clear cut rule, easy to apply and understand.

So if a commie socialist program reduces more crime per dollar spent than spending it on police, you'd be in favour of that? I suspect not.

Your suspicion is correct — because socialist programs do not reduce "more crime per dollar". Not at all. The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" meanwhile costs four times that — only a tiny fraction of that stemming from the above-mentioned military.

So, if we eliminate the "War on Poverty" altogether — thus saving about $750 billion/year — and the crime so much as doubles we'd still be saving about $350 bln a year. But, of course, it will not double — because it didn't half, under Lyndon Jonson, who saddled us with this burden — so the actual savings will be much greater.

No, help for the poor can not be justified by efficiency of crime-fighting — indeed, it never was the justification. The government's benevolent and omniscient saints — including the current President — have always appealed to the taxpayers' compassion and charity. Sentiments, that are not compatible with monies being confiscated at gun-point, which is how the taxes are collected.

but now it has no government so free market pixes

Thanks to its Socialist past, it has no law and order either — which are required for a free market to do its magic.

But, so long as we are giving each other relocation advice, maybe, it is you, who should consider moving? North Korea — the worker's paradise — provides its happy citizens with free everything and has a wonderful space-exploration program too. And the glorious Rays of Chuch'e shine on everyone!

I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it.

Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...

I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia

No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.

prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working

If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.

Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.

rather than face a much higher level of crime.

Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.

That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.

Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?

National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.

So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...

Unfortunately I do understand and realize that what most likely will happen is that any evidence collected wont be used in court or will be used in parallel construction to get what they want. This year there is going to be another push from the likes of the FBI, CIA, etc. to get the laws changed on encryption just like they have been doing for the past couple of years. With the media circus that is Trump they might actually succeed in getting what they want. Here is what congress knows about encryption and while reasonably unbiased there still is the pro state slant in it. Also there is this document that came out at the end of last year that I missed that has some more details on the questions and what congress should be thinking about in regards to encryption.

Unfortunately I do understand and realize that what most likely will happen is that any evidence collected wont be used in court or will be used in parallel construction to get what they want. This year there is going to be another push from the likes of the FBI, CIA, etc. to get the laws changed on encryption just like they have been doing for the past couple of years. With the media circus that is Trump they might actually succeed in getting what they want. Here is what congress knows about encryption and while reasonably unbiased there still is the pro state slant in it. Also there is this document that came out at the end of last year that I missed that has some more details on the questions and what congress should be thinking about in regards to encryption.

Here you go. To find it, I did a search for " Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802" and clicked on the first link.

What constitutes an attacker? Warning: PDF

(C) the term ‘attacker’ means a person or an entity that is the source of the persistent unauthorized intrusion into the victim’s computer.

If you want to be able to legally counter-hack a large group of people all you need to do is spread a virus that will first infiltrate a lot of machines, then use those machines to start attacking your machine's IP. This allows you take countermeasures, easily accomplished via a vulnerability that the existing virus leaves open. So let's take a look at some scenarios and the implications.

I can imagine the RIAA and MPAA and their goons drooling over this capability. They can search for and destroy pirated materials, which of course would accidentally have many false positives. To get around the requirement to avoid to destroying data all they have to do is claim those files were infected (which the virus of course handles, providing 'proof').

Facebook would love to know even more about you than they do now. Plausible deniability: 'it was just a bad ad, not our fault'. There's all sorts of Facebook malware out there, with many guides on how to deal with it.

The government could use this scheme to justify their intrusions into your system. They can claim probable cause for anything they find while trying to ascertain the identity of the 'attacker'.

Source.

March 4, 2015 Congress issues subpoena to Clinton. 33,000 emails were deleted a week later.

You lied.

A total of 3 emails which contained classified information at the time. However, the "classfied" markings were non-standard which could explain why Clinton did not notice them.

Here is Comey himself testifying that they were incorrectly marked:

Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

In addition, they had already been declassified at that time (which explains why the headers were removed):

“Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the Secretary of State. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level - prior to a decision by the Secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the Secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call. The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the Secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Those markings were a human error. They didn’t need to be there.”

Source: FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified

"The device President Trump insists on using -- most likely the Samsung Galaxy S3 -- has particularly well documented vulnerabilities,"

Is it an S3 or not? That's a weird way of saying that you're guessing.

He should probably be reprimanded for not using a secure phone, if he's using it for official business, but Lieu would hold more water if he didn't give Hilary a pass for doing, roughly, the same thing he's ripping Trump for doing:

https://lieu.house.gov/media-c...

DeVos is not going to be a "competent education minister" for several reasons. First, she's not a minister (we have secretaries, not ministers). Second, she's been appointed to oversee the education department's dismantlement. The Republicans have introduced a bill to terminate the department. DeVos will be a competent terminator, someone to oversee the unwinding of the department through its final days.

Education was really never a priority on the federal level: schools receive less than 10% of their funding from the federal government, while the state and local levels of government supply the lion's share of funding and governance over education. Shifting the burden to the states and municipalities wholly makes sense: the federal government doesn't need to be a totalstaat, nor does it need its fingers in every pie. Shaving off the parts that already do nothing useful is not harmful.

A compromise with the GOP? The hell it was. Not even ONE member of the GOP in the House or Senate voted for this, not even one. This whole thing was 100% the Democrats doing. Republicans wanted NOTHING to do with this.

Except for the amendments they approved.

But hey, you know what? They had 6 years to do anything else. But all they did was scream repeal, but then what?

Remember the "You are going to have to pass it to find out what's in it" thing from Ole Nancy P at the time? Why did she say that?

Yeah, we remember the narrative, as what she was actually saying was that the GOP was lying so much about it, that the average person had no idea what was in it. Some people still confuse the ACA and Obamacare as if they were separate things.

Because the Republicans where just a few hours away from being able to actually having enough votes to stop the ACA with the election of a republican in the Special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat who was to be sworn in. There was not even time to READ the bill before everybody had to vote.

March 10was the speech, months after th Senate had passed their bill, leaving the House to confirm it in two weeks.

Democrats had to pass this sight unseen, which is what their leaders asked and what they did.

Nope. There was plenty of scrutiny and debate.

Many are no longer in office because of this.

Nope. Try gerrymandering.

I consider the ACA to be the start of the long decline of democrats power who have been losing more and more power as they tried to cling to this ACA mess... Obama killed your party, it's power, it's credibility with all this mess and until you realize it, you will be the opposing party, the party of "no" and nothing else.

Well, that's what worked for the GOP, isn't it? Except you know, losing the popular vote.

Ouchies. Three Presidential losses of the popular vote in a row, and not too well in 2010, guess you ought to reconsider which party is dying.

> Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?

The Selectc Investigative Panel Final Report seems to contradict you on that one.

It's all relative, but depending who you ask, "micro" may mean < 2kg http://docs.house.gov/meetings..., or < 5kg http://www.academia.edu/205567... . It's not small by hobbyist standards, but in the military world it's tiny compared to the 14,628 kg Global Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

Yep. They do. Their annual ammunition buy is currently about 1.8 billion rounds a year, and essentially all of this gets used in training.

How many rounds do they use in actual combat operations? At the height of the Iraq War the U.S. expended only seventy two million rounds a year in combat. How many were they expending in training each year at that time? 1.1 billion rounds! The rate of training ammunition expenditure has since gone up, and is now 1.8 billion rounds. Before 9/11 the military had a less intense training regimen, they only expended 350 million rounds a year, but that was still five times more than the rate of expenditure in Iraq.

People are always astounded (incredulous, really) to learn that ammunition used in war these days is just round-off error in training ammo purchases.

So, yes, not having to clean up one or two billion casings a year would be a big benefit.

Brass or steel isn't toxic.

More importantly, I want to have a ready supply of actual real combat ready bullets ready to fight a war. Otherwise we would have to spend months and months building up a supply chain and industrial capacity to produce and distribute real ammunition.

We should assume that two million enemy soldiers could just show up one day to fight and won't give anyone any time to write a memo about how we need to start making enough real bullets to fight a war. If we can fight with the same bullets that soldiers target practice with then that gives us the same supply chain we would need to defend ourselves in a war.

Yep. They do. Their annual ammunition buy is currently about 1.8 billion rounds a year, and essentially all of this gets used in training.

How many rounds do they use in actual combat operations? At the height of the Iraq War the U.S. expended only seventy two million rounds a year in combat. How many were they expending in training each year at that time? 1.1 billion rounds! The rate of training ammunition expenditure has since gone up, and is now 1.8 billion rounds. Before 9/11 the military had a less intense training regimen, they only expended 350 million rounds a year, but that was still five times more than the rate of expenditure in Iraq.

People are always astounded (incredulous, really) to learn that ammunition used in war these days is just round-off error in training ammo purchases.

So, yes, not having to clean up one or two billion casings a year would be a big benefit.

He's 1 of 5 Congressmen that represents the heavily gerrymandered city of Austin.

You can reach him at: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/c...

I just sent him this message: https://cl.ly/3y18020T1A3t

Enjoy
https://science.house.gov/site...

Evidence given by an actual climate scientist to the US Senate:
https://science.house.gov/site...

I don't believe the president has direct control over the money supply

Well, he does not spend money either, but TFA still blames him for the future "binge" anyway...

What's corrupt about openly pitching to foreign diplomats to pitch down $20k a night to stay in the hotel that the president owns in DC? "No no, certainly no bribery going on here..."

If you don't like the situation where a president can own a network of hundreds of companies scattered around the world directly doing business with foreign governments and be directly under his family's control, call your rep and ask them to support H.R. 6340, which extends current federal conflict of interest law to the offices of the president and vice president, requiring that their assets be kept in a blind trust or potential conflicts of interest disclosed to the Office of Government Ethics when they make a decision that could affect their assets' worth. Hardly revolutionary, as that's what Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc all did. The bill has teeth, too - “(f) A violation of subsection (a) shall constitute a high crime and misdemeanor for the purposes of Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

It's something that anybody who's nervous about the current situation and lives in the US can do to make themselves feel better.

What's corrupt about openly pitching to foreign diplomats to pitch down $20k a night to stay in the hotel that the president owns in DC? "No no, certainly no bribery going on here..."

If you don't like the situation where a president can own a network of hundreds of companies scattered around the world directly doing business with foreign governments and be directly under his family's control, call your rep and ask them to support H.R. 6340, which extends current federal conflict of interest law to the offices of the president and vice president, requiring that their assets be kept in a blind trust or potential conflicts of interest disclosed to the Office of Government Ethics when they make a decision that could affect their assets' worth. Hardly revolutionary, as that's what Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc all did. The bill has teeth, too - “(f) A violation of subsection (a) shall constitute a high crime and misdemeanor for the purposes of Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

It's something that anybody who's nervous about the current situation and lives in the US can do to make themselves feel better.

This is the plan that is most likely to replace Obamacare. It is largely the same as Obamacare, including exchanges. It is designed to protect people like your sister, but
Whether it does or not of course depends on the details. You can look at it now and figure out if your sister will be ok.