Slashdot Mirror

Listen...

It applies to credit cards, you dumb tinfoil hat wearing knuckleheads. If you'd watch CSPAN for ten fucking minutes instead of wasting all your time on Slashdot you'd know that the Govt is after the credit card companies and lenders.

"A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations."

Actually, it's far more confusing. Dodd introduced a specific amendment removing the immunity from S.2248, known as S.Amdt 3907. As you can see here, Obama showed up to vote for the amendment (i.e. against immunity), while McCain voted against (i.e. for immunity).

you'll hop over to the vote tally page and
see which list your representative is on. If you
disagree with their vote, contact them and let them know they fucked up.

Interestingly enough, neither Obama nor Hillary bothered to vote on this back in February.

The best we can hope for now is that maybe the Supreme Court will overturn it as unconstitutional.

You can find your representative here, and your congressman here.

Let's flood every link in this post with /. traffic. Then, let's write our Congressmen, and maybe some Supreme Court Justices.

Maybe, just maybe, that might get somebody's attention. If not, at least then they will know we are watching.

And you can know that you did something, even if it is a bit late

What you mean is:

John McCain voted FOR this travesty.
Barack Obama was TOO BUSY and didn't vote.

So basically, they both voted for it.

FISA Senate Vote Record

This story is why I spent the first hour of my day contacting my congress-persons to ask they vote against this bill. From the role call, I can see my representative voted for the bill.

But, we still have a chance to prevent this from becoming law. Contact your senator today to ask that they vote no on this bill.

Don't know who your senator is? Check out this

He made a statement against retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies in an earlier FISA bill.

On the other hand, McCain seems to grow closer to Bush every day.

What this REALLY means is that *ALL Data* will be collected, but PRESENTLY only data for more than $10k or 200 "items" will 'count' (they can and probably will easily pass some bill amendment to remove this threshold).
Obviously, this implies that all of the data will be collected in full anyway, and when you individually hit $10,000.01 or 201 'items' it will meet some automatic threshold and exit their buffer and your transaction are suddenly officially counted in the IRS databases... Great!

Anyone RTFA and notice that this is REALLY about New Data collection on the Taxation of Internet Transactions hidden inside a "Housing Bill"?
I say this because the data "will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee". I also liked this entry in the full bill summary: "Lenders must document and verify borrowers' income with the IRS." (And I thought THREE independent Consumer Credit Reporting bureaus were sufficient, but NO! now we must directly involve the IRS too for every purchase over $10k)?
Read it for yourself: http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221Houseamendments0618SN.pdf

Here is the statement from Dodd's website. It doesn't say anything about a filibuster, which is disappointing. That doesn't necessarily mean he won't filibuster I guess.

I cannot support the so-called 'compromise' legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.

As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American's[sic] civil liberties by rejecting this measure.

but for reasons that should be fairly obvious, given the rules a Slashdot, I am not able to reply without resort to AC or creating a sock, and I hate socks.

Anyway, what is you definition of a handful? On one side: one is less than a handful; and on the other side: 66 is more than a handful.

cheers

Don't just gripe here in a thread, email your senator

Passing legislation to create a website for the people to track Federal spending isn't something to brag about?

Passing legislation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is not something to brag about?

Getting lobbying and ethics reform passed is nothing to brag about?

What about his accomplishments in the IL legislature? Do those not count either?

I honestly don't care if you vote for him or not but don't go spreading this crap that he has no track record and no experience. That's just a cop-out and a way to dodge a real debate about the issues and challenges we face.

I've heard this claim. Isn't this the bill that rewards one-term-and-out soldiers? It would reward behavior that is counter to the nation's interests. I can't fault him for that stance, especially in a time where finances are pretty strapped and the military is having a hard time recruiting as it is.

The NASA budget - Obama is correct. We are 9 trillion in the hole thanks to the Shrub. We can't afford to go to Mars. Obama is just being a grown-up.

The real difference:

John McCain Opposes Net Neutrality

Obama is for Net Neutrality

Obama is for Net Neutrality

During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions... But the high court reversed 100 percent of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals

But make no mistake, every single US president is bought and paid for by corporations. Including Obama or McCain, whichever one gets elected.

How about a few?

1) The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction
2) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (check out this site)
3) Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (here's a story about it)

He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"

I see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.

On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.

Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.

Good point which means there still may be time!

Sorry to thread jack, but I think everybody needs to see this and I don't want it lost down the discussion...

Everybody in the US of A write your senator tonight! This nonsense needs to stop, and maybe a response from the constituents would make them at least think twice in the future. Don't do what I've done in the past and get incensenced and not do anything. Don't whine on a /. write the letter. Maybe it won't do anything, but we should at least put our effort where our mouths are.

That said try to present a reasoned arguement instead of a rant, or just be short and quick and say you're against it.

Senate Contact Info to make it even easier!

Everybody get in here! Your senators know that every person who actually writes represents thousands of voters.

After the Speaker of the House comes the president pro tem of the Senate, who is Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Byrd on Iraq February 12 2003
Byrd on Iraq, February 26 2003

After the Speaker of the House comes the president pro tem of the Senate, who is Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Byrd on Iraq February 12 2003
Byrd on Iraq, February 26 2003

Despite the howls from the far left, Bush didn't actually "lie and people died". Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, own report proves that. For example,

That is not what Sen. John D. Rokefeller's own website says.

Washington, DC -- The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and a bipartisan majority of the Committee (10-5), today unveiled the final two sections of its Phase II report on prewar intelligence. The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

reference

No.

They.

Are Not.

Some corps can have it both ways (e.g. Verizon, which has full CC protection/responsibility for its voice networks, but nothing like that for it's data networks). this ought to explain the diffs, and why, in layman's terms

/P

What I can't believe is that you can claim "Obama in no way voted for the Patriot Act. Ever", when in fact he DID vote for reauthorizing it (HR 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization), just like he voted Yes to fund the war.

How is a link that predates Obama's tenure considered "proof" of his voting record on anything? If somehow denying reality is more comfortable for you, here's a bit of unsolicited advice: SUCK IT UP. Either figure out a way to explain Obama's fuck ups or switch to a candidate who actually has a voting record consistent with his views. Don't call me a troll for stating the truth, because you're the one promoting a lie.

Take your trolling somewhere else. Obama in no way voted for the Patriot Act. Ever. Like the Iraq war authorization, that vote predated him in the senate. I can't believe someone marked you insightful. Here's proof. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 He later supported revising it with civil liberties measures.

The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so bad that they have to stay home. McCain may or may not be be that bad, but it remains to be seen.

I'm a Republican and I will not vote for McCain. I haven't decided who I would vote for otherwise but because he'd spy on Americans secretly too and because he voted to illegally permit a retroactive law to proceed there is no way I can support him for President.

Obama is full of shit just like an other politician and because Hillary again proved, with her inaction re: retroactive immunity for telecoms (she didn't even vote), that she's a fence riding cunt trying to pander to everyone -- I cannot vote for her either. This is going to be a very difficult decision for me.

Thanks, I should have remembered that. I also should have doubled checked. I keep a listing of congressional member in an easily accessible text file

It could be worse though you know. Both of Oklahoma's Senators voted against the McCain Torture Amendment, and Inhofe is number one Senator A-hole on my scorecard for his defense of human torture. During the Senate investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses, after General Taguba had delivered the unredacted portion of his report on nationwide TV, in which one of the many findings was:

8 8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses...Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

Inhofe spouted off for the Record:

"...as I watched the -- this outrage, this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners, I was, I have to say -- and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."

Remarks by Senator Inhofe at the 05/11/2004 Senate Armed Services Hearing on Iraqi Prisoner Treatment - Link to speech published on Inhofe's Senate Website

And that, along with so many conservatives calling the Abu Ghraib abuses "fraternity-style pranks" was where I got the idea for The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment ®, because it is very clear that contemporary conservatives are in great need of illumination for their minds' eyes.

What is very sad, is that all 9 nine of the pro-Torture Senators still are in office. With Sessions, the motivation is clear, that little weasel considers having a Bush Man Date forcibly sodomise him with a blunt instrument a compassionate dream come true, because he gets to enjoy a stick being shoved up his ass, and then lie about it later, claiming that he is not a sado-masochistic pervert, but was instead just doing his patriotic chore. I won't lie about it, I dream of urinating on Session's headstone.

If this isn't turned back, friend, then America is lost, forever.

I don't know, it worked for dipshit eight years ago, but he was "only" running for veep.

Don't count on that either, the Republicans haven't managed to field a winning candidate for statewide office here in New York since 2002. I doubt they will in 2012 either. The only Republican I can think of with a shot of beating her probably pissed away all of his goodwill with New Yorkers by trying to tie his Presidential campaign to 9/11. That wasn't particularly appreciated around these parts.

If she did she could always just run against the Democratic nominee and form her own "New York for Hillary" party. It worked for the aforementioned dipshit ;)

The fact he's [Chuck Fish is] an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.

Funny how Google has no problem with hosting videos produced by terrorists. http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=8093d5b2-c882-4d12-883d-5c670d43d269&Month=5&Year=2008&Affiliation=C

Wrong on all counts. Did you ever even look at the actual numbers? It looks like you just pulled them all out of your ass.

Senate: 98 for, 1 against (Feingold D,WI)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

House: 357 for, 66 against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

The Patriot Act wasn't passed unanimously. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it.

Russ Feingold makes me proud to be from Wisconsin.

He did vote for to renew, although he opposed its form at the time and proposed waiting to renew it so they could make it more sensible. A "compromise," he called it.

Source

Grandparent's point was that Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it. There were also 66 Representatives who opposed it (mostly Democrats, but yes, including Ron Paul.)

I count 17 democratic nays and 29 Yeas. Nice try though, "less than half" guy. Again, most voted for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2 . Or is that some kind of cover up?

You may differentiate between an authorization for military force and war. I do not. When you authorize our president to kill people, that is war by any useful definition of the term as far as I am concerned. If you want to play semantics, go for it. You can dance around and excuse those who errantly made colossal errors in judgement. I do not. I regard war as a necessary evil in some cases, but I will not split hairs between military actions, police actions, and war and I will not excuse those who wield that power lightly. Our government pointing guns and bombs at people and killing them is war. But I have the freedom to see that clearly, because I am not a lawyer.

I never said it was *primarily* congress's fault. but the fact is, it could not have happened without them, and the democrats share culpability.

I am CERTAINLY not saying the republicans are better. They are both weasels and cowards. and you are wasting your time jumping to the defense of one of them.

You are closer to the mark, but the figures should be clearly stated. Republicans have historically been slippery eels when it comes to properly assessing causality from their actions. Accepting Personal Responsibility is not actually a tenet of contemporary conservatives. It is instead a strategy that provides them with multiple opportunities to insult poor folk.

In The Senate, It was Roll Call 237 on October 11, 2002. The toal vote count was:
Yeas - 77 --- Nays - 23

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 48 R --29 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 0 R -- 22 D -- 1 I (Jeffords)

In the House it was Roll Call Vote 4455 on October 10, 2008. The total vote count was:
Yeas - 296 --- Nays - 133 --- NoVotes - 3

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 215 R -- 81 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 6 R -- 126 D -- 1 I
• NoVote - 2 R -- 1 D -- 0 I

• The Republicans voted affirmative 263/6
• The Democrats voted affirmative 110/126

This simplistic analysis does not show a very important consideration, and this is another instance of Republican weaseling from personal responsibility. It does not show clear statements made by Congressional members who stated that their vote was not al all out assent to war, but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort. To assert that these persons diod no mean what they said is a very big leap out over the chasm of fatuity. Their error was having faith that a man elected as U.S. President, would possess the personal honor and integrity to not waste human blood waging an immoral foreign war, based upon falsehoods. They were very wrong, but that makes them dupes and rubes. Again, the Lamer of Two Evils.

GOP Bastards: the Natural Liberties you have stolen were in part mine. Give it back with public apologies for your crimes, and you'll no longer be counted as domestic enemy.

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

There are indeed valid, substantial questions regarding Jay Rockefeller's campaign contributors and the FISA Bill's telecom immunity clause. My questions about him go back farther to when he was minority committee leader, and was being pussy-whipped by Sen. Roberts (Can's-Ass) about Robert's promise to have the Intelligence Committee investigate the administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, and even get around to issuing subpoenas, so Feith and Wolfowitz would get their asses hauled down to assert their 5th Amendment rights under oath while being televised nationwide. There are several Democratic Senators whose defense of civil liberties is very questionable.

However, your intimated assertion of a partisan parity is absurd, and a wild flight of fantasy from reality.

Let's investigate reality without the rosy-tint of you blurry lens:

Senate Roll Call Vote #20 on February 12, 2008, The FISA Amendments Act

• Vote Total: 68 Yeas - 29 Nays - 3 NoVotes
• Yeas by Party: 48 R - 20 D - 1 I (Lieberman)
• Nays by Party: 0 R - 29 D - 1 I (Sanders)
• NoVotes by Party: 1 R - 2 D - 0 I

Clearly, The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.

49 D - 49 R - 2 I

Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate.

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

for posting this. Anyone who wishes to contact their Senator can do so here.

First, thanks for the information. Second, I'm astonished that Brownback isn't dutifully towing Bush's line. Since he is highly ranked in my list of least favorite senators, I assumed (my bad) that he couldn't possibly be even beginning to approach the right side of this issue.

That said, Brownback's criticism is very mild, basically saying we should hold hearings, and he voted yea on the deeply flawed Senate FISA bill that grants the telecoms immunity for their illegal spying on American citizens.

The press release can be read in its entirety on the official Sam Brownback site.

Seems a fair enough position for a politician to take, given that he sits on one or more subcomittees that are involved with international/human rights types of issues.

On the other hand, he is a Republican.

And he's from Kansas.

If you're not prepared to fill in your own joke, the Wikipedia article on him should give you some ideas.

Getting a roadster, huh? That should be a lot of fun. :)

The bill has passed the house and is awaiting a Senate version to go through; it's stalled there, and it's possible it may take until next year. The house-passed version only applies to PHEVs; it requires an additional "significant" source of power in addition to batteries (whether a car with a small solar panel on the roof, like an Aptera Typ-1e, would qualify is up in the air). However, there is a movement to try and get it expanded to cover pure BEVs, too. If you'd like it to apply to your roadster, contact your senators and request that they make the change. A $6.2k credit is certainly relevant even on a roadster, and certainly worth the time to make a phone call, send an email, or write a letter.

You compile a list, I've ot beter things to do as I'm not voting for any of the three. I'll give you an example from the first google hit:senate.gov

"Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes"

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---89
Clinton (D-NY)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Apparently both the senators from my state voted for the bill in question.

Umm, well since this global warming theory is still just a theory, how about we get some hard evidence before eviscerating companies? Read this: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1b702e93-802a-23ad-406d-20a0e08818af and this: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22434

A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected.

... and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.