Slashdot Mirror
House Fails To Extend Patriot Act Spy Powers
schwit1 writes "The House failed to extend three key expiring provisions of the Patriot Act on Tuesday, elements granting the government broad and nearly unchecked surveillance power on its own public. The failure of the bill, sponsored by Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), for the time being is likely to give airtime to competing measures in the Senate that would place limited checks on the act's broad surveillance powers. The White House, meanwhile, said it wanted the expiring measures extended through 2013."
I, for one, welco...oh wait.
If the Stanford Prison Experiment has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
Shh.
Also seeing as I'm about to get modded down .. I just watched Canadian Bacon for the first time, a film from 1995. In one scene the US President is receiving ideas about what should replace the Cold War. Someone suggests Terrorism and he laughs it off saying that no one would fall for it.
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
So I guess you could call this an...
<Sunglasses>
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Who is Roblimo and why has he posted 10 stories in the span of 5 hours? Not even samzempus posts this often.
I was going to send a comment to my congressman demanding that he vote against this unconstitutional atrocity. Thankfully this didn't pass and hopefully has finally begun to sunset. I can only hope we can someday resurrect the Constitution.
Who will guard the guards?
Ah, the joys of a federal government on the verge of losing power. There is nothing quite like having politicians actually listen to your views.
Isn't this what was supposed to happen in the first place ... and everyone got all uppity because they would never give up those powers ... and here they are ... letting them expire ...
Queue the 200 comments now ranting about how evil the government is and how this is just them taking another set of rights away from us ... even though its them losing that ability.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I see it as the House succeeding..
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Yeah, their chronic obstructionism and mindless stubbornness finally paid off!
How much longer till it is effective again?
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
The bill will be reintroduced and will pass easily, probably with an end to sunset provisions. It's amazing how many erstwhile defenders of the Constitution, like Patrick Leahy, have become rubber stamps-- fig leaves, at best-- for the surveillance state ever since the Patriot Act made wiretapping of important people ubiquitous. Well, it wasn't just since the Patriot Act. It was right around the time US Government anthrax went out to the most liberal members of Congress and Paul Wellstone's plane crashed. Good times.
But they didn't, they tried to pass it...
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
But who cares who it was as long as it dies.
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
In the last 20 years, a Republican has been President for 10 years (2 years H.W. Bush 1, 8 years G.W. Bush), Republicans controlled the Senate for 10 years and controlled the House for 12 years.
Moreover, it failed because Republicans tried to pass the extension _without debate_, thereby upping the required threshold to 66%.
If they had allowed debate, it would have sailed through as it had much more than 50%. I suspect that this will be the next step (allowing debate).
You must be new to watching politics and human behavior if this.... elates you.
Hate to put a damper on things, but the only reason this failed was that the Republicans assumed that passage was a fait accompli, so they pushed it in under an expediting procedure that requires a two-thirds vote, and the bill only failed that by 7 votes. All they have to do is reintroduce it under the usual majority vote rule and it will be a done deal.
Though I will admit, for the first time since I became aware of their existence I feel something other than blinding hatred for the Tea Party, who are basically responsible for the Republicans not having enough votes. Looks like some of them really do care about civil liberties, and for that at least they should be congratulated.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806345.html?hpid=topnews
Something about stopped clocks...
Massive debt, an economy on the brink of collapse and all the House Republicans are interested in is repealing health care for the people that couldn't get it, tax breaks for the rich and extending domestic spying/the Patriot Act. How about trying to fix something that's actually broken? When I saw the Republican proposed budget cuts they were all things like education, EPA, NASA and the FBI of all things. Not a single cut was actual fat and none of it affected the rich or corporate America. Remember where their priorities lie next time around.
Good job Republicans! Wow, never thought I'd say that.. Well, after being in power for 17 of the last 20 years, it's about time you did something right.
Um... 90% of Repubs voted FOR extending it...! http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
unless trying to push it through wihtou debate was a snarky attempt to make it fail, while allowing republicans to "vote for security" and claim victory for killing it at the same time. I wish our government was competent enough to pull that off.
People were uppity because they should never have had the powers in the beginning.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.
Either they are very confident about Palin/Beck 2012, or they just can't get enough of the taste of jackboots, no matter who is wearing them...
Normally I try to only post astute, informative and insightful (and karma-whoring comments), but in this case all I have to say is:
"Woo-whoo! Excellent!".
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
There was no vote. It hasn't even made it out of committee.
Here's the vote list:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
Key Stats:
Republicans:
Yea: 210
Nay: 26
Democrats:
Yea: 67
Nay: 122
Republicans killed the bill my ass.
What vote? Everything I'm seeing about HR 514 says it never got past committee.
For those who thought Obama was going to change the status quo, you should read the provisions the White House wants to keep:
The three expiring Patriot Act provisions are:
â The âoeroving wiretapâ provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.
â The âoelone wolfâ measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason â" even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.
â The âoebusiness recordsâ provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.
In the best traditions of bipartisanship, both parties want to take away your civil liberties and sell out the middle class to big business. The only difference between the two is which big business group they are puppets for.
And this is coming from a Constituional law professor, by the way. A guy who taught at one of the top Universities in the country - the University of Chicago - and was educated at the top law school in the country. If this is what he thinks the Constitution stands for, we're fucked.
Obama is as much of a disgrace to this country as Bush ever was.
Don't tell me it's just politics. Where would be if everyone - Lincoln, Jefferson, etc. - acted as if it were just politics? Sometimes you got to take a stand. But alas, the sad truth is that Mr. Obama simply does not have the balls.
I will now go back to listening to the Who.
Posting anonymously because that's just what this country has come to.
why is a tv show doctor trying to extend the patriot act?
Nevermind, some sites are just not updated yet. Even Thomas still shows it in committee still, but apparently there was a vote a few hours ago.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes
DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes
http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats. I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.
CHANGE!
It is a win, at least on paper. But the fact is that it doesn't stop the spying from happening anyway. As we have been finding out over the last few years about a very common missuse of power by our (US) gov't. That is prohibited by law, even the Patriot Act. It's hard for the police to police the police when they don't even know the police are policing.
They wanted the act extended. They introduced it in the first place.
Doing something right, in this case, means failing at doing something evil. Their redeeming feature is incompetence.
Hey, if those 26 had voted the other way, it would have scraped through. The Republicans were only 90% evil! Yay Republicans!
10% of Republicans not being total asshats for once is refreshing news, and probably merits a "good job".
Their redeeming feature is incompetence
Making them just like the other lot. Ah, democracy.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
They will still manage to pass it, or some even worse law, under a pretense of it being a huge emergency. They will even use today's failure to help make the case for the emergency.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
Yeah, 'cuz Democrats are always the party of Big Government. I am now going to insert my fingers into my ears and shout repeatedly so that I can't hear you tell me about any evidence to the contrary. Good day.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers. Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
The bill only lost by rounding error.
You're right, if we could only (legally) divide human being into arbitrary fractions, those disembodied limbs and organs totally would have voted for the bill.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.
So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I suppose dividing humans into arbitrary factions is better than providing a two party system where each party represents such a wide conglomeration of beliefs that nobody is satisfied. Of all the combinations of political opinions, there are two that are consistently voted for, never mind the fact that many party principles are completely separable.
Ah, the prescience of Michael Moore. Never thought I'd hear myself say that, but there it is.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
There will be no "debate". Only some dramatic pontificating for C-span, and then it will pass with little fanfare. And the people will sheepishly accept it as necessary..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I guess that means a couple dozen republicans were just scratching in their sleep and accidentally got counted as voting...
They're going to bring the bill back for a vote that only requires a simple majority. It will pass then. This is more of a way for them to sort out the renegades to determine where party dollars go for reelection campaigns.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
In fairness (and admittedly anecdotally), most of the people from my area who self-identify with the Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc, there's a great many of them who are more socially liberal. Perhaps not with issues like gay marriage, sex ed, and so forth, but certainly they generally dislike granting the government any extension of its powers.
The upshot is that while most of the Left and those who identify with the Tea Party may not always see eye to eye, at least there are a few among the latter who understand when it is important to block measures that would otherwise grant the federal government extension over stripping away our liberties.
Of course, I'd wager that most of the Tea Partiers who voted against it probably did so because they couldn't stomach the Obama administration having these powers. ;)
(Disclaimer: I tend to self-identify with the Tea Party for most of their sensible policies. Hence, I also believe that my last statement is probably a significant reason why any of them would have voted against this measure.)
He who has no
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Unless it's digital. Or something.
I watched that movie too, one of the best political satires I've seen (but nothing beats Dr. Strangelove of course).
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
The Libertarian Party.
Well 26 of them do.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
I very much disdain the Tea Party. Let me revise this, I very much disdain the "Palinesque" majority of the Tea Party, and only vehemently dislike (yet respect) the Libertarian minority of the Tea Party. Even so, I can acknowledge that some of their views align with mine. Actually some of the views of the Democrats and the Republicans align with mine. Its amazing how things are so much more complicated than mere proper noun dogmas.
This is especially true of the Tea Party, since it is a schizophrenic, fractured, beast. There isn't a unified Tea Party.
Disclosure: I am a liberal, progressive, social libertarian (notice the lowercase "L"). I generally agree with 50% of the pure Libertarian dogma, until they start ranting about corporations and Randian social darwinism. Conversely most Libertarians would probably agree with 50% of what I have to say until I start ranting about social responsibility and the need for corporate controls. My best friend is pro-Gay, agnostic, Neo-Conservative who thinks their needs to be a greater social safety net, and greater gun control, whose serving in the military and thinks America should go to war with anyone as long as it serves our interests. She volunteered for John McCain in the primary, and has a polisci degree from Georgetown.
I feel bad for anyone who fits into the caricature of some political organizations dogma. Seriously, you agree 100% with your political party, your an idiot. Hell, if you can sum yourself up with "Republican" or "Democrat", or "Liberal" or "Conservative" you probably are a moron who hasn't taken the time to form your own political views.
... [the] Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc,
This, to me, is irony. A lot of the Tea Party rhetoric I see puts them as the "for liberty", but are fully willing to be tyrannical and force their arbitrary religious choices on other people. They also talk about the founding fathers ad nauseum, but completely ignore the pains most of the founders went through to eliminate religion from government. They also ignore the fact that most modern Christians (of the Evangelical, and Fundamental flavor) would have condemned most of the founder's beliefs as being un-Christian, them being mostly Deists and all.
If your god condemns being gay, or abortions*, sex out of wedlock, pornography, beer, or whathaveyou, then DON'T DO IT. There is no reason to force this upon others who don't hold your views. That would be the definition of tyranny; forcing your views on others who don't necessarily hold them. This is why I hate the Tea Party. The desire for some flavor of petit theocracy, and the fact that they refuse to accept the views of a majority of Americans (example; Obama shouldn't be president, or whoever was elected by a majority, who we don't agree with, isn't legitimate).
I'm mostly liberal, and fully realize that if people with a like view as mine ruled completely, it would be unacceptable. I am most definitely wrong on several issues, and no matter how convinced I am otherwise it wouldn't be right for me to completely block out the alternative view. What if there is something we could learn form the much feared socialism? Sure, it isn't all good, but there probably is some decent bits; after-all countries who mix bits of it in are doing a lot better than America is on most metrics. Conversely views more towards the right also have some very decent, and historically proven, bits that the left should learn from... Etc..
* I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
my employer is mean to me when I post derogatory things about him on Facebook. Then I want my Big Government Mommy to come in and save me!
Small government for me, big government for you!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Obamacare? Wow, two Slashdotters in one!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
> I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
Okay, see, you were doing pretty well ... but this doesn't make sense.
The debate about abortion is this:
Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it."
Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
If you agree with Side B, then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're saying "I won't force people who don't want to have an abortion to have one", which is ... good. If you agree with Side A ... then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're basically saying, "I won't force people not to murder other people", which is ... not so good. If you're on the fence, and you don't know, and so you don't want to take sides, fine ... but once you've made up your mind, if you happen to agree with Side A, your pseudo-libertarian non-interference position is going to start breaking down. I'm not saying the right approach would be to bomb abortion clinics, because that would just be murdering more people, but using the political process to try to outlaw a currently legal form of murder would probably be an appropriate thing to consider doing. I think even bona-fide Libertarians agree that murder is wrong, and that we as a society shouldn't allow it.
And no, I'm not going to say if I'm on side A or side B, because it's irrelevant :) Mwa ha ha.
---linuxrocks123
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Almost a third of the democrats that voted voted to pass this bill and the president wanted it passed as well. So while the democrats did a better job voting against it, it was not even close to "almost every Democrat" opposing it.
I am curious how the people the tea party replaced voted last year. Would this had passed without them?
It might have been deliberate, but NPR segued straight from talking about the (sadly almost certainly temporary) failure to renew the Patriot Act provisions... to discussing protests in Egypt over the decades-old 'emergency provisions' that gave 'sweeping powers to the security services'.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I agree. I don't see how people can be passive about this topic yet care about life and human rights in other situations (Iraq, Darfur, China, etc)
If you think it is a child, it is murder and should be stopped.
If you think it is not a child, then its an issue of trying to limit someone's rights to their own body and is a liberty issue.
You're right, I got the rows and columns mixed up. One small thing: 67/(67+122)=35.450%, not 32%.
-Leon
In the last 25 years, a Democrat has been President for 14 years (4 years of Carter, 8 years of Clinton, 2 years of Obama), Democrats have controlled the Senate for 15 years and the House for 17 years.
"In the last 20 years, a Republican has been President for 10 years (2 years H.W. Bush 1, 8 years G.W. Bush), Republicans controlled the Senate for 10 years and controlled the House for 12 years."
The more significant point is that starting in 1993, the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and Presidency for two years. Beginning in 2003, the Republicans had their turn for four years. For the first two years of Obama, the Dems had yet another chance.
All I've seen in that time is continuously bigger government, steady erosion of civil liberties, a declining middle class and worldwide U.S. militarism ... In fact, I'm having a damned hard time thinking of any piece of Federal legislation which I deemed to be good policy ...
Both of these parties suck, and anyone that supports them is wasting their vote.
Try the last 35 years.
When Dems control Congress and the measure fails: Democrats Defeat Patriot Act Spy Provisions
When Republicans control Congress and the measure passes: Republicans Extend Controversial Spy Provisions
When Republicans control Congress and the measure fails: House Fails to Extend Patriot Act Spy Powers
When Dems control Congress and the measure passes: (crickets)
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm sorry...all this bitching about Republicans and the Patriot Act...which was written and passed by Democrats?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Does no one even care it was the Democrats that passed it in the first place?
Or does that upset yor world view too much?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They were trying to fast-track the approval of the bill in the House, which required a 2/3rds vote. However, a handful of the Tea Party Republicans actually listened to their constituents and voted no. Now the bill goes back to the committee, where it will return to the floor for deliberations (which means actually discussing what's in the bill) then a simple majority (1/2 approves) vote to pass.
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was good policy.
25 years takes us to 1986, which would be Reagan's 2nd term.
So 14 years of Republican President, 10 Democrat, Republican control of Senate and House change a bit, 11 years of Senate, 12 years of House.
In 35 years, thats going to be 1976, we have 21 years of Republican (Ford 1, Reagan 8, Bush 4, Bush 8), 14 years of Democrat (Carter 4, Clinton 8, Obama 2) Presidents.
Senate is 16 years Republican and the House is 12 years Republican.
Thanks for the additional info. But that was really just a correction, 25 years ago Reagan was President and Carter had been out of office for a term and a half. I was expanding the timeline for JackieBrown's comment.
You know nothing, sycodon. From below:
"The Republican majorities in House and Senate were instrumental in getting PATRIOT passed in the first place (granted, with plenty of Democratic support) and getting it re-upped in 2006. Of all the legislative action the Republican minority was able to quash in 2009, re-upping PATRIOT wasn't one they even tried."
I am sure that he's very loyal to Australia. The United States, on the other hand...
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I'm sorry...all this bitching about Republicans and the Patriot Act...which was written and passed by Democrats?
According to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm In 2001 the Rs had a 221 vote lead in the House, and the Ds had a 1 vote lead in the Senate, but only after June, when Jeffords (R-VT) switched to independent. You can hardly say the act was "passed by Democrats". Even so, the point is moot - both Ds and Rs were co-sponsors, and a spectrum from Bob Barr to Patrick Leahy supported it.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
You must work for Fox News, sycodon, which is to say, you either know nothing, or are willing to bareface lie in the face of history. From below:
"The Republican majorities in House and Senate were instrumental in getting PATRIOT passed in the first place (granted, with plenty of Democratic support) and getting it re-upped in 2006. Of all the legislative action the Republican minority was able to quash in 2009, re-upping PATRIOT wasn't one they even tried."
I don't make distinctions between the two parties anymore. Sure Democrats are cool with abortion and Republicans usually aren't. Sure Republicans usually favor gun rights whereas Democrats usually want to restrict them. But honestly, on the stuff that really matters the parties both do the same thing. Tax and spend, cut the budget by X billions and pat themselves on the back, meanwhile we have a deficit measured in TRILLIONS.
The parties differ on petty social issues, but they behave rather unified when it comes to destroying the constitution and violating our rights. How does net neutrality or an internet kill switch matter when the government has unconstitutionally seized power it wasn't granted and then used that power to imprison citizens without a trial? The social issues have become a distraction, we get all caught up over abortion while government hordes more and more power. Heck, we give the government more power to legislate our opinions into law!
At this point I vote for people, regardless of their party, based on two things. 1) Gun rights - our last line of defense against a government run amok. 2) Smaller Government - If the candidate has ever created a new government department he/she is out. If he/she has a record of cutting government size and spending, I'll give my vote. Though I must admit I often chose the "lesser of two evils."
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Benjamin Franklin
You only believe that because they haven't had the opportunity to screw us over yet.
Let's talk about HR 3162. A Republican administration asked for many of its provisions. The bill was sponsored and co-sponsored exclusively by Republicans. Of the 67 votes against it (between both houses), only three came from Republicans. It was signed into law by a Republican president. Every major effort to overhaul or repeal portions of the Patriot Act were Democrats with only occasional token support from a handful of Republicans.
If you want to argue that many Democrats went along with it or should have fought against it more, that's fair. But trying to suggest that it was somehow "written and passed by Democrats" is either disingenuous or ignorant.
This sounds more like an "EPIC WIN" to me.
Thats cool, I didn't realize the Republicans had the Senate in the early 80s till I looked it up.
The Stanford Prison Experiment proves only one thing: If Philip Zimbardo lies in a report about an experiment then it will become Psychology cannon regardless of how many times the results of that experiment has been disproven or how much evidence exists to show that Philip Zimbardo himself influenced the experiment in order to produce the outcome he wanted.
In reality - and as shown by lots of further experimentation - people tend to behave in the manner in which they are expected to behave. Subtle hints are sometimes all that is required. If people perceive that they are expected to abuse power then they will. If people get a clear signal that they are expected to not abuse power then they will be fair and honest. Yes, there are exceptions, as there are with anything having to do with people. However, this tendency has been proven over and over again.
I really, Really, REALLY wish people would stop citing this sham experiment.
At this point I vote for people, regardless of their party, based on two things. 1) Gun rights - our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Okay, seriously, nobody is trying to take your guns away. Basically what you have is one party fighting a gun-stealing straw man, and another party that just doesn't care.
2) Smaller Government - If the candidate has ever created a new government department he/she is out. If he/she has a record of cutting government size and spending, I'll give my vote. Though I must admit I often chose the "lesser of two evils."
Eh, I would concentrate on smarter spending, rather than just "less" spending. And as a federal worker, one interesting thing you see is that when they cut the "size" of government, they usually mean the number of federal workers. I'm sure you're applauding at this point. The problem is, they replace those federal workers with contractors, which cost 2-3 times as much as a federal worker and ultimately increase the amount of total spending.
You guys are adorable.
Wrong twice in one thread! Good show!
"....a constant slashing of education..."
Um, what?
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
Unless there have been massive changes in the last few years (doubtful), federal education spending has done nothing but go up, up, up over time. It's debatable whether this helps or harms our education system.
The debate about abortion is this:
Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it."
Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
I don't think its that simple. What does human mean? I'm not sure we have a good definition of that. My feelings against it pretty much boils down to the "potentionality" of the fetus. A fetus, itself, isn't special, its about as complicated as a slime-mold. I'm not religious, so I don't think they have souls. The only thing that makes a fetus special is that it someday might be a human.
I'm against abortion because I generally stand on the "better safe than sorry" side of ethical cost/benefit analysis (same reason I'm in favor of global climate controls, even though I'm not sold on anthropogenic global warming yet -- this is another debate for another time).
I can be one the fence because I spent a huge sum of money to go to school for philosophy, which lead me to the conclusion that the more sure you are of your views, the more likely that are to be wrong. By views I mean subjective judgement, which all ethical judgement ultimately are. Abortion is largely a "normative" issue, which is pretty much proscribing an ethical system on others. I'm always leery of imposing anything on individuals. I'm not infallible, I'm not a god. Being such I worry about imposing my views on others, mostly my ethical views. No one has discovered an empirical, objective, model for prescriptive ethics, ethics don't exist in the world, they are not a real thing. The closest we can get is "I think x is wrong... because...", and hope it convinces others to agree of their own free will.
That said, I doubt completely banning abortion is ever going to happen, or that it would be a completely good thing if it happened. Especially if said laws were enacted out of religious authority for for religious reasons. Having a theocracy is a greater evil than any wrong that it could ever right. I do think they should be rarer. Though I think that abortions are largely a social problem (why the hell don't people wear condoms, take the pill, abstain from sex if they can't handle the consiquences?!)*, and we should fix the social aspects to help curb the act itself.
TL;DR version; The world is rarely black and white, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have the authority to rule over the lives and choices of others.**
* Also, if every abortion wasn't, we're ill equipped to actually handle the influx of children. If everyone who was completely against abortion would adopt a child who could have been aborted, the world would be a better place.
** Indeed, I often think that this point of view is the root of all problems in America. Whoever utters "do this because I know better", or "for your own good" is a would be tyrant.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
If you think it is a child, it is murder and should be stopped.
If you think it is not a child, then its an issue of trying to limit someone's rights to their own body and is a liberty issue.
I think its a false dichotomy, thats why. A fetus isn't a child. A fetus (to a point) is nothing but a mindless glob of rapidly reproducing cells, akin in complexity to a slime mold. A fetus, on the other hand, is a potential human being, which means the matter should never be taken lightly.
I err on the side of caution.
I, on the other hand, don't see how people can be rabidly pro-life (to the point of forcing this on others), and be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Side C: It's a human, but the killing is still justified for any number of reasons. mother>child and all that.
*shrugs* that's the approach my religion takes, that it's murder in self-defense*-which makes abortion a mix of a civil liberties issue and a redefining legally allowable murder issue.
And I'm sure that there's a Side D and E and F and .... Messy issues tend to be just that.
*self-defense from psychological trauma and the like too, so not limited to mother's life.
open source modern art: laser taggi
That's the problem. You don't understand the pro-life side of it. Pro-lifers do see a fetus as a child.
Pro-choicer see it as a libertity issue.
The "be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum" is wrong. You assume that pro-lifers value life and peace above justice and then try to relate them together. That is like saying that since the the Iraq war is wrong we shouldn't have fought in WWII or any other just war.
Opposition to this crossed party lines - most Democrats and some Republicans voted against it. In the long run it probably won't matter, as the House leadership is going to re-introduce it under different rules that allow for more debate/amendments, but require a simple majority to pass. The votes for that are there, and the Senate is likely to pass it as well.
The same bill is going to be reintroduced under different rules that allow it to be passed with a simple majority. Unless something changes, it's almost certain to be extended.
I'm not sure how you guys keep getting away with saying that the Affordable Care Act is, well, unaffordable. It's simply a fact that the act cuts the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in it's first 10 years, and by even more in the following 10 years as the reforms continue to take hold. People who claim the opposite are either confused or outright lying.
EOM
Make no mistake, they were still being asshats. They were just being asshats to *each other* for a change.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I'm sorry...all this bitching about Republicans and the Patriot Act...which was written and passed by Democrats?
In what universe was the Patriot Act written and passed by Democrats?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
The Libertarian Party.
Only if you define "liberty" as "the rich having the choice to do whatever they want and the poor having no choices but what their boss and landlord want them to choose." Or if you're totally ignorant of history.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
That's the problem. You don't understand the pro-life side of it. Pro-lifers do see a fetus as a child.
I was clarifying a view I posited earlier in the thread, the on that the person you replied to replied to. I wasn't trying to argue that a fetus is, or isn't a child, or uphold, or deny, the "typical" pro-life view. I was explaining why I am personally pro-life.
I suppose this highlights a greater part of the issue, which gets back to my post even earlier (being how this whole discussion is based on a footnote to my original comment); things are much more complicated than simplistic "pro" and "con" groups. A majority of people probably follow somewhere in the middle, and a majority of thinking people probably have their own reasons that are not identical to the visible stereotype. I'm pro-life, and would argue that a fetus is definitely not a child (up until a point).
I'm also, mostly, anti-war, and against the death penalty. But then again both of these have caveats, depending on the type of war, the reason for the war, the targets of the war, and whether or whether not the war is fought as ethically as possible, and whether the war is avoidable by diplomatic means (even if it means we don't 100% get out way). Well, I'm 100% against the death penalty, but the caveat there is that I would be for it if the justice system wasn't completely fallible, and if there was almost no chance of false positives.
The "be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum" is wrong. You assume that pro-lifers value life and peace above justice and then try to relate them together. That is like saying that since the the Iraq war is wrong we shouldn't have fought in WWII or any other just war.
I see your point there. Though, to be a little annoying, there are some problems still with the logic. Iraq wasn't a war of justice by any stretch (except perhaps the humanitarian one, but we sort of missed that mark in implementation). There is no room there to value life, peace, or justice. This is true in most wars. WWII was a giant, glaring, exception. It might be one of the only wars (arguably since Genghis Khan) that comes close to being black and white. Though at the time there was some decent opposition to it, and sympathy for the Axis (at least for Germany).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
So that means, I wont get stripped (virtually) when I go to US? Hm, then I may remove US from my blacklist.
Though, to be a little annoying, there are some problems still with the logic. Iraq wasn't a war of justice by any stretch
My point was to contrast yours about being pro-life but still being pro-war (whatever that means) and pro-capital punishment. While on the surface they appear related (abortion, war, capital punishment causes death) they are distinct issues.
On the surface, Iraq/Vietnam/Somalia/WWII are all related but they were all fought for different reasons. (I picked WWII for the reason you mentioned - it is as close to black and white as you can get.)
What an utter, complete lie. Total book-cooking of the CBO methodology. Those first-run numbers counted 10 years of taxes, but only 6 years of benefits, and in broad daylight, ignored the "doctor fix" for Medicare. Also counted on Medicare cuts that will never happen. Of course, give the CBO real numbers, and it runs huge deficits. So yeah, refute ever single point I made and then tell me who is confused. And today the CBO says Obamacare will cost 800,000 jobs.
Talk about confused, a new entitlement will cover 30 million new people and save money! LOL! If Medicare - which cost like 10 times what they originally said it would (and only covers 70% of seniors' bills) - it will be a bankrupting boondoggle.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Who's the yahoo that modded this "Troll"???
I wasn't quite expecting this much of a rant, but it's possible my tongue-in-cheek slightly sarcastically passive-aggressive writing style may have provoked a bit more of one than I expected. Either that or you wanted to vent about the Tea Party in some way or another.
There are some points I want to address. I'm not sure if this is to add more fuel to the fire or simply because I haven't much better to do tonight.
I really dislike this language. Granted, we're each allowed to express our opinion, but I find that the more I read comments like yours either here on Slashdot or some of the various drivel that exists on Reddit, the more I'm convinced that this attitude is part of the problem.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
Aside from this notion of "unification," I think much of what you've stated could be said about each of the major US political parties. Only time will tell what may eventually become of the Tea Party, but I would personally like to see them ditch Palin. I don't have anything against her personally, but she's politically toxic given the various SNL skits, various public statements she has made, and certainly the negative media attention from the mainstream press hasn't helped.
I'm still not sure why you cherry-picked parts of my statement when I was being mostly cordially and jestful--and largely talking about something entirely unrelated to this argument. Guess I struck a nerve. :) That wasn't intended.
Let me reiterate: I don't condone anyone who forces their views on others. By the same token, I think you've largely fallen for what has been repeated in the mainstream press of the Tea Party. I admit my own experiences are anecdotal, but of those I've met locally (possibly not representative of the Tea Party movement as a whole--but I find that hard to believe), I can't think of one that fits into this notion of religious tyranny. From how you describe it, it would seem that anyone who self-identifies with the Tea Party is just a stone's throw from the Spanish Inquisition! Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
Brief aside: "Most modern Christians" are much more secular than I think you realize. The noisy minority tends to get most of the press. But, I suspect you're just generally anti-religious--with the possible excepti
He who has no
I didn't mean to sound angry, since I wasn't at the time of writing this. I find political discussions to be fun, and often I get a bit overzealous. Me and my conservative friend (one of the only people I know who actually calls herself a "neocon") have been kicked out of several bars (and have had several people fear violence) for our heated debates on politics. I am also just wordy. If you asked me the color of they sky, I'd probably return a 5,000 word essay. I went to school for philosophy, I have yet to earn my money's worth.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
As I stated later, it isn't the disagreement with my own (somewhat fluid and hazy) principles that annoys me about the Palinistas. Part of it springs from the way they present themselves, in the media at least. I have issues with the idea of "spectacle over debate", I think it belittles the full political process. Even if their views are sound (which some may be), they are doing America a disfavor by acting like clowns. I had the same problem about liberal groups protesting George W. Bush. It doesn't advance the Great American Debate. Obviously this isn't true of the totality of the movement. Furthermore, I don't like the "cult of personality" aspect, regardless of political views, I doubt many people can actually take Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck terribly seriously, much less raise them to near religious levels of respect. I dislike it it when the "other side" does it as well. I don't understand the "Obama as messiah" thing, either. It actually is the largest point of contention I have with my significant other's parents. Your views shouldn't need a charismatic leader, nor should they be informed by someone who is a charismatic leader type. Political views should be formed by much introspection, hand wringing, and self doubt; and a fair amount of research across the spectrum of views.
Though I will be preemptively hostile to anyone who tries to enforce religious dogma. Not to religion (I'm an atheist, but I have nothing against religion, nor people who hold one). Enforcing religious tenets because they are religious tenets is very dangerous. I view the issue like any other issue which could be a potential threat to civil liberties, rights, or freedoms. Religious legislation is as dangerous as the USA PATRIOT act; something we should be forever vigilant against. Again, since this point is often misconstrued to hostility towards religion, I have nothing against Christians acting like Christians, or Muslims like Muslims, or whatnot like whatnot, it just has no place in government. If a religious tenet happens to line up with secular ethical concerns, or the health of civil society it is fine, but only as long as it is selected for the secular reasons and not the religious, and debated on those terms as well.
Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
I like disagreement. I'm a fan of it. The more people who disagree with me, the healthier the state will generally be. I like cogent, intelligent, disagreement though. We're disagreeing in such a way. and it leads to a pleasant conversation, and perhaps a mutual learning experience. Shrill disagreement, on the other hand, annoys me. I don't like how the noise level has almost completely drowned out t
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
No, no, fair enough. It's perfectly understandable.
I owe you an apology for misinterpreting your original post. I appreciate people who are willing to have a respectful disagreement, but I appreciate people much more who are willing to clarify their previous statements when faced with someone unfairly slamming them for being something they weren't. I truly apologize for that.
Thank you for the clarification. You describe yourself along a very similar thread to many of my liberal-leaning friends whom I get along with quite well.
He who has no
I hate to reply to myself, but I was debating to address some of your points, because (surprise!) I largely agree. Unfortunately, I haven't a great deal of time today to do so as I need to get much more work done.
That said, I have added you (Omestes) as a friend so I can better track your comments. There's a method to my madness--see my journal for precisely why--but generally: If I've enjoyed a conversation with someone, it allows me to track your comments more easily. Also, level-headed, fair individuals tend to be added by me, regardless of whether I agree with their political stance.
He who has no