Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure who is in the Tea Party, but here's how people voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml

It also got more than a 2/3 majority, so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.

http://mikerogers.house.gov/

Are you sure?

First Link:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said Tuesday that most opponents to his controversial cybersecurity bill are teenagers in their basements as the Obama administration threatened to veto the measure for its potential to violate civil liberties.

How do you do anything about this when your district's congressman is completely opposite your views on almost every issue? Especially when you didn't vote for him. Any letter writing would go to the technologically-clueless equivalent of /dev/null.

More on Texas you seemed to have mysteriously overlooked:
Rampant entrenched homophobia
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.06.00.html

4th highest crime rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Taxes:
Do you known the different between Ca. Taxes and Texas actual tax rates? 1.3%. whoopee save 1.3% and have substantial lower dynamic atmosphere, economy, and services.

Population:
The people moving out of the state are wealthier than those moving in.

Health:
The most polluting state.

Science denialism through out the culture.
AGW and Evolution is frowned upon.

religion:
They constantly force others to have to deal with christian beliefs, while having their own ignored.

Education:
Ranked last in the nation.

By every metric living in Texas is worse then pretty much every where else.
hee-fucking-haw.

Not, on to the bill at hand.

yes, it's a example on how Texas will create do nothing bills to make themselves look good, and an example of how Texans can't actually read a bill.
"—Notwithstanding any other
5 provision of this chapter, it shall not be unlawful for an
6 officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the nor-
7 mal course of the official duty of the officer, employee,
8 or agent to conduct electronic surveillance, as authorized
9 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
10 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)."

SO it doesn't nothing for anyone who may fall under those broad terms..but wait, there is more:

"IN GENERAL.—It shall not be unlawful
13 under this chapter for a governmental entity to
14 intercept, use, or disclose geolocation information
15 pertaining to an individual if that individual has
16 given prior consent to that governmental entity for
17 such interception, use or disclosure. "

SO anyone pressured into giving consents
and:
"CHILDREN.—A parent or legal guardian of
19 a child may consent on behalf of a child for the pur-
20 poses of paragraph "
I will assume that by children, they mean minors. But any law enforcement agency can pressure consent.

"It shall
22 not be unlawful under this chapter for a governmental en-
23 tity to intercept or access geolocation information per-
24 taining to an individual through any system that is config
1 ured so that such information is readily accessible to the
2 general public"
SO if it's in the open, they can intercept it.
AND this is farther down, the section is lengthy so I didn't want to post it.
"‘‘(II) conspiratorial activities
11 threatening the national security in-
12 terest; or"...
"‘‘(ii) requires geolocation information
16 be intercepted or used before an order au-
17 thorizing such interception or use can, with
18 due diligence, be obtained;"

AND
"EXCEPTIONS.—A person providing covered serv-
24 ices may disclose geolocation information—"

Yeah, your a shining example of how Texas blindly go along with anything that as the word Texas on it, well done.

Relevvant links
http://lofgren.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/online%20communications%20and%20geolocation%20protection%20act%20-%20lofgren%20-%20030413.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Holder has zero credibility. He has lied to Congress before and the fact that he is still the AG is corruption manifest, whether you doe-eyed fools know it or not.

Contact your reps in both the House and the Senate. If everybody on Slashdot had done this earlier in the week, we might be looking at a very different situation today. Here's the links.
Senators
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

House of Reps
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

They may not do what you want, but at least you can let them know why they are being fired at the end of their term. I contact mine every few weeks on big issues, like the sequester.

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

Bill page at Thomas

Find your house rep

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I think you're the only person on the planet who thinks that "Equal protection" should mean "equal taxes". Do you want your taxes to equal what [Teresa Heinz/Mitt Romney/other-rich-person] has to pay?

In absolute terms, no, in terms of relative chunk of income -- absolutely. He'd be nowhere near the only person on the planet who believes that Warren Buffet should be taxed at the same rate as everyone else.

Even points out that the fact that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary is absurd.

They give so many tax loop hopes to corporations and the wealthy that they find every little way to find some tax avoidance.

Buffet knows more about money than pretty much anybody who sits in congress (or any other government) -- and he seems to think it's a reasonable idea.

The President is required BY LAW to present a budget to Congress "On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year..."
He has failed to submit a budget on time four out of the last five years.
From the same article, above: "The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, states clearly, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

He clearly is not abiding by either of those requirements.

Don't see where I used the term 'unskilled immigrants'. Mr. Wadhwa's proposal to unlink the fate of 'highly-skilled immigrants' from that of 'undocumented immigrants' appears to boil down to 'techies-before-Latinos', IMHO. I'd suggest Rep. Gutierrez would agree.

Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?

Our elite carry different colored passports, and for some reason, are treated very differently.

Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?

http://mikerogers.house.gov/legislation/sponsoredbills.htm

The only thing this guy has sponsored and has become law are re authorization of the Patriot Act and two Funding actions for National Intelligence.

1. H.R.67 : To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 29, 2012.
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] (introduced 1/5/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Intelligence (Permanent Select)
Latest Major Action: 1/24/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Note: For further action, see H.R.514 , which became Public Law 112-3 on 2/25/2011.

3. H.R.754 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] (introduced 2/17/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Intelligence (Permanent Select)
House Reports: 112-72
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 112-18 [GPO: Text, PDF]

7. H.R.1892 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] (introduced 5/13/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Intelligence (Permanent Select)
House Reports: 112-197
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 112-87 [GPO: Text, PDF]

This guy is in bed with the NSA and the CIA, that's where the legislation came from. He thinks that spying on Americans is the best way to protect us from all those folks in the Middle East and China. I think he's a cross between J. Edgar Hoover and Jack Valenti. Also don't forget who's in charge of the MPAA now, good old Chris Dodd. The stench is all around on this one folks.

This is not going to help much, especially if the choice is not binary. Of course you can vastly increase the number of pilots to reduce the noise. But then again it may just turn into something like this.

No ambiguity at all, the National Guard represents the organized militia, all able-bodied male citizens who're eligible to vote and aged 17--45 who are not members of the national guard, the reserves or the active military are the unorganized militia:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

``Well-regulated'' in the vernacular of the 18th century means that they should be trained to the drills of the time.

This is true.

Note the the Democrat Party has long been the refuge of Activists and crazies in general.

See Sheila Jackson Lee

The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Yes, the U.S. has continuously had a militia since at least 1903, but really it's been there as early as 1775.
A militia is different from a national draft in that a national draft would force citizens into the organized Armed Forces, whereas a militia need not be organized at all. Gun ownership in the U.S. does indeed "trump" any ethical or religious objections to joining a militia, as you can see from USC 10 Chapter 13, membership in the unorganized militia is not contingent upon an absence of religious or ethical objections.

It is true that it seems that a militia is more of an emergency task force, but I would not support that claim with a Wikipedia reference. The militia is a specific legal term, defined in a legal document. It is not up to Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster to define it. Consequently, something like this doesn't fall under FEMA any more than it falls under the military. You can think of the militia as "all able-bodied combatants (taking into account gender-bias)", people like you and me, and as such, we don't "fall under" any sort of authority.

Of course, Congressman Greg Walden's press release didn't say he introduced a bill, nor shared it with the public - it merely says he announced that he has a plan to introduce a bill.

Oh, so he has a plan to come up with a plan that won't work because people likely to be opposed to it can block it forever? That's such a good use of his time there...

Does the bill ban JUST platinum coins?

This is a good question. I, for one, would like to read the proposed bill to see what is being called for.

Of course, Congressman Greg Walden's press release didn't say he introduced a bill, nor shared it with the public - it merely says he announced that he has a plan to introduce a bill.

Does this answer those questions at all?

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Huawei-ZTE%20Investigative%20Report%20(FINAL).pdf
(Dated October 8, 2012)

Hmm interesting. That explains H.R. 6429 that passed recently. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/STEM/Fact%20Sheet%20STEM%20Bill.pdf

That's not true at all.

Democrats/Lefties have a long tradition of supporting more and stricter gun restrictions and outright bans, even going back to the 1920s. And I remember the debates that occured during the AWB's voting, and republicans were primarily against it and dems primarily for it. There was no arbitrary decision by the NRA to support just one party; they have long tended to support Republicans (though in reality they base their support on a canidates actual opinion on guns, leading them to support Democrats who favor the 2nd amendment and not support Reps that don't).

And you make it sound like they all got together and all passed the AWB. They didnt.
Senate: 61-38 ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295 )
House: 235-195 ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml )

Furthermore, the AWB was merely one part of the massive Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, one of the biggest crime laws and expansions of federal law enforcement powers ever created. The AWB was just one part of that bill, a bill that was created in reaction to several high profile violent crimes (ie, emotional knee jerk reaction law, ala the PARTRIO act, and several others....stop making decisions in the heat of the moment people!!!), such as the waco disaster.

And the ACLU is hardly an unbiased organization. I heartily support and applaud their many attempts to preserve civil liberties, even when unpopular (the nazi's marching in the chicago suburb), due to the consequences of letting even,a ndone go undefended. But the ACLU has never supported the 2nd amendment, and further, does not even consider the 2nd amendment a civil liberty issue ( http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment ). So the ACLU are hardly the all protective organization of our rights that you think they are.

SpaceX is not where the action is happening. If you think the only private spaceflight is SpaceX, you simply don't know what is going on.

Check out Armadillo Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, Scaled Composites, Bigelow Aerospace, Blur Origin, and XCor (just to name a few... I know I'm missing a bunch). Even with SpaceX their flight manifest has a majority of the flights booked for commercial projects that have nothing to do with the federal government.

I guess the saying goes that if it is raining money, you haul out the buckets and grab what you can, so doing business with the government is a prudent thing if they are throwing money about. None the less it isn't even the government that is the concern.

I'd also have you listen in on hearings with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. There are a number of members of congress that are incredibly hostile to commercial spaceflight and are openly trying to stop commercial enterprises from happening at all in space or are incredulous that commercial activities could even happen at all. Quite literally the owners of these private enterprises are telling the government to get out of their way and not mess with their businesses.

(Reliable) citation, or you just made these numbers up. And that doesn't mean a link to some blog that made the numbers up themselves, either. It means a link to an irrefutable source.

When the official source of this information is the government itself, on the official websites which tracks this stuff, which never leaves out any of its voting.. it makes you look like an idiot for not automatically going there where you should have known to go.

Senate Vote
House Vote

Now here is an idea.. instead of pretending to be smart by asking for a citation.. prove that you are smart by actually watching what the government is actually doing through the most authoritative channel possible.. the public one that has never once editorialize.. never once given an opinion.. the one you apparently didnt fucking know about proving that you are just a sheep.

I am always suspect of "I am 'not who I claim to be' but" messages typical used by marketing types to hide who they are and to give false legitimacy to what they are promoting. So I went to the Dennis Kucinich web site http://kucinich.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=1461 and this is what I found on autism "Congressman Kucinich, as a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, is dedicated to finding the causes of autism and helping individuals with autism access the therapies they need. He has spoken out in favor of additional research during hearings of the Committee on Government Reform. "

With regards to vaccination, it's all about Vaccination Liability, " a massive holiday gift to the pharmaceutical industry in the form of liability immunity". Which he is opposed too, with the track record of pharmaceuticals any kind of liability immunity is just plain insane.

With regards to vaccinations, it is absolutely clear and obvious not all of the are created equal, some are of dubious efficacy and quality just mass produced in conjunction with some fear campaign to promote billions in sales for little or no benefit. It is clear the pharmaceuticals have become far to big and desperately need to be broken up and in many cases their psychopathic executives investigated for murder and treated accordingly.

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association
Library of Congress
American Association of Justice
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal
CNN Legal News
The National Law Journal
Law.com

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law
U.S. Code Search

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

A number of credible national and international scientists testified that mercury in vaccines is a contributing factor in developing neurological disorders, including, but not limited to, modest declines in intelligence quotient (IQ), autism, and Alzheimer’s disease and the body of evidence to support that conclusion gets larger every day.

http://burton.house.gov/issues/autism

As I said before, I think the only way to combat this is to remove Burton from office. His view is a powerful mix of cherry-picked evidence and raw emotion and will likely never change. I am hopeful, given the right opposition candidate, that his constituents (many of whom are chemists, doctors, and other scientists who know better) will replace him if he continues on this path.

The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.

In related news, the city of San Francisco, a mere 40 miles from Silicon Valley, is considering a ban on public nudity in reaction to the infamous (minimally pixilated, but still may be NSFW) San Francisco naked protests.

San Francisco's Congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, has made no comment.

Troll? If Mozumber's post is a troll, then I'm a troll as well.

I disagree; you are not a troll. I suspect that the parent was modded troll because he acted as a provocateur, charging the GOP with representing monopolists as though it were peculiar to the GOP. Your statement was far more reasonable in that it recognized both parties can be thus implicated.

I do not say this to exonerate the GOP, nor is this a false equivalence. The fact that people habitually act as though one side or the other has sole responsibility for the problems we face is part of what allows those problems to persist (i.e. when the consequences arise, both parties always have a scapegoat). The cure to this problem is, as far as is possible, to praise and punish those lawmakers who do good or ill according to the good or ill they do. When some lawmaker says we need copyright reform because our current system, we will never get anywhere by saying, "Well, that's coming from a member of the [fill-in-party-here]." If I have a problem with the absurd wars started under Republican administrations, I'm not going praise Joe Biden for being a Democrat. If I've a problem with deficits, I'm hardly going to support Paul Ryan on account of Republican rhetoric.

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 )

Can you elaborate on your position? In the article you link to Ralph Nader refers to Congress as a whole and doesn't place blame squarely (or mostly as you say) with one of the two parties. If I look at just the numbers then in 2006 the Democrats held 44 seats in the Senate compared to the Republican's 55 and the bill passed the Senate unanimously. In the House the Democrats held 202 seats (and essentially also another independent seat) compared to the Republican's 230 and with the exception of one abstain all Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Of the Republicans 20, including Ron Paul, voted against the bill.

And just because I feel like it, here's some George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

And you can find contact for your local rep here:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

per your request:

The Path to Prosperity

I haven't studied the nuts and bolts, but the summaries I have read are enough to convince me it's better than the Obama administration's plan.

By the way, as a business owner, I have read it.. (all wonderfully dry 955 pages: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf). And despite what a lot of people like to think, its nowhere near as bad as people want to think..

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

The simple fact is that the Republicans in Congress have voted as a unified bloc, over and over, ever since Obama took office, while the Democrats have not.

The actual voting record says that BOTH parties have behaved as a unified block on the exact same issues.

These are the very last 10 House votes, no cherry picking of any kind.. I just picked the last 10.

Roll Call 603 Republicans 214-13, Democrats 19-162
Roll Call 602 Republicans 0-227, Democrats 173-6
Roll Call 601 Republicans 215-10, Democrats 11-171
Roll Call 600 Republicans 218-11, Democrats 10-172
Roll Call 599 Republicans 7-222, Democrats 161-21
Roll Call 598 Republicans 3-225, Democrats 157-25
Roll Call 597 Republicans 224-4, Democrats 23-159
Roll Call 596 Republicans 2-227, Democrats 162-20
Roll Call 595 Republicans 0-228, Democrats 164-18
Roll Call 594 Republicans 222-6, Democrats 20-162

These are the actual numbers, not just some pundit bullshit. Notice that the largest deviation from "uniform block" on the Democrat side was only 1 out of 7.28. Sure, the Republicans are a bit more partisan, but the Democrat voting record hardly paints the picture that you are trying to paint.

It almost seems like you just believe whatever Democrat pundits will tell you. I check up on claims like these because I know for a fact that the media will not, while you just repeat whatever bullshit your party tells you to repeat. What does that tell you about the difference between people like me and people like you, and will this demonstration that should be wholly embarrassing for you effect your future critical thinking when listening to Democrat pundits? Will you just repeat a lie next time when you arent sure what the facts actually are? I wonder.

Even if what you wrote about the Texas Republican Party was true, which I highly doubt

Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights

"Remedies to Activist Judiciary", starting around the bottom of the page numbered "P-4".

it would take national level action

Led by a nationally relevant Texas Republican.

First off i have a very hard time believing backdoors are built in the large networks they sell. In complex systems like that its next to impossible to hide things in the long run. Anything suspicious would have been found in the audits.

I think you underestimate the creativity of the people who make networking gear.

This looks like a try at restricting import with arbitrary reasons without any substance behind them. I am sure many countries smile at this as they get to block American goods like GM corn etc citing safety reasons, and now they can use US own rhetoric.

That's fine. The US House Committee is claiming that Huawei and ZTE receive billions from the Chinese government and are able to subsidize their products with that money so that they can be the lowest bidder to foreign countries. That's not entirely arbitrary as they're not claiming the same thing against Foxconn or Asus. If you want to say Monsanto receives government subsidiaries as tax credits or whatever, you're probably right but so does almost every other international company headquartered out of the United States. Want to place an embargo on the United States? Go right ahead, Iran and Cuba seem to be doing okay. Personally, I think the safety concerns against GM corn are enough to block it and I think they should continue along that line of reasoning -- what economic conspiracy do you have for keeping GM corn out?

This hearing was open and is completely available on YouTube if you want to rebut more specific claims by the committee. I like listening to the Huawei guy, he's pretty humorous, he says that they will not under any conditions jeopardize the integrity of their networks for any third party or government ... yeah, like you sell networking gear in China and you can say that? Please.

Is the free trade not so fun anymore?

Oh, give me a break. Free trade? Are you serious? It's not fun when the most populous country in the world is artificially manipulating its markets, controlling what its currency trades at internally and creating its own companies that are traipsing around claiming to be private companies ... christ, the tariffs and tax laws surrounding international business are so complicated, there's no point in calling any of this "free trade" in any sense of the words.

Well, how about applying his own test to the comments under scrutiny? From his own home page http://broun.house.gov/ at the HoR website:

BROUN'S 4-WAY TEST

I am committed to protecting the constitutional rights and pocketbooks of every American. I will apply the following four-way test to every piece of legislation that comes before the House for a vote:

1) Is it Right/Moral?

2) Is it Constitutional?

3) Is it Necessary?

4) Is it Affordable?

IOW, he'll vote for whatever he wants to vote for, just like every other fake or self-deluded ideagogue.

I think it would be a better idea if you had to pass some basic science (or whatever) test before you were able to chair a committee on science (or whatever).

But then I remember that congressmen are retarded people who got through life by pandering to the highest bidder

This clown is supposedly a Medical Doctor. So he had to at least be exposed to the some reasonably advanced concepts and memorize them. You've got to be pretty weird to go through all of that and denounce it as essentially heresy.

From his bio on his web site:

Representative Paul C. Broun, Jr. was elected in July of 2007 to serve the Tenth District of Georgia. Since his arrival in Congress, he has been appointed to the House Homeland Security Committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and currently serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Dr. Broun grew up in Athens, Georgia where he attended Athens High School and graduated from the University of Georgia in 1967 with a B.S. in Chemistry. In 1971, he received his Medical Doctor degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. An internship at Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland, Oregon and a residency at University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama followed.

He's probably just pandering to the crowd, but what a friggin slimeball.