Slashdot Mirror
Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions
PostConsumerRecycled writes "CNN is reporting that 'The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders ... If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on December 31.' The story also links to listing of the provisions that will expire."
It's rather wryly amusing that the event that might have tipped the scales against the renewal of the Patriot Act was Dubya authorizing the unlawful surveillance of American citizens.
Honestly, we can't expect any better conduct from Bush, a president who has been quoted as saying the Constitution is'just a goddamned piece of paper'. Apparently he's forgotten all about that oath he took twice to uphold said 'piece of paper'. Fortunately, it looks like most of the Senate (including a few noteworthy Republicans who crossed the aisle on this one) have a slightly higher regard for the Constitution of the Unites States.
Excellent quote from TFA:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
How is this news for Nerd? This is political Troll trash.
Why did they fail? I see it as a success in not authoritizing it.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Russ for President in 2008
The New England Patriots have won three superbowls and not lost a playoff game. Now the act is in trouble... and the Pats are banged up, and no one gives them any chances to repeat. Coincidence?
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Hazzaaaaaaaaa!!!
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
Does this mean that they're finally listening to the people? Or are there no people to listen to, and we're just the minority?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Holy shit.... The government actually made a decision I agree with.
Seriously, these people are as bad as the terrorist [/sarcasm]
Thats not a bad troll in and of itself. But seriously, go back under your bridge.
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
Oddly enough, one of the Senators who wished the act would die was John Sununu. Good for him.
...that if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil near the scale of 9/11, that the pendulum will just swing the other way. We know now how far the government is willing to go to "protect" us, and they'll do it again in a heartbeat.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
The possible let-up on surveillance tyranny (barring further legislation)? Sounds more like a w00t!!1 moment than a case of Yuo fail it!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
don't really like 'Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions' would prefer Senate Succeeds in failing To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions'
Assuming it's true he said that, I wish someone had stepped up and replied "... and the bible is just a god damned [human authored] book"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
How about it's a huge defeat for national security? I'm not surprised CNN wrote it this way, but exactly how are we supposed to find Al Qaeda cells in the U.S.? Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?
The terrorists aren't going to bomb us because they're too crafty; they're going to bomb us because we're too stupid to stop them.
It is almost certain that it will pass in some form. Hopefully, the really nasty parts are gone.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hear my mightly WOOT!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
When our officials follow the laws granting them enumerated and limited power, I'll be impressed.
The is no provision for the PATRIOT Act in the Constitution.
Don't believe it is Bush's doing, either. Both parties are equally guilty of violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
I'm just annoyed that so many have soiled the heart of Christ's work by wrapping their fear and power-hunger in the trappings of faith and patriotism. And by so doing, ruining the good reputation of the sincere version of both of those.
I rejoice that the growing totalitarianism has been momentarily forestalled. Keep up the good work, ladies and gentlemen of the U. S. Senate.
ps: WTF's a "baptist voice"? We have individual voices, you know. Because we're individuals, right?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
the usa is a democracy, good gets done in the end after all is said and done
i wonder where all the hysterical twits went who proclaimed the usa a fascist theocracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Air America is reporting that Bill Frist voted to not renew the Patriot act, after chastising everyones concerns about its renewal. Can anyone veryify this?
So does a multi-party system. We could have a dictatorship and government would be very efficient indeed.
Filibusters are one of the few tools that prevent a slight majority from ramming through whatever legislation they want. Did you pass high school civics? They are in fact a critical part of checks and balances, or balance of power as you call it.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
this looks good but it isn't. they will still do these terrible things, they always said they weren't doing them anyway while they were
just a thought
This might lead to desparate measures. Of course, seeing the Bush administration heed desperate measures will probably be more like watching a train wreck. Makes you cringe, but entertaining at the same time.
It would have passed without a fillibuster, but the fillibuster was sustained with 52 votes against (60 are needed to end a fillibuster). Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin led the fillibuster.
Can't honestly say I know a whole lot about the Patriot Act, but Glenn Reynolds discussed it in his msnbc blog today. He quotes another blog which basically states that only about 1% of the Patriot Act is expiring due to the non-reauthorization. And that futher, much of the reauthorization would have put limits on the egregous non-expiring stuff. So, this is a mixed bag. Not sure if it's a victory or not. It's a symbolic victory, but perhaps not substantial...
It's not like federal authorities can't get permission to run wire-taps without the patriot act. Having to make their case to a judge surely puts some checks and balances into the system.
No. That's what WARRANTS are for!
But the requirement of a warrant keeps things somewhat in check...
Besides, even suspected terrorists are entitled to a full set of inalienable rights...
Yes, it may not be the fastest way to catch *EVERY* terrorist, but it can be highly effective and it is civilized.....
Such check also help prevent gross abuses of power (to some extent).
...I wouldn't really call it a failure.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The filibuster was meant to be a stranglehold over a large central government, not a partisan tool.
Before the terrible 17th Amendment, Senators were picked by state government, to balance the democratically elected House reps. Senators were to keep government small and defend the rights of the states.
They impede the government's ability to do the work it's intended for.
Funny, I thought part of thier job was protecting us from our own government's abuse ("Checks and Balances", it's called) as well as fundamentalist nutjobs.
If you call life under new patriot act a "Free society" you are either trying WAY to hard for a +1 funny, or you are out of your bleeding mind.
I agree with you completely, sir!
Because golly, who could have known that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US before the PATRIOT Act became law?
And all those silly provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that fully allow warrantless surveillance in emergency situations are just plain not enough to let our boys do their jobs!
"Senate fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions."
should be named into
Senate rejects to reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
"We know now how far the government is willing to go to "protect" us, and they'll do it again in a heartbeat."
No. We'll know how much the people will let them. Criticize the government all you want. But we both know the American people would have roasted the politicians alive, if they had done NOTHING after 9/11.
If anything, 6 uses in 4 years should tell you that this wasn't a needed law to begin with. By the way, could you back your claim of 6 uses with a single link?
Nice specious reasoning by the way. I've got a can of elephant repellent for sale of you want.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Regardless of whether the point is to target terrorists, there needs to be some check on the powers. In an unchecked society, we kidnap people off the streets in Germany, rendite (?) them to Afghanistan for several months, where we torture them and then realize it was all a case of mistaken identity, so we drop them off in Albania. The DOD starts keeping tabs on anti-war protestors. The President starts writing executive orders which allow the NSA to spy on American citizens. The "no torture" bill that passes is great, until the military decides to re-write the army field manual and then classify it, so we can't even say what torture is.
All in the name of protecting us from "terrorists"
I can't really call this a success, because the Senate didn't have the guts to actively reject it, but at least it's a start.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It probally had something to with this. We losing the war on terror, not winning it. It has nothing to do with how many terrorist we kill, but everything with giving away our civil liberties for the illusion of security. We need to put a leash on this government. With Iraq war, spying on US citizens without warrant, and torture, this administration has taken the 9/11 to far and drag every decent thing this country use to represent in the mud. I am definately paying attention 2006 and 2008 elections. I am holding my representatives accountable for this.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"ps: WTF's a "baptist voice"?"
I'd assume he means the self rightous, hellfire-and-brimstone voice commonly used by the TV evangelists. He may be painting with a broad brush, but I honestly don't know since I haven't actually paid attention to which sect TV evangelists tend to subscribe to.
Then again, I could be totally wrong.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Senate succeeds in blocking patriot act extension.
Whose team is CNN on, anyway? I think you all know the answer -- the more government is entangled in the media business, the more the media business is biased towards government.
No, they're not really listening very well. This wasn't a vote to kill the evil bill - this was the Democrats threatening to filibuster it if there's a vote on it, and the Republicans not having enough control over their party members to override and limit debate. Some of the Democrats, and maybe even some Republicans, may be listening to their consciences here, which would be a good start, or to reasoned public comment, though mostly they're listening to the political winds blowing and deciding that it's the right partisan move at the right time.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
In the english language, we use "her" to refer to a subject whom we know to be female. We say "they" or "he" when we do not know the gender or we are being non-specific about the subject.
We only use "they" when the subject is plural. In this case, since "individual" is singular and the pronoun is possessive, we would use "his."
Of course, the original poster could be a feminist, and then the rules of English do not apply.
He's not cuddly but he is smart.
"One of the Omni readers who scored highest on the Mega Test was John H. Sununu, then the governor of New Hampshire, and later Chief of Staff under President Bush. His score of 44 correct gave him an estimated I.Q. of 180 (achievable by approximately one in 3 million). "
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
What's up with these posts ? There's at least one in each story. Incomprehensible shit that points to a pumpkin imitation of goatse. An automated script perhaps ?
From TFA:
"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-New Hampshire.
Don't worry, Sununu didn't come up with that quote on his own. That's copied verbatim from Ben Franklin. Someone screwed up citing that.
Cease your hegemonic discourse.
Patriot act big PDF warning. I am happy that our government is actually trying to restore our rights. First they let the assault weapon ban drop, now they let the patriot act die. I know it is early, but this may be a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can continue to elect out the lawmakers who would lie and steal their voter's rights. IMHO moving away from the 2 party system would be another step in the right direction, but I will take what I can get.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
Bush calls Constitution just a G-ddamned piece of paper
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's frusterating for me to watch this sort of shit. Paranoids are making life less safe for us all, and why? Fear of the government seeing which mp3s and videos you've downloaded from kazaa? Please. This is -- was -- used to target terrorists.
Horseshit. The main use of the "Sneak and Peak" provision was for drug investigations.
Whatever you think of the drug laws, peddling dope is not a terrorist activity.
Thatw as the intial stated cause, but after about an hour they had to back pedle because it wasn't true.
The proper information was passed to the proper agencys in the proper manner, but they failed to see it's relevence. So it sat on a desk.
The problem was communication, and it's solvable without the patriot act.
The patriot act was used many more times then that. how many agencies used the patriot act to tap wires? every one that did without a court order was allowed becasue of the patriot act.
in the two hundred years prior to 9/11,How many time were we attacked prior to the patriot act? How many of those would the 'security' implemented since 9/11 have had a reasonable chance to stop?
Your ligoc, at its best, is specious.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Rense may be a dubious site, but the original article seems to have been at Capitol Hill Blue. I can't vouch for either of them, but the author Doug Thompson says he's confirmed it with three different aides.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Allowing the Patriot Act to lapse is one of the few truly patriotic things this Congress has done.
How did *your* Senator vote?
Privacy is considered a right by common law precedent, but it is not constitutionally protected.
Not even as a consequence of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments?
Remember one of the reasons 9/11 happened is because the different agencies had no legal means of doing some of the necessary investigation they wanted to do...I'm only speaking facts.
I doubt that has anything to do with why it happened. May have had something to do with why it wasn't prevented, but even that is doubtful. In a perfectly totalitarian world we would all just sit around investigating each other so nobody did anything bad. Sure, if all of the different agencies had unlimited funds and a legal means of doing all of the investigating they wanted it might have stopped 9/11. Would it have been worth it? Absolutely not. Many millions have died since this countries inception to protect it's freedoms. Their sacrifice should not be negated due to the tragedy of 9/11.
Find coupons in Greeley
*Cough* Uhh.. All the agencies had lots of legal means to obtain the information.
Just like us Brits had lots of legal ways to obtain information about the IRA, and the bombings still continued.
You basically make the choice: You don't care how many innocent suffer, as long as a guilty is found, or, you make all efforts to protect the innocent, which may mean the guilty get away now and then.
In a world where you judge every person as incapable of action independantly, you chose the former, and all rights and responsibilities of the individual are assumed by the state (totalitarian state).
In a world where you treat people as being able to be responsible in their own right, you grant the power to the people to act.. Which is, I believe, the reason you have gun ownership written into your basic rights.
You must admit that black market money is used by terrorists.
A good source of untraceable cash is illegal drug sales.
For the easily confused, or poorly educated(probably not the parent):
this was not a statement in any way about the legalization of drugs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If it were "most" of the Senate, they could have voted down this evil bill and gotten rid of it. Unfortunately that's not the case - the Republicans just don't have enough control of their party members to get a 60% supermajority to override a Democratic filibuster. That does mean that a few Republicans and a few Democrats appear to have actual concerns of conscience about it, and most of the Democrats at least view this as a good partisan opportunity that won't lose them support back home because Patriot is unpopular.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Nobody but the fucking Chimp-in-Charge himself...
2 392932.html
"Bush said, 'Yes, I do' when asked if he believes DeLay is innocent. And he said he hopes that DeLay will return to his leadership post."
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2005/12/14/ap
Prejudicial remarks from the White House? Nixon got reamed for prejudicial remarks. But then that was back when the US had a functional news media.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Yeah, but only because Saddam didn't try to kill your dog's dad.
... since the attack, and going heavy with spying on USA citizens or Rambo action in foreign countries won't be accepted well by the people.
Politicians are driven by their interests first and foremost, and public support is also part of that interest.
However, with the provisions now failing to pass, you can expect more "terrorist attack expected in city X in place Y" bogus reports coming from various organisations, to boost fear and try again to pass the provisions.
Fear is power.
With the history of U.S. Government abuses of law, especially under this administration, isn't it possible that the various agencies will just ignore the fact that the provisions are now defunct?
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
No, this is more than just not getting enough votes to overcome a filibuster. This is nearly half a dozen Republicans turning on Bush and his cronies and saying things like "They that would give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (John Sununu, quoting Benjamin Franklin)
That's one small step for justice, one giant leap for freedom.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Mike, that last phrase it what worries me.
Those who would destroy your freedoms will get what they can take.
I'm going to put on my flame retardant suit and fire this one up. The problem is that people want to kill us. In order to protect ourselves, we can simply stop everyone who wants to kill us from succeding (Patriot Act). This works great if there are very few people who want to kill us. If there are too many people who want to kill us then limiting that number becomes crucial.
Unfortunately, this means we have to ask ourselves why people want to kill us. The GWB story is that they are jealous because we are the embodiment of god's will (I'm paraphrasing). Personally, I think it is more closely related to foreign policy especially as it relates to domestic energy policies.
If the notion that we might want to understand why terrorists, and deposed dictators don't like us is too unpatriotic, then I guess we will continue with the same type of policies. Considering that we sold Saddam WMDs and trained and funded Al Qaeda this might be worth a second look.
Does anybody else despise CNN's word choice of "fails" in this headline? The Senate "fails" implies that it is something that should have been done but they were simply unable to achieve. How about a more neutral word, like "declines"? -jag
When all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a Messiah.
Dear Sir,
So long as I have had my current winter coat, there have been no terrorist attacks on America. I will now use your logic and conclude that my winter coat is responsible for protecting us against terrorists. God forbid I ever get a new winter coat.
Also, please provide citations regarding the 6 times this act was invoked. I'm sure you've missed at least one since many proceedings under the PATRIOT Act are classified.
"The core of true Christian philosophy is the value and freedom of the individual and her private relationship with God."
no, it's not.
According the the Bible(King James) you are to follow the laws of your land, unless they conflict with God.
Nothing about freedom.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is there a list of who voted for and who voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act? It doesn't have to be only the Patriot Act but other things they've voted on.
I would like to support my senators who did the right thing but how am I if I have no idea how they voted?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
You forget in the world we live in everything corrupt. The church is full of power hungry child molesters (maybe a little too trollish, but bare with me), we've got to the point where people can communicate on mass, so we learn how to control this mass. We manipulate it to sell crap, whore people and basicly make a society of "us" (the minions) and "them" (people with power).
The church had this power for hundreds of years, so people flocked to it who wanted power. Now these same people have bred through the generations and taught the kids to "be the best, horde money and power". They kept doing it untill this generation where it really did get to an insanely inbalanced level. The imbalance is now so strong they are all but untouchable, so with the mentality they have they're going to do whatever they like and "obviously" they're right, because "might is right" in the society we live in.
These same people have corrupted the churchs ideals. So instead of it being "love thy neighbour" "Untill you're perfect STFU about someone who isn't". It's instead "screw everyone, I'm right and God says the same", these people also happen to be the loudest and the dumbest..
These people encourage others to be "the same", where they forget knowledge and horde money instead. Which breeds idiotic minions.. the numbers of idiots now far outweighs the smart people.. so these rich idiots get twice as much power and an army to manipulate..
So adding everything up (sorry it's a bit of a mess, I'm ill and can't think straight). The corrupt are now in charge, the church over the years has been very corrupt and got to a state where it's not at all like it should be. Society is now suffering the same ignorance and hatred.. they're happy in their ignorance and keep being encouraged to follow it..
So corrupt religion + corrupt ideals = God loves me, he wants me to do what I'm doing.. These people don't know any better, we should pity them really..
I like muppets.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Why don't we, as voters, elect smart people to represent us in our government? It's inconceiveable that we'd demand anything less...
its word for word..
to comprehend, then it must not have happened! That's right, anything that you either are scared to fathom or never thought of has actually NEVER HAPPENED! Isn't that reassuring to know that if your head is burried in the sand, everyone else's is too? If you close your eyes, it will all go away.
Don't celebrate too soon.
Note that Sen. Frist voted with the majority. He didn't do this because he agreed that the act should expire, but because it will allow him to call a new vote whenever he sees that he can turn the tables. And given his Senate leadership position, that means he can wait until a few people leave chambers and call a quick vote very easily.
This will not be over even if the act does expire... you can expect to see some provisions stealthily wedged into unrelated bills next year. The only way to really end this is to elect a Congress and President that takes civil liberties seriously.
Get on it, people. The 2006 Congressional elections are coming up fast.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
This isn't over yet. There are two more weeks left in the year. Expect some hardball from the Bush Administration.
In Soviet Russia, conversations record YOU!
The first rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or to put it in plainer English, "You still have *all* your rights, even if we didn't mention them here."
This is the clause you use against those who claim "There is no Constitutionally guaranteed 'right to privacy'". Yes there is, the Founders just didn't bother to enumerate it.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions" Fails? Politcal bias, much? I don't see any failure in this.
Very good point, AC, my intention of that sentence was indicating that any change in a bureaucracy as large as the US gov't would not happen overnight. It will take a while to get the wrong-headed out of office and a while longer to reverse the abuses the past regimes have passed. Did you know that no one that passed the PATRIOT act admits to even reading the darn thing prior to the vote? Apathy has no place where people's rights are involved.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
Submit it again, it will be accepted as a dupe. *ducks*
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
After 9/11 they said "the government failed to connect the dots".
Now, 4 years later, we've decided we don't even care to try to connect the dots any more. I guess it's a good thing terrorism doesn't exist any more and we'll never again be threatened by it.
Hide the dots. Mod them away.
Capital Hill Blue and Rense may not be reliable sources, but given that this president has stated that it would be easier if the US were a dictatorship (as long as he were the dictator), would a lack of respect for the constitution *really* surprise you?
Frankly, I'd believe it if the Weekly World News said that Bush eats babies.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
You must have either a very bad or very selective memeory because I recall a lot of hoopla about anthrax and hearing about people in the United States dying from it. And the Patriot Act never caught them either. It only infringed on our freedoms.
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Do you know this, or are you merely assuming it based on your deep trust of those to whom we're granting these powers, now and forever more? Or perhaps it's just the excellent track record through history of leaders that have achieved absolute power?
the tinfoil brigade is helping to bring down the very free society they claim to want to protect.
And this concerns you exactly why? How could you possibly define "free society" in a way that is compatible with a permanent Patriot Act, as currently formulated?
I've seen a lot of one sided debates on Slashdot (particularly Microsoft bashing), but I think this one wins hands down. I would dare say that 99% of the people posting haven't actually read the Patriot Act or even its main provisions. They are like sheep following a few ACLU freaks that have no common sense when it comes to balancing security needs against liberties.
Most of the provisions are just common sense loopholes in the old law that should be permanently plugged. For example, roaming wiretaps. So, I can get a warrant to wire-tap a particular phone, regardless of who is using it, but I can't get a warrant to on-the-fly wiretap any phone the suspect happens to pick up. How does that make any sense at all? The Patriot Act plugs this silly problem because technology allows an officer with a warrant to wiretap an individual to immediately tap any phone the suspect picks up within a matter a seconds.
And even then the Patriot Act limits this ability to terrorism investigations. Law enforcement has had this ability for years when dealing with organized crime, but it has been prohibited in other types of investigations. Only a moron would think this provision an assault on civil liberties.
Or how about the provision that allows spy agencies to share intelligence they have discovered with law enforcement agencies. This was a big problem leading up to 9/11, where intelligence agencies had information that would have gave the FBI a fighting chance at preventing the attacks, but by law weren't allowed to share the information. Yeah, I can see how letting the CIA tell the FBI about some terrorist that just entered the country might infringe on my civil liberties....NOT.
The list goes on but I think you get the point. There are certainly some provisions that are a little questionable, but on the whole the Patriot Act makes a lot of sense. I really fail to see how any of these provisions could be construed to reach the level of 'unreasonable searches and seizures". Just more ACLU propoganda run amuck.
If you want a two sided debate, how about somebody post a specific provision of the Patriot Act that they don't like and explain how it personally affects their personal liberties.
Bush's reign of terror is over. Lame duck president. No patriot act. Good for us all.
I believe this is the best outcome you can expect after the past 4 years of horrible mismanagement.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
"It's these sorts of things that will demonstrate just what kind of man you Americans have put in the White House. "
Every time the issue of hypocrisy is brought up on slashdot. Someone always points out how diversed slashdot is, and therefore there's no bias here. But when discussing American politics and specifically the president. It's "You Americans" and "Your President". So how about we discuss "Your Prime Minister Tony Blair".
What we need is a movement for States' Rights. What do you do when all three branches collude to grow the central state? If you're the governor of a state, why, you nullify the usurpation, and keep your militia (the Guard) ready. That is the check and balance that has been scrubbed from all Officially Approved American Government classes.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
"[...] the Pats are banged up, and no one gives them any chances to repeat."
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
Well, either that, or a Senator who reads slashdot.
While filibuster's are a critical part of the proccess they aren't what you generally think of. Nowdays its not Mr. Smith goes to Washington where senators stand up and talk for hours on end. Instead its simply the vocalized "threat" of a filibuster. Personally I like Filibusters, but in the way they were intended to be executed, not this wimpy threat stuff.
In classic style; the whimpering left is dying to keep their debaucherous lives under wraps. And by doing, have once again crippled our country's ability to defend itself. This self indulgent political opportunism is the exact cause of 911. I read over the 16 items up for expiration and it's utterly pathetic that all of them are designed to protect this country, its people, and our way of life, but they are viewed as a threat by these simpletons because, Heaven forbid, they might just get caught up in a dragnet targeting terrorist... More terrorists attacks will be performed on our soil, you liberals (Demoncracks) need to reflect on this moment before you go get stoned and start pointing fingers at the current government like you did post 911 when the next attack comes. This action today precisely illustrates EXACTLY why we can't stop them.
Whoa there!!! Hold on. The poster's obvious intention of this article is to incite partisan squabbles and propagate radical rhetoric. Whoever posted this article obviously does not understand the nature of democracy and representative government. The Senate majority is composed of "Republican Leaders". If the Senate (Republican Leaders) did not decide to renew some provisions of the patriot act, then it is the Senate (Republican Leaders) that decided that renewing those provisions was not necessary or desired. Furthermore, the president does not write legislation: the President only approves or vetos legislation that created by Congress. To ascribe legislation to the President is to completely ignore that legislation is 1) written in the house of representatives 2) passes thru subcommittee 3) gets approved by the house 4) goes thru the same process in the Senate. To say that this is a "huge blow to Republican leaders" is to to completely ignore the fact that "Republican Leaders" (8) decided that the legislation was not good. The poster chooses to believe that the GOP or the democratic party is some kind of united front with all the same views. But no political party is that way. Political parties have sub groups with differing views, and this is one issue where a section of the GOP decided not to endorse specific provisions of legislation. The poster wishes to incite partisanship and divisiveness, rather than accurately portraying democracy in action. He wishes to make out the GOP as some kind of Nazi storm troopers, but this is not the case, and an in depth analysis clearly shows the posters intentions.
"You must admit that black market money is used by terrorists. A good source of untraceable cash is illegal drug sales."
You must admit as well that the primary substance for terrorist nourishment, known to the layman as "food," is bought and sold by those very terrorists in largely untraceable transactions.
This points to one possible solution to terrorism: prohibit the consumption of food, or, should that prove too difficult, encourage sneak-and-peek investigations of anyone suspected of handling food. I think you'll find that nearly all terrorists fall within that group, and you could probably catch them on some technicality even if they won't admit their terrorist sympathies.
You must admit that black market money is used by terrorists. A good source of untraceable cash is illegal drug sales.
d ing_impact.asp (This is the definition of propaganda.)
Another good source is oil sales.
*ducks*
Anyhow, the state badly wants you to believe that drug money funds terrorism (afterall, President Bush said so!): http://www.theantidrug.com/drugs_terror/understan
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
What I read said that once he knew it would fail, he switched sides so that he could later bring it to a vote again. In other words, it'd just be a parlimentary maneuver, not actual opposition.
in europe each year more people are killer by cars than by terrorists.
i guess it's the same in the us.
i'd say it's time for a war on cars aswell.
Privacy is terrorism.
So no, but before such laws were in place, technically yes.
If there is a lawless zone anywhere where only the constitution applied then technically you could eat babies and claim constitutional validation, but seeing as its a lawless zone youd just be lynched by a mob.
Yeah, I figured it would modded down. People like this can't stand to hear opinions they don't like.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm utterly impressed by this. I think the PATRIOT act was originally passed because it ram-rodded through congress without giving anyone a chance to really look into it's dark underbelly.
It was a civil liberties nightmare. I'm so glad Bush and the Republican party got their comeuppance on this one. Now if we could only find a decent USSC candidate that doesn't want to further erode civil rights.
And to make it even sweeter - I noticed the cover of Newsweek had a caricature of Bush in a bubble. As someone elsewhere posted, when Clinton visits Europe or Asia he's treated like a rock star. When George W. Bush visits those countries mass demonstration and protests erupt.
I guess they realized they made a mistake. Now hopefully we can elect new government leaders that don't make decisions out of fear.. then again I am a wishful thinker.
Have you thought at all about why secrecy and exemption from judicial review - along with dentention without charge or trial and, I have to add, torture - is so important to this administration? Well, think about it now. Those things may not help catch the bad guys, but they certainly do help cover your incompetence if you don't. They have no purpose except to erase the distinction between guilt and innocence, because the public will be equally and ignorantly satisfied with either.
I heard recently that there have been something like 10,000 National Security Letters sent so far; is this correct? These are one of the more objectionable manifestations of the Patriot Act: The government demands anything of you that it wants, no warrant is needed, there is no judicial review or right of appeal, and it is a crime to reveal to anyone that you've received one!
Hello, anyone at slashdot worried about civil rights should contact your senators, just go to senate.gov and fill out the web form. I emailed both of my senators yesterday and it's a great feeling to think that I helped make a difference in stopping the Patriot act in being reauthorized.
Rense is neither racist nor anti semitic. He personally is anti zionist, a really large difference. Look it up if you don't know the difference. "Zionism" is a rather extreme and predatory political movement, it is not a "race". There are secular jewish zionists, atheist zionists, even christian zionists, of all human "races" and colors. It's a political distinction-get it now?
The closest thing to it, in a parallel analogy, might be the Wahhabists, an extreme mostly-muslim movement with predatory political overtones...Very similar goals and tactics to the zionists. both are equally repulsive. Not liking either does not make one a racist either, one merely needs to dislike their politics.
If you note on his page, he has quite a few jewish orgs who support him, those who are opposed to zionism, or opposed to the long term goal of a planned conquest of the mideast and overt and covert manipulation of the US/UK political process by the current government of Israel.
Don't confuse legitimate political differences with racism, even though certain other political orgs, like the JDL, etc., want you to. Resist the brainwashing/propoganda efforts. Just as with muslims in general, don't fall for the propoganda that all muslims are "al queda terrorists". Rense is an *extremely strong and vocal supporter of free speech and human rights for all*-not just a select few, but for ALL, and for generally cutting through the B.S. that passes for "news" today, and for letting the chips fall where they may in the nature of true reporting-no sacred cows or untoucable taboos like you get with the bulk of the Main Stream Media.
I think it involves giving the editors BJs.
See how your Senators voted:
/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote =00358
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists
I'm just annoyed that so many have soiled the heart of Christ's work by wrapping their fear and power-hunger in the trappings of faith and patriotism. And by so doing, ruining the good reputation of the sincere version of both of those.
The fact that you may be one of the more sober Christians does not mean that the crazier ones are any less "truly" Christian than you. All you are doing is wrapping up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in overwrought language.
Christianity is what Christians are. If you don't enjoy the company you keep, no one is asking you to stay. The more you defend Christianity, the more false -- yes, false -- credibility you give it, and the more you empower the very people who would do evil in its name. It is false credibility because it conflates an ideal Christianity with the reality of Christianity.
Frankly, I'm sick to death of hearing this kind of crap from milquetoast Christians who can't muster up any feelings stonger than "annoyance" at what is being done.
Think of the title this way: Most senators wanted to pass the extension. They could not end the filibuster without 60 votes, so they failed. They did not reject the extension because they did not even vote on it.
IIRC, the "Patriot" Act was voted on by both houses and signed by Bush BEFORE it was returned from the first printing. Most, if not all, of our congress people DID NOT KNOW exactly what they were voting on, but in the hysteria of the moment they allowed themselves to be railroaded by fear.
Hopefully, this unconstitutional abomination of a bill will never resurrect itself. Any congressmen who tries to bring this monstrosity back should be tried for treason. Why do we need to worry about terrorists when gutless politicians do more damage to the Constitution than a bomb ever could?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
You can see how your state's Senators voted here.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
So, this just means it's 1983. 1984 is still coming.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
For many reading this thread, I suspect that the post 9/11 environment, and concerns about government over-reach are largely academic or driven by ideology (mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad thiing, really). For me, they're a bit more real.
... for a while there, it was quite common, since I might look like 'the enemy').
I was interviewed by the FBI in October 2001, as part of the 9/11 investigation for several hours by Special Agents of the FBI. While they never came out and told me why they wanted to talk to me, they were particularly interested in my general aviation flying. It appears that my "crime" was having a funny name (I'm of South Asian descent) and having a student pilot's license. The FBI did know quite a bit about me, such as what videotapes and such I'd purchased from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" and other similar items.
At the time, I didn't really mind the questioning - I felt that it was my patriotic duty to assist in the investigation. However, in subsequent years, my attempts to get my FBI records (and I know they have them, obviously) have been unsuccessful. The response to my FOIA requests state that they cannot release my information for "national security" reasons pertaining to "an ongoing investigation." So does this mean my name is cleared?
I haven't had any follow-ups with the FBI, and recent LiveScan background checks I've gone through (I work in EMS, and it's required in the county I work in) turned out OK, and I have no problems getting on an airline (and I don't usually get yanked out of line for the special screening anymore
My point in this is that we Americans must remain ever vigilant that our civil rights, our freedoms and our liberties remain protected. I am troubled when I listen to certain people talk about "Freedom" and "Democracy" in one sentence and then in the next breath go on and describe their desires for what amounts to a fascist state without any sense of irony. If we are to remain a nation of laws, we must remain aware of what's going on, and we must recognize that if only one person is denied their liberty, or due process, then we are all at risk.
I wish I knew the magic formula for getting a submission accepted
IANAMagician, but try this:
1. Google's inherently non-evil news aggregator confirms that BSD isn't dead
2. ????^H^H^H^HNetcraft confirms that Linus Torvalds has killed Roland Piquepaille
3. Constitution! As overlord! Profit!
[RANT] #3 is particularly important because many world citizens, both at home and abroad, are so often appalled by the willingness of the people of the USA to see its government stomp all over the Constitution on behalf of paranoia, insularity, xenophobia and rampant corporatism. This restoration of faith and hope may be as small as the proportion of renewable elements in that there Patriot Act, but it means a lot. It's disappointing that it took a superannuated grunt like Jack Murtha to flip the switch in DC, but right now the world citizen will take what he/she can get. [/RANT]
The Jesus Factor (torrent)
So get a clue trollboy, Bush is all about religion.
I know it's just a joke, but...
"I think therefore I am" can be broken down logically into two propositions, P = "think" and Q = "exist". "therefore" is the same thing as "implies", so we can say "I think" implies "I exist", or, symbolically, P => Q.
"You don't think therefore you don't exist", then, can be symbolically written as ~P => ~Q (read as "not" P implies "not" Q). ~P => ~Q is known as the converse of P => Q (it is in fact logically equivalent to Q => P) and assuming that an implication and its converse are logically equivalent is one of the most common logical fallacies.
To see that ~P => ~Q is equivalent to Q => P, it is important to recognize that any implication is equivalent to its contrapositive, ~Q => ~P. Let's take an example. "If you post on slashdot about people's sigs, then you are a moron". In this case, let's let P = "post on slashdot about people's sigs" and Q = "are a moron". Then the contrapositive ~Q => ~P is "If you are not a moron, then you do not post on slashdot about people's sigs." The example should demonstrate the equivalence of the two statements (a more rigorous proof can be had by comparing truth tables for the two statements).
It is therefore easy to see that the converse of P => Q, generally taken to be Q => P, is equivalent to ~P => ~Q by the contrapositive identity. It should be clear that in the form Q => P (If you are a moron, then you post on slashdot about people's sigs) is not true -- it is trivial to find examples of morons that do not even know that slashdot exists, and thus certainly don't post offtopic comments about people's sigs. It is not much harder to see that the converse in the form ~P => ~Q (If you do not post on slashdot about people's sigs, then you are not a moron) is likewise not equivalent; after all, many morons don't post on slashdot.
By using this contrived example we are able to see that cogito ergo sum cannot be equivalent non cogitas ergo non es, unless cogitare is logically equivalent to esse, which Descartes unfortunately did not tell us, but which we can take a gander at: does everything that exists think? I'm tempted to say no, but who can tell?
An example:
210, 211 allow the government to retrieve non-content information from ISP's including IP address assignments, billing and payment information (including bank account and credit card numbers)
Inform me if I'm wrong, but this applies to everyone reading this post. The gov't can get the account numbers from the credit companies, so why are they obtaining it from ISP's? (of course, this is to identify accomplices who pay for the internet service...but, I'll continue) As a network administrator, I protect my users by limiting the duration network logs are stored. Unfortunately, I cannot do the same with billing and payment information. When the government comes knocking, I have to cough up anything they wish for and they're not required to provide a court order to get it.
217 - provides the ability for the gov't to spy on anyone suspected of computer trespassing. Ever visited a questionable site that redirected to another site that was unavailable? How easy would it be to redirect an unsuspecting user to an access controlled gov't page - thereby implicating them as a computer trespasser. It's easier than you might think.
Have you been spied on by a foreign gov't yet? You'll probably never know because 218 defines that secret searches can now be authorized by a secret court without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege there is any foreign intelligence basis for the search.
Ooh, I totally skipped 215 that private records aren't private to the gov't. Oh yeah, they can seize them without warrant.
I would hope that these sections don't apply to me. 210 and 211 apply to me, but I resist them as much as possible. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to talk about any gov't entities that requested that information from me. The rest, I would never really know if they apply to me or not, as they gov't isn't required to tell me, or anyone that they've utilized the provisions.
IMHO, the gov't has way overstepped it's boundaries, and has been doing so for decades. If the People don't take control of the gov't, one day, the sheep...er...people will wake up to find they are no longer free. On that day, you'll find me (if you can) living deep in the sticks with my kitty-cat, tinfoil hat and guns.
"Lame" - Galaxar
see the other replies for why
Ok. I hope you really don't believe that they have only used it 6 times.
We've given up our liberty for the appearance of security. The terrorists have won.
How to keep the country running and yet combat the deficit even has party allies drawing swords. It's taxes and spending debated per usual -- but this time it's the difference between the House and Senate budget priorities that's causing all the heat. In an editorial, THE WASHINGTON POST said "though neither offers much to cheer about, the Senate's version is by far the fairer. It would cut $35 billion in projected entitlement spending over the next five years, compared with $50 billion in the House version. But the differences between the two bills are bigger than those numbers suggest. The Senate would make the cuts without digging into programs for low-income people." THE ECONOMIST echoed these sentiments somewhat, noting, " The House package, supported by Mr Bush, tries to cement his tax-cutting legacy...Some 40% of the House tax cuts would go to those earning more than $1m a year; the very rich would get only 8% of the Senate's cuts."
Below are links to the ongoing debates surrounding U.S. fiscal policy -- reducing the deficit, tax cut plans, and budget priorities. Explore both sides of the debates and then do your own number crunching by visiting sites with budget numbers and analyses.
Civil Liberties and the Patriot Act:
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Not for profit grassroots group concerned with American civil liberties. The site contains updates on local civil liberties actions, tools for activists, a legislation watch and policy briefs on the Patriot Act.
The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security offers information about Homeland Security legislation, the President's Homeland Security proposal, and analysis of the department. Other features include transcripts of speeches given by Governor Tom Ridge at the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation 2002 Service to America Summit and President Bush's Address to the Nation concerning homeland security. Online chat transcripts with Governor Ridge are also included.
Homeland Security, Homeland Profits
On the Corpwatch Web site (a corporate watchdog group), Wayne Madsen argues that corporations are standing to make billions from selling "surveillance and information-gathering systems to government agencies and the private sector." Madsen cautions that this technology will be utilized to intimidate and squelch dissent.
How the USA Patriot Act Puts the CIA Back in the Business of Spying On Americans
In this issue brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the USA Patriot Act includes domestic espionage against American citizens. According to the ACLU, the USA Patriot Act "permits a vast array of information gathering on U.S. citizens from school records, financial transactions, Internet activity, telephone conversations, information gleaned from grand jury proceedings and criminal investigations to be shared with the CIA (and other non-law enforcement officials) even if it pertains to Americans."
Does this mean we should expect another terrorist attack soon?
-Palal
The Bible also claims that the individual was made by God, while the state is merely made by man. It further claims that the individual will last forever, while the state is of finite duration.*
* specific verses quoted on request.
I'm not sure from your post just what you mean, so please, if my disagreement seems blunt or harsh, consider this my limitation:
1. I don't understand why you wrote "(King James)" without an actual quote from that translation following.
2. From what you wrote following that, I can't tell if you are referring to something in the New Testament or the Old. If the New, and particularly some of the things attributed to Christ Himself, you may be responding fairly on thread to the earlier poster, but if you're thinking of some of the Old Testament verses that could apply, it's not much of a response to that poster's claim. Even if you are referring to the "render unto Caesar" verses, that's open to a lot of interpretation. Speaking of that interpretation, you do know that "Christian philosophy", would normally be as much a reference to the writings of Augustine or Aquinas, if not newer authors up to Berkley, Kirkegaard, and Tolstoy, and probably way beyond, as directly to the Bible? People have been defining how (and if) they think that verse should be balanced with their versions of the ideal of human freedom for nearly two thousand years, and they've come up with some pretty good answers. Right now, you're parroting an arguement every Christian abolitionist during the Civil war considered and rejected.
The Constitution of the United States does not contain the word "privacy". Nowehere in the 14th amendment is there a reference to corporations. From these two facts, I can, using your logic, offer a hearty "no it's not." and "Nothing about freedom" to just about every person today who claims the Constitution is about the value and freedom of individuals, since the overwhelming majority of people today subscribe to at least one of those two points as being interpretable from the document.
Who is John Cabal?
Some of these subsections were good but all could be abused, and no their loss won't cost us the war on terrorism; Here are a few of the sunset provisions; Section 202: Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.(ok we have a law for this already right) Section 206: Allows federal officials to issue roving "John Doe" wiretaps for spy and anti-terrorism investigations.( this is a boomerang, it meant that they could tap any phone at any time, no proof needed,other than the request for a tap) Section 209: Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant. (this one should've stayed, this was useful) Section 220: Provides for nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence. (they need to limit this to a per jurisdiction issue, for good reason, they can have a warrant from an east coast federal court served in a west coast federal jurisdiction, there are only 100 ways this could go wrong) Section 225: Amends FISA to prohibit lawsuits against people or companies that provide information to federal officials for a terrorism investigation. (this one should stay, the ISP or person should (in concept) be under legal threat if they don't comply)
The Patriot Act makes paying any US tax illegal?
This is how the reasoning goes:
The Patriot Act makes financing ANY terrorist organization illegal.
Fair enough, but it has a very broad definition of any terrorist organization.
A terrorist organization attacks civilians, kills people, & uses force to forward its agenda.
The USA has more military bases around the world than any other nation in the history of mankind.
The USA has nuclear weapons, ICBMs no less -
a very effective potential terrorist blackmail weapon - 'Do as we say or get nuked!'
The USA is the ONLY nation to deploy nuclear weapons against civilian populations. Twice.
The USA invaded Iraq, and currently is occupying Iraq, but maybe they will leave that place soon, in
the next 60 years or so...
The USA invaded Afghanistan, many civilians and related people were killed.
I don't have space to list all the things going down in South America, you can find that yourself.
Did we mention torture and secret prison camps?
The USA maintains one of the largest and most lethal armed forces on the planet, and soon - also in space.
So,
Unfortunately it seems like the Patriot Act classification for Terrorist groups can apply to the whole USA.
So,
the Patriot Act makes paying income tax, sales tax, real estate tax, and related taxes illegal,
because that would be considered to be providing support,
providing support to the USA, which commits acts of terrorism in South America, the Middle East, Asia,
and now has been shown to be committing acts of spying upon it's own people.
(In fact the whole growth of the USA by taking land from Native Americans is a form of terrorism, right?)
If the IRS ever wants to get paid again by U.S. citizens,
the Patriot Act must go.
Or
The Act can be rewritten to say 'It's ok to pay for the USA terroristic efforts, the USA spying on its own citizens, USA oil grabbing free-for-alls, and foreign government toppling insurgent activities (sponsored by the USA) all around the world.'
I am not speaking against the USA or against paying taxes,
I am simply pointing out that if people actually obeyed the full letter of the law of the Patriot Act,
Technically, they are not allowed to pay their own government any taxes!
Talk about a Catch-22!
Everyone who filed an income tax return since 2001 - is now in violation of the Patriot Act!!!
(but the law requires you to pay taxes, but the Patriot Act forbids you to financially support terrorism. If you don't pay taxes - they will use terrorism against you, taking your money, kidnapping you, holding you for ransom, attack your home and family, etc. So you pay the taxes to the terrorists to prevent them from terrorizing you. They use your taxes to buy manpower, weapons and equipment to terrorize, threaten, and spy on you with, infinite loop for all eternity...)
'Help, Help, I'm being oppressed!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!'
BLOODY PESANT!
Shut Up!
Stop Thinking!
Do as you're told!
Believe the Lies!
Electronic elections safeguard your security, NO you don't need a paper trail!
Paper trails are for leftist pinko commies!
The Ohio election results are True!
Don't Question Authority!
Science is Evil Witchcraft! Be a Patriot!
Please, just keep walking blindly forward into the meat grinder, thank you!
Oh, Oh - look over there - IRAN will have ICBMs in 6 minutes from now,
Quick, burn the constitution and bill of rights, it's the only way to protect your mama from them thar Iranians!
When do we invade Iran anyway? After Christmas, or before next Ramadan?
If my "we" you mean, "myself and other ignorant people," fair enough.
The rest of us don't find "their" and "they" as singular indefinite pronouns to be a problem. Indeed, "their" as a singular indefinite pronoun has a long history. If it was good enough for the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, C.S. Lewis, and Oscar Wilde, it's good enough for me.
Don't be grammar nazi unless you're damn sure of yourself. And even then, don't be a grammar nazi because it makes you a dick.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I'm amazed at the politically one sided nature of these comments.
The word is render.
Yes, that is the same word we use for what happens to leftover pieces of livestock after they've been through the slaughterhouse.
And somehow people believe this practice reflects poorly on us. Please excuse me while my mind fails to boggle.
Permit me to remind everyone of the recent history associated with Section 213. The Clinton Admin tried to push it through congress while asserting they already had the power to do that in the Scarfo case. It was shot down. Then they tried to attach it to a Meth bill. Shot down again. Finally they tried to sneak that provision through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. Shot down again. Three times, you're out, right? Nope, and it's all thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act.
40 years ago, this country disallowed search warrants for 'mere evidence.' Now, you can not only get a warrant for 'mere evidence,' but you can do it KGB style and secretly plant cameras and bugs in a citizen's home while they are away and not tell said citizen about it for months... Doesn't anyone have a problem with that? Every day I live, our constitution reminds me more and more of China's...
A grand ideal on paper, and routinely ignored in it's entirety. Politicians should face charges of treason or at the very least, jail time, for breaking the fundamental laws of this nation.
by Virtuous
Not because "we" like what s/he is saying, but because we need to hear it...
i got your "stronger feelings" right here.
i'm entirely willing to say that the folks in question - folks like Bush - aren't true Christians, at least in most senses of the word (that is, the original one for sure, and most modern ones). you're misusing the "True Scotsman" fallacy, too. the reason that's a logical fallacy, and not a valid arguing tactic, in the canonical example is that the speaker (who claims no true scotsman would like grits or whatever) can neither give a coherent definition of the term or show how the behavior he's disqualifying the subject for relates to any extant definition. i'll happily dispel each of these.
Christian, in the original sense, meant one who followes the teachings of Christ; this remains the most significant use of the term today (although it's been muddied some after the Protestant Reformation, who started conflating that idea with the idea of the primacy of belief). one who does not strive to follow those teachings is not a Christian. being a Christian does not mean we succeed at following those teachings; in fact, it's expected that we will often fail. but it does mean we're trying.
i'm willing to argue that Bush is not truly a Christian. i base this on his actions. his consistent undercutting of funding for social services, wholesale shutdown of many programs, his arrogance are all counter to one who is trying to follow Christ's teachings. and that's before we get into his responsibility for over a hundred thousand deaths in Iraq, his consistent lies about it, his fear-mongering over "terrorism" for political gain. his environmental policy pretty much indicates that he's willfully neglecting the Christian call to stewardship, and his "right to life" stance is clearly not based on a Christian concept of sanctity of life when it's divorced from the influence that has on the death penalty or care for the poor and persecuted throughout the world (the Catholic Church, for all it's many problems, is at least consistent on this point). and, perhaps most directly contradictory, his use of religion as a political tool. Christ told his followers to go pray in closets so as not to let their spiritual life become something to boast about, unlike what Christ called "the hypocrites". few people fit that bill better than Bush does.
and yes, this is me judging Bush in a way that the Bible probably tells me not to. i can't, after all, see what's in his heart. but Paul tells us that "faith without action is dead". and this man has done nothing to exhibit Christian faith. no, he's using this as a tool for personal gain.
i will, however, agree that i'm very sick of Christians who tolerate this nonsense. this is not a simple disagreement in interpretation. these people are perverting the name and teachings of Christ. and they need to be stopped.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
And one more time ... YES! Of course ... I suppose that we'll all end up being let down and then the sundown clauses will be tacked on to the end of a "don't let kids die" bill of some sort.
If, of course, the wholesale selling of freedom ends up being that covert.
quick get to the point...!!! are you defending, criticizing or simply making a statement that is obvious (as usuall).. look at it this way if the US is all this then thats the way it is and that the way it will always be, since i don't think the brits are smart or were smart enough to handle the current situation as it is and has always been, nor the germans and the french are really (cowards too), when it come down to it a simple explanation of what is really happening in the world today and maybe just maybe you'd have a point about the power and the extent of that power the that USA posses and why it is legitimate means of controlling the whole infrastructure of the world... my question to you is: are you talking about the republican administration, globaliztion or taxes.. from my point of view you've got all three right and it still sounds like you are complaining..
Or you could use "one", as in "One's posts should not be criticized by grammar nazis who insist on ignoring the point of the post, which was abundantly clear, and instead point out that the gender of a particular pronoun is not one that is commonly associated with the indefinite gender of the subject (although it is sometimes)."
bleeding hearts and big money (like bill i guess no pun intended) no fair ! score five for fraud hunter! read it in the moderator faq.... whome ever moderated his thread as a -1 (for stating that too many democrats are whining about why there are reasons to defend and can't take one moment to reflect on how much liberalism is really possible and why it is such an antogonist in many of the problems globally... i guarantee you that half the countries that these liberals are willing to defend don't want to be defended and are already engaging in war through no ones will but their own).... is Bias!
Oh Great, another liberal smoking crack.
Did you read anything in my post about handing over absolute power? Did any of your moron buddies in congress vote against these in the original bill? No.
The only thing that's changed now is that it's politically expedient for the communist Democrats and some spineless Republicans to oppose these now.
Funny, I don't seem to remember being oppressed in the last 4 years when these provisions were in effect. Oh yeah, your a liberal, even the idea that some scumbag terriorist is being denied his rights keep you up at night.
Give people like you a few years of peace of mind and you forget what it took to achieve it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I would like to buy your winter coat.
i thought it was the "liberals" that wanted to outlaw christmas and the "conservatives" that thought the holiday tree was a stupid idea??
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
You should be modded as troll. You smoke too much pot. At the worst, so far, The Bush Presidency is reprehensible, but not an atrocity. He is far short of a tyrant. Go live in Africa outside South Africa....you might come back with a different perspective on US politics.
Is it just me, or did the black Shadow emanating from Washington that's seemingly been trying to cover most of the planet lately, just shrink back a few inches? ;)
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Tell me again about the liberal media. Please.
Anyway. If you are a U.S. citizen, now is the time to call, write, fax, or email your senator and tell him or her to kill the Patriot Act here and now. The link with the information is here . This has gone far enough -- it is time to get our rights back.
Funny because it's true I hope
have any of you even read the patriot act? just wondering.
There will be last minute backroom deals to keep it going.
Do you really think the government will willingly give up power such as this? I dont.
Its not like they didnt do this stuff before the act anyway, but now they can admit it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
4 provisions out of over 1000.
You would throw away a few hundred good and useful laws that do not infringe civil liberties to get rid of 4 that merely bother you on an ethical level, and don't really affect you in real life.
The hell I am. The reason it's a fallacy is because the predicate (eating sugar on porridge) is unrelated to the accepted definition of the subject (Scotsman). It applies in this case because the accepted definition of "Christian" has nothing to do with whether or not the person values the "freedom of the individual" or any other nonsense cited by the original poster; nor does it have anything to do with any of the nonsense cited by you, which seems to be tantamount to a claim that true Christians never commit sins (which would be quite a radical departure from any accepted definition of Christianity). You're simply adding more irrelevant predicates to the original fallacy.
I'm not saying this makes Bush or his ilk "good" Christians, but that is a value judgment, and quite irrelevant to matters of definition.
He and his pals got his oil. You think he'd give a rat's ass now?
Read my post again, two of the sections effect me directly (210,211) as an admin of an ISP. I would rather not have any of those laws apply to me (as I am a patriot, not a terrorist), whether I find them ethically wrong or not. The gov't passed these laws (seemingly) to remove the due process effectively removing the process all together.
As for the other 1998+ laws, I don't have the inclination to explain how each and every law could effect me. The purpose of my post was to show that there are clearly two sides to the debate, and the government (the other side) isn't interested in a debate with the people. It's refreshing to see the senate take action that's in the best interest of the people. Perhaps they are on our side after all.
Welcome to Brazil (the movie), where the gov't spies on everyone, tortures anyone they choose (to death) for being a terrorist (i.e. plumber) and the person responsible for it isn't a person at all, it's a fly...a dead one. To avoid being identified as a terrorist plumber, please fill out form 27b/6 after reading this post.
Oddly enough, the "Patriot Act" is aptly named, as it targets patriots quite effectively.
"Lame" - Galaxar
I am happy to see that there has been some bi-partisan opposition to the "patriot act" renewal in the senate. I was saddened to see such support for it in the house. The "patriot act" was horribly written and not at all in line with the intent of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and general spirit of the US foundational principles. Despite anything the White House, Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ or anybody else might try to shove down our throats. And just for the record, I normally support the above people in their efforts...but in this one they are dead wrong. When the US was founded, you heard quotes of "Give me liberty or give me death". People in those days realized that it was better to risk death then live under an oppressive government and that realization drove the formation of the USA. The overall situation has not changed much in over 200 years. The only differences are: now the primary danger is from terrorist attack as opposed to redcoats, and the government trying to oppress the people is local.
Eergh! Someone call the spell checking Agencys, this example of specious grammar made me back pedle off my chair!
More seriously, in the hundreds of years before the patriot act, the US didn't get attacked nearly as strongly by terrorists.
Of course, it wasn't hated like this, either. Nor were bomb and communication technologies advanced enough to allow attacks like we've been seeing.
'course, the act as it is now is WAY too open for abuse. The Americans will probably feel safer when it's repelled, ironically enough.
P.S: I'm Canadian, so the Patriot act doesn't affect me much... I hope =/.
P.P.S: I love that word, Ligoc. Asbolutely Birllant.
P.P.P.S: I need to make myself an account...
Larry Craig is mentioned prominently in the BoingBoing article of this story. I have never been more proud to be an Idahoan. Idaho is strongly characterized by individual freedom and privacy interests. It's one of those "leave me alone" type of states, and I am not surprised to see that he was on the leading edge of opposing it. I hope he will also take this position with respect to some of the other crap in congress like the broadcast flag and other **AA-written legislation.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Rubbish.
A filibuster is routinely used by the minority to slow progress. Filibusters RARELY derail legislation totally.
These Senators talk nonsense, it doesn't even have to have anything to do with the subject, they can read from the telephone directory if they like.
It is not a critical part of some sort of checks and balances system, it's simply a tool for disgruntled Senators to throw their toys and stamp their feet in an attempt to annoy the majority.
The house has more sense, they don't allow this kind of guff.
Most other systems in the world have an equivalent, but also have rules about what is/is not allowed. For example the UK has something similar but you MUST be on subject. You can't talk about your family vacation when the others are seriously deciding the future of the country.
I'm all for people debating, that's how politics work, but talking nonsense with the intent to slow proceedings to a point where there is no time for a vote ? That's counter intuitive. These people do not represent my views, therefore I vote accordingly.
Where does it say that these people the NSA look at are Citizens ?
These people are most likely here on temporary work VISAs. The liberal media is calling them "Citizens" just to rally support, if you see the reality that these people are actually temporary visitors, illegals and temporary work visa holders, religious extremeists etc whom are here primarily to plot the downfall of your government, then perhaps you'd see things a little more clearly.
If Bush had authorized hundreds of thousands of people to be monitored then I'd flinch, but we're talking a handful to a few hundred suspected terrorists.
I support Bush in this, I also think the patriot act will be renewed, it's too important not too.
I realize that this opion is counter to most other geeks here, and I've seen many, many comments modden down to flamebait just because of their political views, it's slashdots own form of filibuster I guess.
Dumbass.
I truely believe that if all the facts were on the table and everyone was well informed of the candidates histories and actions, Russ would win in a fucking landslide against any opposition.
Sadly, most people are not well informed, and the only thing laid out well is the mud slinging and distortion of the truth.
-sigh-
Mod parent up
Mod parent up.
Mod parent up;
He's asking a perfectly legitimate question, why was he modded troll? Also, the ? (not equal, option/alt =) symbol doesn't work on slashdot. :(
?
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
please re-read my post.
first: you should be able to find very easily where i explicitly discount the idea that being a Christian means you don't commit sins.
second: the "nonsense cited by me" is that a Christian is someone who tries to follow Christ's teachings. are you seriously arguing that the predicate and subject are unrelated there? good luck.
third: as to the grandparent, i'll grant that "freedom of the individual" is a little non-obvious as a core defining value for Christianity, but the value of the individual and "her private relationship with God" (the other two points the grandparent included) are absolutely essential. you can easily get to all the same conclusions using just those two.
fourth: the grandparent's primary complaint is against those who make up "fear and power-hunger" in Christian trappings. again, this complaint is directly related to the definition of Christianity stated (trying to follow Christ), as Christ spoke directly against both of them numerous times.
i'm forced to conclude that either you're not really trying to engage in a logical argument here (duh; this is the internet, and, worse, slashdot), or you just don't understand the logical elements you're trying to use. if i'm wrong, please explain how "tries to follow Christ" is unrelated to "Christian" in a way even vaguely similar to how "doesn't eat sugar on porridge" is unrelated to "Scotsman". thanks.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
It may not be purely in the "News For Nerds" category, but the (un)PATRIOT(ic) Act affects everyone . . . so it falls squarely under the heading of "Stuff That Matters" in my book.
Patrolling ftw
well, atleast some of the stuff is going away. now for the US government to grow as much sense as the canadian one gained back in the 70s with the FLQ crisis and if you don't know what that was, look it up. at that time, the war measures act (which is, as far as i know about both, very similer to the USAPATRIOT act). everyone thought it was a good idea at the time (roufghy, then the stories of the abuses of it came out a couple years later, and hence came the public backlash (as i'm hoping will happen anytime now in the US) which basically made it very difficult to invoke most of the act, as that would require invoking the not withstanding clause and virtually guarenteeing that the government will be votes out in the next election, unless it was done for a VERY GOOD REASON. though that act was replaced in 1988 with the emergencies act, the same constitution issues apply.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time