Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who?

Posted by Cliff on from the that's-politics-for-you dept.

melankolik asks: "With all the issues emerging these days related to DRM, 'piracy', anti-trust, civil rights, big business, et al, and with tech-illiterate politicians passing laws of dubious intent or results, it can be hard to tell who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are in our government (more realistically, who supports the Good and Bad legislation). What information can any of you politically savvy Slashdot readers offer to someone taking an interest in the political machine regarding the past and present legislation, stances, and agendas of our friendly neighborhood Senators, Governors, and other representatives?" As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others. Even so, it would be interesting to know how the representatives vote on specific issues, especially those that deal with computers and online rights. Has anyone been compiling this information?

83 comments

  1. It's easy to find the bad guys.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just look at whose lips are moving.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:It's easy to find the bad guys.... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My thoughts...

      Democrats: Bad
      Republicans: Bad
      Greens: Bad
      Anyone who has any position of power, real or otherwise: Bad

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:It's easy to find the bad guys.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I told my daughter yesterday that the best we could hope for would be a Demo president and Rep House and Senate. That way bills would not get passed and the president would not be inclined to Boeing/Lockheed/Halliburton benefitting adventures.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    3. Re:It's easy to find the bad guys.... by Genial+Generalist · · Score: 1

      Guess my next PC will be Dell

    4. Re:It's easy to find the bad guys.... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      Lawrence Lessig for president!

  2. Compilation by S.+Traaken · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Has anyone been compiling this information?"

    I know some Gentoo users - they compile everything...

  3. Easy by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They'll all be supporting the things that give the most votes.

    1. Re:Easy by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      ...except for the ones who have hit their term limits. They'll do whatever they want. Typically, I would imagine, to curry favor with people who might give them high-paying jobs later.

      --
      Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
    2. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the things that give them the most money in "corporate favours"...

  4. You've got to be kidding me. by pi_rules · · Score: 3, Informative

    All this information is recorded somewhere on the House of Reps and Senate websites. I was scanning records hourly as S 1805 (Protection for Lawful firearms commerce) was being debated and voted on in the Senate. I'll dig up the links in a second -- it'll be easier to spot once you've seen them before.

    Oh, and Thomas can be used to search for the EXACT text of pending bills in both Houses. They're a myriad o them though so you pretty much need to be involved with an activist group that'll keep you posted on what bills are in committee and which ones have a chance of getting of committee. Unless your reps are on the actual committee it's not much use to call them up and voice opinions on a bill that's not going anywhere. Well, that's my take on it. Seems like your position would have more "oomph" if you call them when you know it's out of committee -- shows that you're on top of the issue.

    Yep, there it is: Congress voting records

    Here's a better page I gathered up from the Senate's site:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html ... that's at least good for the 108th Congress.

    Best way to learn how it works, IMHO, is to watch the NRA and other gun-rights groups. That's how I got involved with it all I guess.

    1. Re:You've got to be kidding me. by melankolik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I was actually reading through Thomas/loc.gov when I thought to ask this.

      That's great if you want specific details on a specific bill or representative; when you're interested in a general idea of who supports what (that is, the issues and specific legislation when it's a major bill or resolution), it's a little less than informative, unless you have hours to read through each representative's history and research the meaning and implications of the texts.

      Legalese doesn't say much to real-world effects of legislation, and it's not hard to miss a critical rider or somesuch which could really make all the difference in a text's significance.

    2. Re:You've got to be kidding me. by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      The only way around this is to get involved with a group that will put in the man-hours to keep track of it. You'll never see a politician promite their true voting record. You can twist and skewer anything and make it look real. You absolutely have to track them down day by day on the specific bills you're interested in.

      Find a group of people that align with your beliefs and start tracking your politicians.

      Take a look at John Kerry. You can find him voting "pro-war" and you can find him voting "anti-war" in the past 12 months. What's his true stance? You can't tell that with a search engine. You've absolutely got to stay involved the whole way through.

  5. Politicians by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1

    As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others.... Has anyone been compiling this information?

    If we start from the top, how does the politician in the topmost position of country (you know who I mean) stack up in the opinion of /. readers under the criteria of being good for technology and it's use for masses...

    1. Re:Politicians by Derek · · Score: 1
      I don't know about the topmost position, but Orrin Hatch seems to be involved in all kinds of crappy legislation lately!

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator _would_destroy_mp3/
      http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press Releases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1005
      http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press Releases.Detail&PressRelease_id=946&Month=11&Year= 2003
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/27/19 27252&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=95&tid=9 9
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/26/13 30254&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188& tid=99
      http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press Releases.Detail&PressRelease_id=947&Month=11&Year= 2003
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/20/004623 7&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=185&tid= 99

      etc...

      -Derek

    2. Re:Politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His son works for SCO as a lawyer...From the old saying on "like father like son" we can infer that Orrin Hatch is a man that lacks personal integrity.

    3. Re:Politicians by unitron · · Score: 1

      Is he the one that used to be known as the Senator from Novell?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:Politicians by Derek · · Score: 1
      Is he the one that used to be known as the Senator from Novell?

      I've never heard that, but it certainly could be the case.

      -Derek

  6. Just had this idea... by burns210 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wha'dya know, I just had an idea for a website that would fit this.

    Basicly, it was a 'framework' for a legislature(local, state, federal) that would cross-reference each bill or legislation with how each member voted... Want to know who is pro-abortion, simple query. Want to see all the Democrats that voted for Bush's XYZ legislation, simple stuff... Who is on what committee, and so on.

    The beauty is, if this was done open source, then it could be applied to all 50 state legislatures (and other countries!) along with Congress, so there would be a fairly large(relative) demand for such a system.

    1. Re:Just had this idea... by pi_rules · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.

      That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.

      Here's how it went.

      One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.

      This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.

      Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.

      My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.

      Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.

      Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.

      Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.

      Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.

      So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.

      It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.

    2. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have two remarks here. They're basically unrelated.

      The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.

      The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.

      Take a perfectly good bill. Attach an amendment to it that goes a little bit farther than you'd want to go in a perfect world. What happens? The bill dies, dead dead dead, because some people were unwilling to compromise.

      Guess what, folks? Compromise is the highest of all political virtues. The correct course of action here was for the gun lobby to say, "You know, a 10-round limit on magazines is not totally unacceptable. Let's start negotiating until we reach a point of consensus."

      Didn't happen. Instead, the cry went out across the land: vote NO!

      Damn shame.

      (Line-item veto is the WRONG answer. It effectively puts legislative power in the hands of the president. The right answer is to let our representatives know that we want them to reach reasoned compromises, not to throw babies out in pails full of bathwater.)

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.

      I believe it did get attached. The wording in the law probably referred to those retired LEOs as "citizens" and everybody else as "serfs."

      I watched a lot of this on CSPAN as well. The story the senator from New Mexico told underscored just how stupid some people in the world can be. The story goes something like this:
      Three teenagers bought a gun (a semiautomatic pistol) from some guy on the street that needed money. They took it home and were screwing around with it. They'd previously checked to see that it wasn't loaded, but they had been dicking around and at some point one of the morons put a loaded magazine in and removed it again (note that the senator did not make any mention of one of the fools racking the slide). Then, violating three rules of safe gun handling, one of the morons shot one of the other morons.
      The senator from New Mexico contended that the shooting resulted from an unsafe design of the pistol, and that "this bill would block lawsuits against the manufacturer." He kept saying things like, "wouldn't you agree" amoung other things. One of the senators from Alabama refuted every foolish point the NM senator made. The rider didn't get attached.

      You had to really listen to what the NM senator was saying to understand what he was talking about. The _real_ issue was chamber indicators. He was trying to stress that pistols without chamber indicators were poorly designed, and therefore any manufacturer that made a pistol without one could be a target from a lawsuit. Anyone who knows anything about guns know that the percentage of pistols in the world with chamber indicators is somewhere near 0%. The whole point of S 1805 was to prevent frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Some cities (Chicago) are attempting to sue them into the ground by claiming that it's the gun manufacturers' cause gun related crime by producing those products. If every city in SoCal, New York, and Illinois were to sue manufacturers at random, they could eventually put them out of business. The rider of the NM senator would've nullified the law entirely.

      So yes, the entire situation is very intricate, but I don't believe a database as proposed would be out of the question; however, the best organization of it would be by topic. It'd be best to sort the senators by topics like gun-control, abortion, etc, then link to specific instances of those topics on Thomas. In the end, you'd just end up with a collection of what all the lobby groups are doing anyway.
    4. Re:Just had this idea... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      well i do realize that, though didn't make it clear in my posting. First, I think a framework system could still be made, with proper work for such things taken into account.

      Second, how do all these bills get such BS things to be attached and then fail? How do we avoiad, undo, stop, whatever, the effect of a reasonable bill getting unreasonable attachments pinned on it? That is such crap, it annoys me to no end. No legislative system is perfect, but if bill X v 1.1 (the revised by senate version you mentioned) would have passed then that bill turns into v 1.1.5 where several EXTRA things are attached, a couple arn't bad, one(or more) are really bad, how does the senate get to vote on only v 1.1 and not with the additional cruft?

    5. Re:Just had this idea... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Some things are not worth compromising on. We don't like the 10 bullet limit, but might have compromised on that, if it was the only issue. Afterall we can get it removed in a few years if it was the worst restriction we face. The rest of the amendment (not just that one either) went much farther, and were not worth compromising on.

      10 bullets sounds like a lot on print, but when you are at the range you realize just how small that number really is.

    6. Re:Just had this idea... by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your name is Burns210 (half of 420) but somehow I believe you haven't seen enough simpsons.

      If the U.S. were a true democracy there might be a chance at such things. But the U.S. is a republic, one nation under god since 1954. That means you elect rich white dudes to make bad non-costeffective bills into law.

      Then you die.

    7. Re:Just had this idea... by Schlaegel · · Score: 1

      It is a great idea that companies have been doing since before most slashdoters were using computers.

      I worked in the legislative database business for quite a few years. It is very difficult to do, because every state's process is different and in some states a lot of the process is not automated.

      I used to work for the industry leader, StateNet. They have been doing this for 29 years. I bet most slashdoters were not born 29 years ago!

    8. Re:Just had this idea... by catsRus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A right compromised is not a right! Lets compromise on the budget or something not infringement of our rights.

    9. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Some things are not worth compromising on.

      Bullshit. Worst of all, it's arrogant bullshit.

      Go crack a history book sometime. The strength of this nation is that it was founded on compromise. Compromise is the only path to a just government. Without compromise, we're faced with the prospect of suffering under the tyranny of the majority.

      And as for your objections to the 10-round limit, let me say this: I do not give two shits. I do not base this opinion on time spent on a rifle range; I have an entirely different and more personal level of experience with the capacity of a weapon's magazine. And I can say with a clear conscience that I honestly could not give a damn about your personal convenience. The fact that you have to stop to reload twice as often while squeezing off practice rounds doesn't matter one bit to me, because the greater good is self-evident.

      And don't give me that "it's my constitutional right" bullshit, either. Only the most naive person believes that rights are absolute. If you want to invoke the 2nd amendment, do it in the correct context: a well-armed citizenry is the ultima ratio regum. If you're worried, seriously worried, about the possibility of being pressed into armed revolt against a tyrannical government, then might I humbly suggest that you do something about it, rather than whining about entirely appropriate legal limits on firearm magazine capacities.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:Just had this idea... by Danse · · Score: 1

      If no guns have chamber indicators, then shouldn't it be common sense to always check the chamber? I could see a lawsuit if the chamber indicator didn't work correctly and the gun fired when it indicated that there was no round chambered, but in this case I don't see it as a design flaw. Guns have never had chamber indicators. Maybe adding them would be nice, but not having them is certainly not a malfunction. Furthermore, isn't the first rule of gun safety, "Never point the gun at anything that you don't want to destroy"? Stupid people do stupid things. Doing stupid things can often kill you or others.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    11. Re:Just had this idea... by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.


      Well, thank you. We had been watching S 659 and later S 1805 like hawks for months wanting it to pass.

      The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.


      Agreed, but the "no compromise" thing was valid. I'm sad to see S 1805 die like that but I'd have been foaming at the mouth if Feinstein's rider was attached. The NRA knew this and knows what it's members want to see first and foremost: the sunset of the 1994 bill in question. It's refered to as the "Assault Weapons Ban" but it's hardly that.

      It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill. The Republicans screwed up and allowed time for the riders to be brought to the floor.

      However, we'd rather deal with slightly higher prices as firearms manufacturers fend off lawsuits than deal with the 1994 bill for another 10 years.
    12. Re:Just had this idea... by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      Whoa boy. I didn't mean for this to turn into a gun debate, but this particular stream seems to have taken that course. I couldn't sleep well if I didn't at least do my part then.

      And as for your objections to the 10-round limit, let me say this: I do not give two shits. I do not base this opinion on time spent on a rifle range; I have an entirely different and more personal level of experience with the capacity of a weapon's magazine. And I can say with a clear conscience that I honestly could not give a damn about your personal convenience. The fact that you have to stop to reload twice as often while squeezing off practice rounds doesn't matter one bit to me, because the greater good is self-evident.


      Ok, so I'm opposed to the 10 round limit. I walk the same streets as the local law enforcement. I work in a high crime neighborhood. I own the same firearm (in a slightly more compact version) as the police officers in this area. Their firearm, the Glock 22 is meant to hold 15 rounds of ammunition. Mine, the Glock 23, is meant to hold 13.

      Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds. I must pay insanely inflated prices for the full 13 round capability to get pre-1994 models. It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal, or somebody close to you has, and I'm sorry for that, but no law would have prevented them from doing what they did it seems. Whatever course of action was taken by them it was already 100% illegal.

      Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.
    13. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.

      That's not how things work in a republic. To get a little, you have to get a little. You can't just dictate public policy as if by the divine right of kings.

      --

      I write in my journal
    14. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds.

      Ain't that just a kick in the head?

      See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison.

      It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal

      Guess again.

      Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.

      I'm gonna go right ahead and call bullshit on this once again. It's a specious argument, ridiculous on its face. You're not fooling anybody.

      This is about one thing and one thing only: your personal desire to pop off a dozen rounds or more on the practice range without having to stop to reload. I, as I explained, do not give a shit about this. The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.

      The implications of only being allowed to carry 11 rounds in your Glock instead of 14 on the size of your penis, your testosterone level, or your overall fitness as a male specimen are not my problem.

      The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

      --

      I write in my journal
    15. Re:Just had this idea... by pi_rules · · Score: 1, Insightful
      See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison. .....
      The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.


      I take a trip to the range 2-4 times a week. Put me on the firing line with any beat cop and see who shoots better.

      Grab a dictionary from the latse 1700's -- well regulated does not mean steeped in laws. It means trained. I am well trained.
    16. Re:Just had this idea... by _hAZE_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      This topic actually inspired me to think (if you know me, you know I don't think very often, so this must be important).

      I came to realize that one of the reasons I don't regularly vote is because I don't have time to figure out who I should be voting for. There are SO many different people out there, with SO many different opinions on SO many differet issues, it's nearly impossible to keep track of, especially for people that are trying to just get by with their own lives. I also think that a lot of the issues have gotten a little too complex for the average citizen (it could be we're all getting dumber, I can't really say for sure). I think a website for people in this situation would help many of us make semi-informed decisions and vote for "the right guy".

      So.. I agree and disagree with your statement about the complexity/simplicity of this particular project.

      In a perfect world, yes, the project would go down to each individual bill and each attached amendment to each bill and who supported what and include the lobbies and such. Unfortunately, you're right - that's way too complex.

      Instead, I think we should focus on "the newbies guide to politics" - keep it simple:

      First, this has to be a community effort. Citizens from all over the country should be allowed to add information on their local candidates, maybe with some form of peer review upon submission.

      Then, list all the current senators and house members and the president, along with all the currently running candidates. Also include the ability to add more local positions like governor, council persons, mayors, etc.

      Once you've got all that.. list the issues, and break them down into categories to make them easy for idiots like me to check out what I want to see. Abortion, Jobs (with sub-categories for things like tech jobs, auto workers, whatever), military, foreign policy, whatever.

      Then.. it's the simple process of cross-referencing all the people with the issues, and wallah! You've got "An Idiot's Guide to Politics".

      --

      Don Head
      UNIX/Linux Administrator
    17. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing with someone who made it through the first couple of weeks of first semester Latin (or cribbed it from a law book) and is throwing it around pompously. You're being trolled.

    18. Re:Just had this idea... by babbage · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.
      That's not how things work in a republic.

      Clearly, you've been sleeping through George Buh's America, where as far as he and his pals are concerned, that's exactly how they want things to work. You're talking about the ideals of democratic America, and they were nice, but the Rubicon has been crossed and now we've got our dear little tinpot leader changing things as fast as possible. Are we a republic any more? These days, I'm not sure that the term applies.

      Be that as it may, Twirlip is absolutely correct: compromise is the absolute core of a functioning democracy, and it absolutely cannot be sacrificed for something as petty as legislative expediency. So it takes years for Congress to get things done -- so what? Do you really want to live in a nation so unstable that the law making bodies are able to change the rules at a whim? That's not democracy, that's dictatorship, and shifting too much power in El Presidente's direction is too big of a step in the wrong direction. When congress moves fast, bad things happen: the Patriot Act is a shining example of the kind of disaster that can happen when compromise & consideration are sacrificed for political expediency, and we're not going to have to live with that mistake for years to come.

      Elsewhere in this thread, Twirlip urged you (pi_rules) to look back at history, to see how compromise has molded this country. Did you bother taking his advice? Again, he was right: every nuance of our federal system was the result of compromise. Some wanted a strong, centralized federal system, while others wanted all power devolved to the states -- hence the delicate balance the Constitution strikes between federal & state control. Some wanted to consolidate power in northern cities, while others wanted more of a voice for the rural south -- hence the compromise of building Washington DC in the (at the time) rural south, but close to what was then the middle of the country. Some wanted slavery, some were against it -- hence the 3/5 compromise, which arguably delayed the civil war by decades. Et cetera.

      A political system with no compromise is a disaster. North Korea, Iraq, <troll> Buh's America </troll>. No sane person would ever want to live in one of these places. But the line item veto is practically an invitation to give up on legislative compromise, and would undermine the structure of our carefully tuned political system in ways that would be vast, subtle, and ultimately disastrous.

      No political issue is so important that achieving it is worth undermining the entire systeem that has served us so well for decades, is it? I sure don't think so...

      --
      DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
    19. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal"

      Guess again.

      Alrighty then. How about you're a jerk who can't tolerate an opinion that's different from your own?

      You think you know what's for the "greater good" and anyone who disagrees is just full of too much testosterone.

      Well suck my NON-gun-toting dick asshole.

    20. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we a republic any more? These days, I'm not sure that the term applies.

      Damn right it applies.

      republic, n
      - A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
      - A nation that has such a political order.

      It has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with who's in charge. Iraq was a republic. North Korea is a republic. China is a republic.

      George Bush is the President, not the King, and that makes America a republic. Not what he says, not what he does, and not what he thinks.

    21. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Iraq was a republic. North Korea is a republic. China is a republic.

      Wow. That's the worst misuse of a word based on a careless dictionary reading I've ever seen.

      There's a little more to a republic than the title of the head of state, my little friend.

      --

      I write in my journal
    22. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If no guns have chamber indicators, then shouldn't it be common sense to always check the chamber? I could see a lawsuit if the chamber indicator didn't work correctly and the gun fired when it indicated that there was no round chambered, but in this case I don't see it as a design flaw.

      You're 100% right there. The point is that if you can bring enough companies into lawsuits over chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, and other points, you can begin to bankrupt them.

      Furthermore, isn't the first rule of gun safety, "Never point the gun at anything that you don't want to destroy"? Stupid people do stupid things. Doing stupid things can often kill you or others.

      Again, correct; however, the point of gungrabber type legislation is to throw out the rules of common sense and blame the firearm itself. While those of us who know what we're talking about can say, "the idiots were fooling around with a gun, broke every common sense rule there is concerning the operation of firearms, and one of them shot another one," the gun grabbers say, "a teenager was shot due to an unsafe gun design. They never should've had access to one in the first place."

    23. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what, folks? Compromise is the highest of all political virtues. The correct course of action here was for the gun lobby to say, "You know, a 10-round limit on magazines is not totally unacceptable. Let's start negotiating until we reach a point of consensus."

      You truly don't know what you're talking about. The gun grabber lobby has introduced new legislation every couple of years to take more and more rights away from the people. In the past, compromises have been made, but new bills are still introduced anyway. We started out with 100% rights, and have made 50/50 compromises several times already. If the course continues, guns will be effectively banned.

      Not everything in the world is a bartering point.

    24. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison.

      Where's all your academic relativism now? Ask some black guy from Cincinnati if he would agree with that.

      Some would go as far to argue that the armed public is the vox populi and everybody else is just a cog to turn the Socialist machine. Cogs in a machine don't need firearms. It doesn't matter if some cog dies, because there are millions of other cogs that can replace him.

      This is about one thing and one thing only: your personal desire to pop off a dozen rounds or more on the practice range without having to stop to reload. I, as I explained, do not give a shit about this.

      Your objectivity is questionable.

    25. Re:Just had this idea... by babbage · · Score: 1
      If the course continues, guns will be effectively banned.

      Don'cha just love how gun nuts say things like this, as if it's some kind of tragedy?

      Isn't it funny how the just-under-half of the population that's always jabbering on about protecting the second amendement just happens to be the same people as the just-under-half of the population that supports the current regime and their sustained attack on every other right that the constitution affords us?

      Somehow, I can't see Idaho, Alabama, or Texas rising up against George Buh any time soon, and yet if they don't do it, no one else can. Catch-22, eh?

      ******

      NB: Ok, I admit, I'm trolling, moderate as you will. But note that I may make fun of Alabama, but I'm also from Alabama so I'm not just talking out of my ass here. Well, not entirely talking out of my ass... :-)

      --
      DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
    26. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don'cha just love how gun nuts say things like this, as if it's some kind of tragedy?

      It was a tragedy when the Germans did it to the Jews. Ask some of them how that turned out.

      Part of the reason for the second amendment being written was that in the worst case of a renegade government, the people wouldn't end up as soap making materials. Gun legislation reached the compromise point a long time ago, and has been infringing on the rights of people for a very long time.

      Somehow, I can't see Idaho, Alabama, or Texas rising up against George Buh any time soon

      Most of the people from those states support Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right at half of all the people in the country do. You'll have your chance to turn America into a Socialist state in November, although since you're from Alabama, it's not likely you'll get your way. Perhaps you should move to SoCal or New York, where other like minded people are?

    27. Re:Just had this idea... by falsified · · Score: 1

      Godwin's Law really IS true!

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    28. Re:Just had this idea... by gandy909 · · Score: 1

      Line Item Veto is definately the RIGHT idea. The whole reason we have SO MANY bad laws on the books now is because these BAD 'riders' get attached to GOOD legislation, that otherwise would *NEVER* become a law on their own. The legislature is always making the right choice in voting down one of these loaded bills, and if they don't have the guts to do it, that is exactly why the President has the power of vetoing it.

      Personally I don't think they should be able to attach extra, unrelated riders to any bill anyway. That way, each and every bill would be debated and voted on for its own merits, and you would not even need to have a line item veto.

      --

      (Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
    29. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Line Item Veto is definately the RIGHT idea.

      No. Legislative power belongs in the hands of the legislature. Our representatives in the House of Representatives are directly elected; they are our direct representatives in Washington. They have the power to make the laws.

      The President is not directly elected. He is elected through an Electoral College system. He does not have the power to make laws.

      (The Senate is kind of in limbo right now, ever since the 17th amendment was passed. Sooner or later we're going to collectively see the error of our ways and repeal that little item.)

      A line-item or partial veto would be grossly unconstitutional, and a really terrible idea to boot.

      Personally I don't think they should be able to attach extra, unrelated riders to any bill anyway.

      Such an arbitrary restriction could never be enforced. Who decides what's related and what's unrelated?

      --

      I write in my journal
    30. Re:Just had this idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a quick historical correction -- Washington, DC was indeed built in the south as part of a compromise, but what the other side got in return was the assumption of state Revolutionary War debts by the federal government, a large step in the direction of the federalism the rural south so distrusted.

    31. Re:Just had this idea... by mstovenour · · Score: 1

      The "mapping" from Representative to issue/bill would be subjective leaving a lot of room for the person maintaining the data to inject political slant.

    32. Re:Just had this idea... by papercut2a · · Score: 1

      The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

      Even if you were properly interpreting that phrase (which you are not, as other repliers have pointed out), it doesn't negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- Constitution of the United States, Amendment II

      "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." -- J. Neil Schulman

      In the second example, would you claim that it means the government can tell you what books you can and cannot own? (That book has too many pages! We need to outlaw those assault books! They're too dangerous to allow the average citizen to own!)

    33. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Wow. That argument was completely and utterly without merit. That's quite an accomplishment. I mean, hell, even the worst argument usually has a certain element of reason in it; it usually has some aspect that makes a kind of sense, if you sort of squint and hold your mouth just right. But not this time. This time, there's just nothin' there that a reasonable person can take seriously.

      It's crap like this that makes me question my faith in democracy.

      --

      I write in my journal
    34. Re:Just had this idea... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization.

      My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police. Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense, nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.

      You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens.

      Nonsense. My right to self-defense is no less than that of a police officer, my life no less valuable - and my threat to others significantly less. The fact that I am armed not only makes me safer, it makes my neighbors safer also.

      The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.

      What benefits? Please cite evidence that the magazine ban - or the "assault weapon" ban in general - has had any impact on crime.

      The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

      I suggest you research the meaning of that phrase.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    35. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police.

      No. But the size of your personal arsenal is.

      Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense

      You might want to look that one up and try again.

      nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.

      Yeah. That's just the kind of arrogant snotballism that makes me want to hand you the keys to the magazine.

      The fact that I am armed not only makes me safer, it makes my neighbors safer also.

      We are not talking about the fact that you are armed. We have never been talking about the fact that you are armed. We are talking about the degree to which a legal limit on the size of pistol magazines is reasonable and appropriate. You are the one who decided to spin off into absolutes.

      What benefits?

      When you finally snap and go on your rampage, you'll be forced to stop and reload more often, giving your intended victims more of a chance to get out of harm's way. I'd call that a benefit.

      Please cite evidence that the magazine ban - or the "assault weapon" ban in general - has had any impact on crime.

      No. Because we are not talking about those things. We have never been talking about those things. We are talking about legal limits on the size of pistol magazines and that is all.

      I suggest you research the meaning of that phrase.

      Please try to find a reference to a site that is not obviously pushing an agenda before posting a link, okay? The page you linked is the steamiest, stinkiest crock of horse manure I've seen in a long time.

      Hint: one does not interpret the Constitution by pulling out a fucking dictionary. One does so by being as familiar as possible with the intent of the men who wrote the words.

      --

      I write in my journal
    36. Re:Just had this idea... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Isn't it funny how the just-under-half of the population that's always jabbering on about protecting the second amendement just happens to be the same people as the just-under-half of the population that supports the current regime and their sustained attack on every other right that the constitution affords us?

      Except it's not.

      Remember: in the late 1960s, arch-conservative Ronald Reagan signed a gun control act (the Mulford act) aimed at taking guns away from leftist Black Panthers, who were exercising their right to keep and bear arms in acts of opposition to police brutality.

      Armed liberals, leftists, and socialists are not at all unusual. A Communist who beleives in "Permanent Revolution", or a libertarian socialist who is opposed to overly powerful government, is certainly going to be in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.

      If total gun control could be inacted, only the police and the army would have guns; these are hardly groups beloved by the left. But the point is moot: gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug lwas keep heroin away from junkies.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    37. Re:Just had this idea... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You might want to look that one up and try again.
      In several legal cases, courts have found that police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm.
      That's just the kind of arrogant snotballism that makes me want to hand you the keys to the magazine.

      WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?

      When you finally snap and go on your rampage, you'll be forced to stop and reload more often, giving your intended victims more of a chance to get out of harm's way. I'd call that a benefit.

      If I were planning on a rampage, pre-ban magazines are still available. Just more expensive. Or instead of one handgun with several large magazines, I'd buy two or three and empty them in succession. (Hey, I'm going out in a blaze of glory, cost is no object.)

      We are talking about legal limits on the size of pistol magazines and that is all.

      You asserted a benefit from the existence of such limits. If such a benefit exists, you ought to be able to cite some evidence for it. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

      Hint: one does not interpret the Constitution by pulling out a fucking dictionary. One does so by being as familiar as possible with the intent of the men who wrote the words.

      While in this case the intent happens to agree with the plain meaning (that the people be free to keep and bear arms), the method of interpretation you suggest goes directly against the intention of the founders.

      The minutes of the constitutional debates were not published for decades; if the doctrine of interpretation by "original intent" was in fact the intent of the founders, those records would have been made available eariler. In fact this doctrine was explictly denied by Madison:

      But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution. As the instrument came from them, it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State Conventions.

      Interpretation via "original intent" leads immediately to reductio ad absurdum, since original intent was not the framer's original intent.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    38. Re:Just had this idea... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      In several legal cases, courts have found that police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm.

      "Copcrimes.com?" Pass, thanks.

      WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?

      The part where you jump to the conclusion that you're somehow implicitly as trustworthy as a uniformed law enforcement officer.

      If I were planning on a rampage, pre-ban magazines are still available. Just more expensive.

      Success!

      You asserted a benefit from the existence of such limits.

      I didn't assert it; I pointed out that it's self-evident. You were then obstinate, so I elaborated on what is already obvious to all. I'm sorry I didn't pull up as reputable a source as "copcrimes.com" with which to illustrate my point.

      The minutes of the constitutional debates were not published for decades; if the doctrine of interpretation by "original intent" was in fact the intent of the founders, those records would have been made available eariler.

      Yawn.

      Interpretation via "original intent" leads immediately to reductio ad absurdum, since original intent was not the framer's original intent.

      Please don't confuse being a colossal dumbass with being clever. You know damn well what's right and reasonable here, and you're just being a shit about it.

      I am so utterly disinterested in your opinions at this point.

      --

      I write in my journal
    39. Re:Just had this idea... by man_ls · · Score: 1

      The president can't make laws but he can sign executive orders which carry the same weight as law...

  7. Start the List Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I can list three quite clueless representitives: Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton. Time after time when you hear about an important bill, you can say, ``I hope they don't vote X way on this.'' Later when you see who voted who, those three voted X.

    A couple of other bad ones are Ted Kennedy and Barney Franks. Occasionally they'll show some intelligence, but quite often they'll be standing where the BFC combo is.

    1. Re:Start the List Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I misread that as "KFC Combo". Like, waiting in line for the free food.

  8. Random thoughts by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    The phrase "and for other purposes" sends chills down my spine. Has it ever been used beneficially?

    We have such a legislative mess because our laws are kludgy and unconcise.

    That is all.

    1. Re:Random thoughts by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      I swear they should right law similiar in the way you code. You decide on purpose of the program, do some psuedo code for logic, then code AND COMMENT. Sure legalize could be considered it's own programming language, but could you imagine if they commented it? Had a version control system? Made it open source? refinedthe law/program to suit the function/spirit of the law? A loophole would be considered a bug, someone could offer a patch, it could be evaluated by those with commit rights - Oh I digress, but it could work if properly sorted out in more than a /. post.

      --
      ymmv
    2. Re:Random thoughts by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      "write" instead of "right" - or maybe a Freudian slip?

      --
      ymmv
  9. Also useful... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...opensecrets.org, a good website that lets you know who's holding the leash on your favorite politician.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Also useful... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      But when you see that 98% of the donors donate to both parties equally....well....

  10. Vote them all out! by bluGill · · Score: 1

    I have a rule: nobody in office gets my vote twice. If someone I agreed with a majority of the time actually got in I might change that stance...

    I try to follow the rule of vote for the best guy, but sometimes I compromise on a second (or more likely third) best just to get rid of some guy I can't stand. Or in the extreme case I voted for Coleman (republican) last election just because of the stunt the democrats pulled over the Welstone funeral. Generally though the best guy gets my vote, even though it means I almost never vote for a winner.

    Remember someone looks at all votes. If a third party starts getting a lot of votes the major parties will notice and start changing their stance to get some of those voters.

    1. Re:Vote them all out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or in the extreme case I voted for Coleman (republican) last election just because of the stunt the democrats pulled over the Welstone funeral.

      Then you got duped by the media, because the incident in question lasted about two minutes out of the entire funeral.

  11. My take.. by photon317 · · Score: 1


    I vote for the ones that back gun rights, and vote against the ones that try to enact gun control laws. Being a one issue voter makes life a lot simpler for me, and if any of them decide to vote against my wishes on some other matter, at least I'm well-armed and I can go after them for it :)

    --
    11*43+456^2
  12. Orrin Hatch -- Baaaaddddd!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    I don't have the time to write an extensive essay detailing his crimes against the public interest, not the least of which is the CTEA, DMCA, Carnivore, Patriot Act, and any other cute acronym you can think of.

    You can google him or search slashdot. Getting him out of office would go a LONG way to promoting the public interest. I don't care if it's another republican, or an eggplant. Just that it would be better for the public interest if he were to leave office.

    If you disagree with me, I would look in the mirror and say outloud "corporate whore".

    If anybody is bad to the bone, it's him.

    1. Re:Orrin Hatch -- Baaaaddddd!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who's met him personally, let me just second this. He's also suggested that copyright holders be allowed to "reach" out and break the computers of people suspected of copying their works! I don't even know any Mormons (I was one for most of my life) who know anything about him who support him.

    2. Re:Orrin Hatch -- Baaaaddddd!!!!!!! by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      > I don't care if it's another republican,
      > or an eggplant.

      I, for one, am fully in favor of replacing all our politicians with eggplants. Or oak trees. Or whatever.

      Though I must say that good old 'no-skeletons-in-my-closet' Russ is doing a good job.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
  13. The real answer to this question by foidulus · · Score: 1

    Is to start a 3rd party yourself. The problem with a 2 party system is that if neither party agrees with you on a viewpoint, you cannot express said viewpoint. You and your friends(the internet is great for organizing this) could always start a one-issue party and run for a local office(you have to start somewhere!) and convince others to join your cause. There have been a few one-issue parties in the past in the US, some successful(such as the Whigs whose initial issue was to be opposed to everything Andrew Jackson did) and less sucessful groups like the Free Soilers(abolition was their worthy, yet unsuccessful cause).
    If you are successful enough, major politicians make take note(helps if you beat one of them in their own ranks) and will assimiliate your views into their platforms(amazing how most politicians, including both presidential candidates, assimilate views based on a combination of principle and vote pandering)

  14. Here's an alternative source... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 1


    Listen to The Randi Rhodes Show... she recently got syndicated, so might be in your area. If she's not... listen to the streamed audio over the internet.

    I'm not involved with the show, just a fan who's happy she finally got syndicated.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  15. Public Whip - British Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a site in the UK at http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/index.php which takes data from the Parliamentary records (Hansard) and allows users to view voting records for their Members of Parliament.

    Their code is open source IIRC so might be adaptable to the US.

  16. Good guy: NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer by Speequinox · · Score: 1

    Eliot Spitzer does a lot of good internet work, like suing spammers and enforcing privacy rights, and today he will announce a settlement with five major music labels to force them to pay illegally-withheld royalties to musicians. He's got my vote when he runs for governor.

  17. Like the old saying.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who has any position of power, real or otherwise: Bad

    It's like the old saying: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government gets in."

  18. vote-smart.org by ThinkingGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm jumping into this rather late, but I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the Project Vote Smart. Just go to vote-smart.org and it'll tell you who your federal representatives are, at the federal and state level. It tells when they're up for re-election, their voting record on various issues, and their ratings by various interest groups. It's definitely helped me to be a more informed voter.

  19. Dave Bruderly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for Dave Bruderly as IT/Field organizer. Our entire campaign is open source, and Dave is aware of its importance. He supports the EFF and is against many DRM activities. He's also an Engineer who's an expert in Alternative Energy solutions.

    Go to www.bruderly.com for more info. Yes, we're redoing the site :)

  20. Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"? by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Have we all forgotten the PATRIOT Act? That huge pile of paper that none of our representatives read (not to mention it seems to have been written overnight - or more accurately, was written waaay prior to 9/11 - in anticipation? Or was more known?), but every single one of them voted for (ok, that isn't accurate - I think there was one representative who didn't vote for it or voted against it or something).

    A huge document (it was supposed to be several inches thick in its entirety) - but not one of our "representatives" actually read it and discussed it before voting on it. It tramples a whole host of our rights, rights guaranteed by our Constitution (and our guns, if "we the people" weren't such pussies) - this should be treasonable action - so why isn't anything happenning?

    Don't tell me "but we are at war" - WE ARE NOT AT WAR - Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war - only they can do this, and are required to do this by our laws and the Constitution, but this has not yet happened...

    How many "wars" have we been in since WWII that have been "declared wars"? None? They have all been "police actions" or "peacekeeping missions" or some other such drivel - yet we and the media (hell, even our President!) keep calling this a war, that a war - think of the children!

    It is sickening, it is disgusting, it is an abomination to the ideals which this country was founded upon.

    This is only one piece of so-called "bad legislation" - please. I could rattle off a ton more - you know it, I know it. Most of our congresscritters couldn't find their ass with both hands, many are in the employ of the RIAA and MPAA, bought and paid for with media dollars for legislations like the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The rest: they are bought and paid for various so-called "Christian" organizations, seeking to limit what can be done by and for science, in the name of some fantasy "man in the sky".

    Representatives, supposed "statesmen" (but very few deserve that title, once you know the definition of it) - people we supposedly elect (and even this is in question!!!) to protect our greater interests from the few - are instead in their pockets.

    Don't tell me that there aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" - most (all?) of our representatives willingly sacrificed our Constitutions when they voted and signed on to the PATRIOT Act without reading or discussing it. Many have lied, cheated, and stolen while in office. Our own President is a known alcoholic with a DUI!

    Remember friends, you reap what you sow - and this crop is the worst of them all.

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"? by Maul · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent Up!

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    2. Re:Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"? by Elias+Serge · · Score: 1

      Its interesting to note that the final version of the patriot act was released only 5 hours or so before the vote. Even the the congress-critters had a team of aides ready, they could read and anaylze the entire 542-page (i think) behemoth. If congress had actually been able to read the bill bofore the vote, some may have changed their minds.

    3. Re:Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you forgotten that the Patriot Act expires this year?

  21. WRONG! by poptones · · Score: 1

    They'll be supporting the thigns that get them the most MONEY. The votes are easy - they'll just lie about it later...