RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance

Posted by timothy on Saturday January 25, 2014 @08:18AM from the pretty-words-all-in-a-row dept.

Bob9113 writes "According to an article on Ars Technica, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has passed a resolution that "encourages Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA's data collection programs." The resolution, according to Time, was approved by an overwhelming majority voice vote at the Republican National Committee's Winter Meeting General Session, going on this week in Washington, DC."

94 of 523 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

even a broken clock... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2014-01-25 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hey, when you oppose everything the president does, it's gotta work in our favor sometimes!

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
1. Re:even a broken clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And of course when a Republican gets back in the White House, they'll be repealing this and get back to passing oppressive laws like nobody's business. It astounds me how people keep voting for Kang or Kodos.
2. Re:even a broken clock... by ganjadude · 2014-01-25 08:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the GOP is in the middle of a transformation. I will not get into whether or not it is good or bad for the country or the party but the establishment republicans, those like romney or mccain are being pushed aside by more libertarian bent candidates. The These new republicans, at least from what I can see, are the ones who are against the NSA and big government, something bush 2 and mccain are for.
  
  In another 10 years as more of the traditional GOP retires or is voted out, hopefully they get repaced by more libertarian leaning candidates, or even better the libertarian party will become one of the big 2.... (i can dream)
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
3. Re:even a broken clock... by icebike · 2014-01-25 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And of course when a Republican gets back in the White House, they'll be repealing this and get back to passing oppressive laws like nobody's business. It astounds me how people keep voting for Kang or Kodos.
  By extension, Democrats are only for wholesale violation of constitutional rights as long as it can be used to keep them in office.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:even a broken clock... by thaylin · 2014-01-25 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Except that is really both parties. The parties come out against things like this, but they dont ever do anything about it.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
5. Re:even a broken clock... by causality · 2014-01-25 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Cue the highly emotional, belligerent, ignorant people who think anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are exactly the same thing.
  
  On the other hand, if you have to make shit up in order to find fault with something, anyone with sense will recognize that you're paying a high compliment to it.
  
  The other problem with libertarian thought is that small-minded people are terrified of that degree of freedom, because it means others might do things they disapprove of, and the small-minded just love using government to tell people how to live.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
6. Re:even a broken clock... by ganjadude · 2014-01-25 09:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I fit squarely in the middle as a 28 year old, college educated person. I would say that while i was in college (bush years) EVERYONE hated bush and thought they were democrats because they hated bush. As we got older and saw that the obama democrats were no better than the bush republicans my unscientific poll of 3 colleges in NY/NJ show the majority of people our age dont align with any of the main parties. Quite a few of us are 1 issue voters (gay marriage, marijuana , etc.) but the thing that is resounding is that we all want a smaller government by a large margin. Over 75% of the people I spoke with out of over 3000 said the number one thing they want is to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce the reach of the federal government. I would say we are leaning libertarian more than we are progressive. But again, it was an unscientific study, and I have a libertarian bias as such my results may be biased as well.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
7. Re:even a broken clock... by causality · 2014-01-25 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except that is really both parties. The parties come out against things like this, but they dont ever do anything about it.
  Yes, they have an amazing talent for speaking out against something, saying what they know you want to hear, but never actually doing anything about it. This is enabled by the short memory of the public combined with the media's desire to remain cozy with government officials so they can get those exclusive interviews.
  
  Meanwhile, no matter what is said, whatever the monied interests and the military-industrial-complex want is what will happen anyway.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
8. Re:even a broken clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 09:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Considering as it was the Republicans who started this (something they'd rather we forget) that sounds just about right.
  Note to the right wing: Obama is not guilty of starting up unconstitutional "anti terrorism" practices. He is, however, mightily guilty of not stopping them and is rightly deserving of the flack he gets over this. That said, if the RNC wants to hold responsible parties accountable, at some point they're going to have to look in the mirror. Introspection and objective self evaluation is just not something Republicans are historically very good at unfortunately.
9. Re:even a broken clock... by Patent+Lover · 2014-01-25 09:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Over 75% of the people I spoke with out of over 3000 said the number one thing they want is to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce the reach of the federal government.
  
  Unless it involves cutting our absurdly bloated defense department and DHS. Anything to keep us safe.
10. Re:even a broken clock... by causality · 2014-01-25 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But again, it was an unscientific study, and I have a libertarian bias as such my results may be biased as well.
  That you have the self-awareness to know this and the integrity to admit it lends credibility to your poll, unscientific though it may be.
  
  I too want most experience of government to come from the state and local levels, like the Founders intended. It was never intended that the average person would be affected very much by anything the federal government does, except in times of an actual, Congress-declared war (heh remember back when we did that?). The States are about the only entities able to stand up to the feds, and to do that, they first have to stop being addicted to the federal money that so many of their budgets have come to depend on. The Free State Project is, in fact, an effort to do exactly that.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
11. Re:even a broken clock... by causality · 2014-01-25 09:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It also means that they actually have to live with being free, which carries with it some risks. Unacceptable! I demand the government violate everyone's rights and privacy to stop the terrorists!
  Considering that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, I think I'm willing to take my chances. I also believe that we're less likely to encounter people so desperate to hurt us if we stop manipulating other nations and attacking them for such flimsy reasons. A return to loving freedom would mean no longer trying to tell each other how to live -- this is also the way we should respect the sovereignty of other nations.
  
  I'll tell you what else is much more likely than dying in a terrorist attack: being killed by your own government.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
12. Re:even a broken clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 09:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It was the Clinton - Gore Administration that gave us the NSAKey.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
  The spying had been going on for years.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
  but that probably doesn't agree with your political prejudices.
13. Re:even a broken clock... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-01-25 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Cue the highly emotional, belligerent, ignorant people who think anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are exactly the same thing.
  
  While that's technically true, one of the problems is that in practice they are conflated by the people who call themselves libertarians. Especially in the tea party movement. For any political group there is an ever present risk that the difference between who they say they are and what they actually do is in contradiction.
  I have absolute and complete faith that there are are lots of true blue Libertarians in the group. The problem is all the others who are either wolves in sheep's clothing or just unprincipled "useful idiots" who simply don't have intellectual rigor to push back on the self-interested and well-monied anarcho-capitalist types who are working hard to co-opt the tea party groups.
  FWIW, I've come to the conclusion that the norquist "starve the beast" approach is a bad idea. It is too simplistic - it is the stick without the carrot. It needs a complementary "good governance" movement too. Else we get things like privatization of government services where any initial cost savings evaporates as the business owners end up with a practical monopoly on state contracts and jack the prices back up in a couple of years.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
14. Re:even a broken clock... by rogoshen1 · 2014-01-25 10:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It would be nice if the GOP returned to something more like Goldwater Republicanism. A couple quotes:
  "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
  Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
15. Re:even a broken clock... by wiredlogic · 2014-01-25 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately these "libertarian" leaning Repubs also have a penchant for rallying to the CUT TAXES! flag while doing nothing to cut federal spending to compensate. Why again hasn't the defense budget shrunk closer to pre-war levels after effectively exiting Iraq and ramping down Afghanistan?
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
16. Re: even a broken clock... by iamhassi · 2014-01-25 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This. The next generation are tired of republicans and democrats. They want something new. Libertarians are the new popular party to belong to. They believe in gay rights and legalizing pot and lower taxes and small govt and no surveillance or drone attacks. What's not to love?
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
17. Re:even a broken clock... by reve_etrange · 2014-01-25 10:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You don't know how social security works. It is an intergenerational assurance program in which the currently working give some of their current income to the currently retired.
  Social security is not funded by deficit spending. Indeed, social security has run a surplus over the lifetime of the program and is doing so now.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
18. Re:even a broken clock... by reve_etrange · 2014-01-25 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Considering that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack
  In fact, that is an understatement. I was just doing some research into the number of terrorism related deaths, and I found that fewer than 25,000 people have died in (non-state) recorded terror attacks. That's less than 25,000 people dying of terrorism in all modern history.
  In contrast, about the same number of people die in lightning strikes in one year (worldwide). About 150% as many people die in car accidents each year, in the US alone.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
19. Re:even a broken clock... by strstr · 2014-01-25 10:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You know that all elections are rigged by the military and they vote in and advertise the canidates that they choose for election, and the public is manipulated into electing them, so nobody is actually representing us?
  The issue is not specific to republican or democrat. I want to see us vote out every democrat, republican, and vote in all new people regardless of party, but who have no association with the current system. The problem is not democrat or republican, its the people we have elected and who are in power.
  There exists a way they can control society, a system called TAMI, or "Thought Amplifying and Mind Interface" which the military deployed in 1976 in all radar systems. It lets them long range spy on people, spying on their thoughts and memories so the government could control and manipulate people. The military and higher ups has used this system to screen out moles, and people who are against the militaries interests. Everyone chosen for election (Senate, Congressman, President, etc) is passed through their screens and given power only if the military lets them, and people who try to get in who aren't approved get sabotaged in the public eye and/or financially. Nobody is seriously going to fight the government amongst their ranks, and nearly everyone who's elected is benefiting from this and maintaining power through it. It is all rigged. Look up Dr. Robert Duncan's books, .. he's a DOD /CIA /US DOJ scientist who helped develop most of this. His free book is The Matrix Deciphered. Details on their system also found here:
  http://www.oregonstatehospital...
  Democracy was officially ended in 1976, in the name of national security (anything that could expose the governments misconduct is a violation of national security, because it threatens to end their control over us, and it may result in mass crimimal convictions if they were subject to the laws everyone else were subject to.).
20. Re: even a broken clock... by whoever57 · 2014-01-25 10:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They want something new. Libertarians are the new popular party to belong to. They believe in gay rights and legalizing pot and lower taxes and small govt and no surveillance or drone attacks. What's not to love?
  The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
21. Re:even a broken clock... by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-01-25 11:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Social Security is running cash-flow negative, meaning it is spending reserves rather than living on current cash flow. And whilst, on paper, that looks like it doesn't add to the overall Federal deficit, those reserves are simply bonds from the Federal Government which must be redeemed out of current Federal revenues. And those Federal revenues are from a deficit plan.
  Saying SS isn't adding to the deficit is like saying your department in a company that is losing money isn't adding to the loss because you're still under budget - even if the products your department builds don't cover your budgeted costs.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
22. Re:even a broken clock... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-25 11:40 · Score: 2
  
  The GOP went along with the sequester and new budget, both of which cut the DOD and DHS more than any other cabinet-level department.
  Not according to Paul Ryan:
  
  Q: Why is non-defense getting more money than defense?
  A: This agreement increases the statutory caps for defense and non-defense in equal amounts. Both caps are each increased by about $22 billion in FY 14 and by $9 billion in FY 15.
  Q: But isn’t non-defense getting a bigger spending increase compared to 2013?
  A: Under the Budget Control Act, the upcoming sequester in January would only reduce defense spending from 2013 levels. This agreement adds back equally to defense and non-defense, so it prevents what would be devastating sequester cuts to defense, and both sides end up above their 2013 levels."
23. Re:even a broken clock... by Cl1mh4224rd · 2014-01-25 11:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it...
  That's why many of them own slaves...
  
  --
  People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
24. Re:even a broken clock... by Goody · 2014-01-25 11:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've always been puzzled when people say what the "Founders intended". The Founders lived in a time when it took days to get from one populated area to another, on horseback. They were wealthy land owners upset with being pushed around by a monarchy thousands of miles away. They did a fine job in creating a new country, but they created it for the times they were in and the technology they had. There's nothing sacred about the laws or structure they enacted. Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy. There's certainly nothing magical about state and local government. Both can be just as wasteful and abusive as federal government, especially, as we've seen, when it comes to personal liberties and civil rights.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
25. Re: even a broken clock... by Goody · 2014-01-25 12:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They believe in gay rights and legalizing pot and lower taxes and small govt and no surveillance or drone attacks. What's not to love?
  If they would stop there, it would be great. It's when they get into the libertarian utopia stuff where there are no regulations and corporations can do no wrong is that things go off the rails rather quickly.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
26. Re:even a broken clock... by dkleinsc · 2014-01-25 12:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the GOP is in the middle of a transformation. I will not get into whether or not it is good or bad for the country or the party but the establishment republicans, those like romney or mccain are being pushed aside by more libertarian bent candidates.
  Then how come McCain and then Romney were the presidential nominees? How come the rising stars that were supposed to be the next great Republican president were all fairly old school folks? How come the "more libertarian bent" rising star Paul Ryan is advocating what amount to the exact same policies Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich were pushing decades ago?
  There are some people in the Republican Party who would really like it to not be the party who's primary demographic is old white people from the southeast. There are some people in the Republican Party who would really like it to not be as corrupt as it is (I'm not suggesting the Democrats are even close to saints in this regard). There are some people in the Republican Party who would like it to no longer be the party of bigotry. But right now, the core of the organization as a whole is a corrupt bunch of old white bigots from the southeast.
  As far as the Republican's connection with libertarianism, they're libertarian whenever they're talking about tax rates, social welfare programs, or guns, but definitely not libertarian when it comes to military spending, personal freedoms, corporate subsidies (and subsidies disguised as tax loopholes), and religion.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
27. Re: even a broken clock... by John+Jorsett · 2014-01-25 12:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They believe in gay rights and legalizing pot and lower taxes and small govt and no surveillance or drone attacks. What's not to love?
  If they would stop there, it would be great. It's when they get into the libertarian utopia stuff where there are no regulations and corporations can do no wrong is that things go off the rails rather quickly.
  I don't know where you're getting your ideas of what libertarians think, but believing corporations can do no wrong and that there should be no regulation isn't in the mainstream of libertarian thought. Maybe it seems that way to you because libertarians push back against the more insane and intrusive stuff that government does in those areas, so it appears that we hate it all in toto, but that's not the case. We just want to limit government to a sensible role, not the all-encompassing, all-seeing no-sparrow-falls behemoth that it's become.
28. Re:even a broken clock... by dkleinsc · 2014-01-25 12:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  because it means others might do things they disapprove of
  Well, yes. I disapprove of people and organizations who murder, rob, rape, beat up, poison, cheat, and steal. Government is a check on all that by having an organized way of penalizing people who do those things. And it turns out that this is generally successful: There are a lot fewer murders, robberies, rapes, beatings, poisonings, and thefts in places where there is effective government than when there isn't (and yes, I'm considering people murdered by the government in unjustified shootings).
  There are 2 points of real disagreement I have with libertarians:
  1. They oppose government efforts to intervene when one person's activities are demonstrably harming somebody else. For example, most libertarians I've encountered believe environmental regulations are unnecessary and intrusive, but countries without environmental regulations have people dying of various water-borne and air-borne poisons every day. Most libertarians I've encountered disapprove of government efforts to ensure that products available in stores are what they say they are, but historically and in modern times private industry has demonstrated that it cannot regulate itself, nor can consumers organize lawsuits well enough to correct the market.
  2. They oppose government doing what government can and has done more efficiently than private industry. That is in large part because their philosophy is predicated on the idea that government is always less efficient than private industry, so when some egghead quotes statistics that say that (for example) government-run health care gives better health care for less money than privately-run health care, the assumption is that the egghead is just making it up.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
29. Re: even a broken clock... by Grey+Geezer · 2014-01-25 13:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  libertarian
  You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. Nor do I think people who call themselves libertarians really are libertarians. Many of them, for instance, are down with the small gov thing, but have no hesitation to stick their noses into a woman's health care decisions. Also do you guys really want to liquidate our National Parks, Federal Interstate system, etc, etc? Cause true libertarians believe that private business should own and run just about everything. As an unashamed Progressive I believe that there are some things that only big government can do well. History shows us what happened when free enterprise took care of (or, all to often, did not) everything, and it wasn't pretty. I for one do not want to go back.
  
  --
  The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
30. Re:even a broken clock... by fche · 2014-01-25 13:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "There's certainly nothing magical about state and local government. Both can be just as wasteful and abusive as federal government, especially, as we've seen, when it comes to personal liberties and civil rights."
  One difference is that one can vote with one's feet much easier in leaving a backward town or state, than leaving one's nation. The other is scale: the closer to the voters the representatives work/live, the more likely mutual respect.
  Both factors make feedback cycles more rapid & precise. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if evidence existed that those poor backward horse-riding founders could conceive of this.
31. Re:even a broken clock... by stenvar · 2014-01-25 13:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Unless it involves cutting our absurdly bloated defense department and DHS. Anything to keep us safe.
  Huge DOD spending is largely a consequence of having so many troops overseas, and Democrats and "progressives" favor that, because they think they can fix the world. In fact, people who suggest that we may not want to bomb others into democracy are frequently denounced as "isolationists" by Democrats.
32. Re:even a broken clock... by Alsee · 2014-01-25 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  NASA should definite send a probe out to whatever planet you're living on.
  Defense+Veterans is about tied with Medicare+Medicaid for largest budget category, followed by Social Security third. Nothing else even makes it onto the radar. Lumping together ALL other discretionary spending (education, non-defense research, transportation, CDC, NASA, etc etc etc etc) still only adds up to 4th place in the budget.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
33. Re:even a broken clock... by stenvar · 2014-01-25 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  While that's technically true, one of the problems is that in practice they are conflated by the people who call themselves libertarians. Especially in the tea party movement
  The Tea Party itself advocates for reducing the national debt, spending, and taxes, nothing more. The fact that that attracts unsavory elements like Christian conservatives doesn't change the goals, nor the fact that even people who hate each other's guts can cooperate politically on a common goal.
  The reason you hate the Tea Party so much is because both Democratic and Republican politicians have seen a threat their ability to hand out vast sums to their cronies in industry and special interest groups, and so they figured that destroying the reputation of the Tea Party would be the best defense. And they were right.
  
  I've come to the conclusion that the norquist "starve the beast" approach is a bad idea. It is too simplistic - it is the stick without the carrot. It needs a complementary "good governance" movement too.
  Then you have missed the point. Governance is never "good"; it is sometimes necessary, but when it is, it is a grudging compromise.
  You think of government as an animal that you can reward and punish and that will learn and improve over time, but that's ridiculously naive.
34. Re:even a broken clock... by Goody · 2014-01-25 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  Both factors make feedback cycles more rapid & precise. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if evidence existed that those poor backward horse-riding founders could conceive of this.
  But again, this was very much a function of the state of technology and the limitations of travel and communications at the time. The feedback cycle today can be instantaneous, across the country. And while state representatives live closer to those they represent, that's not a function of state power. Members of Congress live near those they represent. We could have no recognition of states or any state governments and still have federal government representatives distributed across the US, representing people.
  State and local government does lend itself to backwardness, which is probably why conservatives gravitate to it. The founders should be admired for the country they created, however if you brought them back today they wouldn't know what a computer is, what a semi automatic weapon was and why somebody shot up a movie theater with one, why all the homosexuals aren't in prison, and why there are so many free slaves walking around.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
35. Re:even a broken clock... by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-01-25 14:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The House made a real budget, and passed it several times. The Senate refused to even take one of them up, debate, amend, and refine the bill and send back to the House. There was a real budget - but one Chamber was politically motivated to see sequestration implemented.
  As far as the size of the cut to the DOD, defense was cut larger by percentage and in absolute terms.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
36. Re:even a broken clock... by khallow · 2014-01-25 14:15 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is all the others who are either wolves in sheep's clothing or just unprincipled "useful idiots" who simply don't have intellectual rigor to push back on the self-interested and well-monied anarcho-capitalist types who are working hard to co-opt the tea party groups.
  I have to say that I find this concern unrealistic. I don't dispute that the Tea Party movement has a bunch of parasites of dubious provenance attached to it, including perhaps some of the fabled well-monied anarcho-capitalist types, but at its core, is a legitimate concern that keeps getting brushed off. There is an increasing disregard for the law and future consequences which can threaten the continued existence of the US.
  
  FWIW, I've come to the conclusion that the norquist "starve the beast" approach is a bad idea. It is too simplistic - it is the stick without the carrot. It needs a complementary "good governance" movement too.
  "Good governance" sounds nice, but it's not working. The US federal government continues to get bigger, more complex, more opaque, and unaccountable. A necessary condition for good governance will be a partial cutting of the Gordian knot and outright eliminating some of that. I personally don't expect a radical rollback of what has been built up over the years, but we do need a cull in order to have any chance of success.
  
  Else we get things like privatization of government services where any initial cost savings evaporates as the business owners end up with a practical monopoly on state contracts and jack the prices back up in a couple of years.
  The Russian oligarchs are a classic example of this. They originally got their wealth by controlling who got to bid on former Soviet assets. It is a real danger with privatization. But if those government contracts just didn't exist, then there would be no practical monopoly to exploit.
37. Re: even a broken clock... by cmdr_tofu · 2014-01-25 14:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I for one feel like the Federal Government benefit me by me being able to vote and eat in formerly "whites only" restaurants without being beaten due to Jim Crow. Also I went to public schools received financial aid, have driven on and received goods that travelled along interstate highways, did not get assaulted and robbed by old people because they have social security to keep them out of desperate poverty. O yeah I didn't get poisoned from food I bought at the grocery store because FDA said it was illegal to sell. I didn't get cancer because my drinking water was poisoned thanks to EPA regulations.
  I've taken trains, realized the moon was not impossible, used the Internet, benefitted from countless federally funded research projects.
  Honestly saying that very little of the money the federal government spends benefits most people (presumably citizens of the US) is utterly ludicrous.
38. Re: even a broken clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 14:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are confusing women's health rights with who gets to pay for it. Libertarians object Planned Parenthood stuff because it is funded by the government, i.e. taxpayers money. A woman has a right to do anything she wants with her body. But she doesn't have a right to do it with my money, regardless of the excuses (too long to drive, too poor, etc.). This is the key distinction that you, progressives, have a hard time understanding.
39. Re:even a broken clock... by Patent+Lover · 2014-01-25 15:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Uhhhh who sent all those troops overseas under false pretenses again? You can Google it.
40. Re:even a broken clock... by Patent+Lover · 2014-01-25 15:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A budget that can't be passed by the Senate and won't be signed by the President is not a real budget. It's a hope that they can still get reelected in their gerrymandered districts and still remain relevant.
41. Re:even a broken clock... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-01-25 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You think of government as an animal that you can reward and punish and that will learn and improve over time, but that's ridiculously naive.
  That's funny ... I think you are the one being ridiculously naive. You think government is a monolithic entity defined by a single parameter -- incompetence. You make your perception reality by giving up any expectation of competence and leaving it all in the hands of those who wish to use it for the worst purposes. When you abdicate your role in a participatory democracy, of course you are going to get worst possible version of governance.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
42. Re:even a broken clock... by VortexCortex · 2014-01-25 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the GOP is in the middle of a transformation.
  ... and everyone's thinking: "And I'll form the Head!"
43. Re:even a broken clock... by saleenS281 · 2014-01-25 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's because the House budgets all included the elimination of the national healthcare mandate: that wasn't a legitimate budget, that was their way of claiming they were just looking for compromise.
  
  That's the equivalent of a Democratically controlled House passing a budget that eliminates all military spending. I'm sure the Republican Senate would amend it and send it back rather than tell them to pound sand. Right?
44. Re:even a broken clock... by saleenS281 · 2014-01-25 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  But it's working so well for Russia...
45. Re:even a broken clock... by atriusofbricia · 2014-01-25 16:33 · Score: 2
  
  Both factors make feedback cycles more rapid & precise. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if evidence existed that those poor backward horse-riding founders could conceive of this.
  But again, this was very much a function of the state of technology and the limitations of travel and communications at the time. The feedback cycle today can be instantaneous, across the country. And while state representatives live closer to those they represent, that's not a function of state power. Members of Congress live near those they represent. We could have no recognition of states or any state governments and still have federal government representatives distributed across the US, representing people.
  State and local government does lend itself to backwardness, which is probably why conservatives gravitate to it. The founders should be admired for the country they created, however if you brought them back today they wouldn't know what a computer is, what a semi automatic weapon was and why somebody shot up a movie theater with one, why all the homosexuals aren't in prison, and why there are so many free slaves walking around.
  The giant difference is the amount of influence you have against your city or State government is far far greater than you do against anyone in Fed.gov. Depending on the size of the city you're in your Mayor may care what you personally think and say. The President of the US cares not one little bit what you personally think and your Senator's likely care little more. You're a number among millions and they are going to be far more influenced by someone down on K Street than you.
  That's the point in the end. Your direct power over someone in the Fed.gov is very limited simply as a function of numbers. Your direct power over your State rep is far greater and in the end if your State sucks in your mind, you can relatively easily move to one that matches your view points. Don't like the conservatism of the Mid-west for instance, move to California or vice versa. The Founders reasonably foresaw this and they may have no idea what a computer was but that doesn't make the Federal system they crafted antiquated and we are poorer for having moved from it. They might wonder why there were so many "free slaves walking around" (or not, as many of them were abolitionists or proto-abolutionists) but they definitely would wonder why in the world we had let Fed.gov become the out of control leviathan it is and how in the world it has been allowed to reach into the life of every last man, woman and child.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
46. Re:even a broken clock... by dryeo · 2014-01-25 16:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually the invention of the horse collar pretty well ended slavery in most of the civilized world. A horse that wasn't strangling itself is much more productive per unit of food then a human slave. Even in America at the time of the War of Independence, slavery was on the way out with the price of a slave having dropped to $50.
  England was having court cases where slaves were using habeas corpus to gain their freedom while in the States the cotton gin was invented and the rich landowners people needed cheap labour but did not want more white trash in the form of indentured servants and such and the use of slaves picked up in response to the need for cheap labour with no political rights.
  Remember that the USA was the last of the western nations to ban slavery, only finally banning it in 1867 though it was on the way out as the slave economy could not compete and the South was failing economically when competing with cotton growers in other regions that were paying a wage for labour, especially as the (mostly English) factory owners considered slavery immoral and preferred buying cotton that was more ethically produced.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
47. Re:even a broken clock... by dcollins · 2014-01-25 17:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy."
  Great book: David Robertson, "The Original Compromise: What the Constitution's Framers Were Really Thinking". Basically it's a boiling-down of the Federalist Papers (notes from debates at the original Constitutional Convention). The point being, there was no overarching principle or methodology, our constitution is the end result of a 55-man scramble, argument, and horse-trading over whose interests would get the most power behind them. The prime mover, Madison, absolutely came in with a plan and coalition to basically make the states negligible and have one strong federal government; but the people who didn't agree with what his group would likely do with those powers resisted and ultimately fractured the coalition, with every state looking to defend its own competing interests (e.g., ship-building versus trading versus slaves, etc.). Southern states were all pro-strong federal government (anti-states) for a few weeks until it appeared that the feds would get the power to stop slavery, then they pivoted and started demanding defenses for state governments. No single principle was agreed on in general; it's a mixed business negotiation basically. Including intentionally ambiguous language in places to avoid prolonged argumentation that summer.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
48. Re:even a broken clock... by techno-vampire · 2014-01-25 17:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Remember that the USA was the last of the western nations to ban slavery, only finally banning it in 1867
  
  As a matter of fact, no. Slavery in Brazil didn't end until the Lei Ãurea went into effect on May 13, 1888.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
49. Re: even a broken clock... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 17:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Damn, of all the times to lack mod points... (posting anon in case some suddenly appear at midnight again)
  Ialso benefited (and benefit)from government spending: Iwas only able to get a regular education at a public school because the government required them to accommodate disabilities whenever reasonable rather than warehousing all of us in special ed. It's also the government's SSI, SNAP&Medicaid programs that let me have somewhere to live, food and medical care so I can live a fairly independent life as a disabled adult (the alternative would be having to play a 'good little girl' 24/7 in hope relatives would shoulder the expenses).
  Ialso drive on roads that aren't covered in really deep potholes thanks to government efforts... My city council neglected the job (despite having funds) for a few years back around 2000, and it was stunning how rapidly they grew into deep craters that punctured tires, trashed steering alignments and injured a lot of kids/adults on bikes, skateboards, etc. due to being unable to see them in time to avoid crashes. (The story of how one guy's satirical council-embarrassing antics got all but one of them voted out is worth reading.)
50. Re:even a broken clock... by drinkypoo · 2014-01-26 01:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  When you abdicate your role in a participatory democracy, of course you are going to get worst possible version of governance.
  Nationalism is feudalism writ large. Libertarians would simply like it writ smaller, because they are sure that they are superior to the rest of us and will wind up lord of their own little fiefdom. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the vast majority of them will wind up serfs, but math isn't their strong suit. Selfishness is.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
51. Re:even a broken clock... by ganjadude · 2014-01-26 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure the Republican Senate would amend it and send it back rather than tell them to pound sand. Right?
  
  I bolded this part for a reason. That is exactly what would happen. But that is not what the democrats in the senate did. They didnt even bring the bills to the floor for a vote and amend process. THAT is what I find disturbing about the current senate
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
52. Re:even a broken clock... by ganjadude · 2014-01-26 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  I guess the mods didnt get the joke. That was a good joke right? because if you are actually serious...no, no good joke.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
53. Re:even a broken clock... by Alsee · 2014-01-26 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  I was explicit in including Veterans Benefits. It is is obviously part of the military compensation package. The figures I looked at had a listing for "Medicare&Medicaid" which explains why your figure for "Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid" was slightly higher.
  In any case, there are are three almost exactly equal budget categories that dominate the federal budget at over 20% each, vastly larger than anything else in the budget. There's no reasonable way to call any of those three "a small fraction of the federal budget".
  
  And, yes, that's a small fraction of any nation's budget.
  I can't find global figures breaking down military spending expenses as a portion of each "nations budget", but I did easily find global figures breaking down military spending as a percentage of the entire GrossDomesticProduct.
  The United States spends an extraordinarily high percentage on the military.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
54. Re:even a broken clock... by Teancum · 2014-01-26 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  That's because the House budgets all included the elimination of the national healthcare mandate: that wasn't a legitimate budget, that was their way of claiming they were just looking for compromise.
  
  Get over the "national healthcare mandate". The Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) is hardly what you think it is, but rather a huge corporate welfare program for big insurance companies to be heavily subsidized (all at taxpayer expense) in an attempt to shove additional programs at some targeted voter blocks. It takes the worst aspects of the National Health Service from the UK and combines them with raw kickbacks, costing everybody much more money, and only makes the top managers and board of directors of a few select politically connected insurance companies into billionaires.
  Do you really think it is better to concentrate yet more money, especially through legislation, into the hands of political elite as a deliberate act? Yeah, that is real progressive.
55. Re:even a broken clock... by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-26 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  "The reason you hate the Tea Party so much is because both Democratic and Republican politicians have seen a threat their ability to hand out vast sums to their cronies in industry and special interest groups, and so they figured that destroying the reputation of the Tea Party would be the best defense. And they were right."
  The tea party is full of rebadged republicans looking for a new angle to come from - marketing, in other words and any damage to it's reputation has been done by it's own members.
  To say that republican politicians consider the tea party to be a threat as they are very much the same people.
  The fact that Sarah Palin is the de facto leader alone is enough to completely destroy any support that I may ever have had for it.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
56. Re:even a broken clock... by Jason+Levine · 2014-01-26 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth.
  This part is key. The religious right likes talking about Judeo Christian values, but I'm not fooled. Though I'm Jewish and theoretically are included in their "Judeo Christian values" what they really mean is "our flavor of Christianity." Let's say they got their fondest desire and the US became a theocracy where laws were set based on what they claimed the Bible said. Who would "they" be? Southern Baptists? Catholics? Protestants? The Westboro Baptist Church? What would happen wouldn't be a "peaceful, prosperous theocracy-based US", but a war among the various religions. Each would deride the others as being "the wrong path" and would jockey for political position. As the larger religions gained political power, they would use political tricks to keep the smaller religions from gaining strength. (Sort of like how Republicans/Democrats keep third parties out of power.)
  What's worse would be that politics and religion would become mixed. Not only would religion tell the government what laws to pass, but the government would tell religions how to function. How long would the theocracy function before Islam was banned? What about Hinduism, Wicca, Buddism, and any other non-Judeo Christian religion? For that matter, how long before Jews were forced to accept Christ as their savior or else be jailed for violating the Souls in Heaven by Invoking Trinity Act?
  The religious right scare me because of their stated goals. They scare me even more because they are so blind that they don't see that accomplishing their stated goals would lead to a hell, not a heaven.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
57. Re:even a broken clock... by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-26 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  The tea party is full of rebadged republicans looking for a new angle to come from - marketing, in other words and any damage to it's reputation has been done by it's own members.
  And that's bad... how? The Republicans are a mix of Christian conservatives, libertarians, and other groups. Some of those want to distinguish themselves from the rest of the party.
  
  To say that republican politicians consider the tea party to be a threat as they are very much the same people.
  Bullshit. There are Tea Party Republicans and anti-Tea Party Republicans. You just refuse to make a distinction because you're blindly partisan.
  There may be anti tea-party republicans but there are surely very few, if any, anti-republican tea-partiers. It is not a separate 'party' and it is, fundamentally, no different from right wing conservative republicanism.
  Incidentally I am not 'blindly partisan', as you falsely assume. I detest the entire political establishment from top to bottom, democrats, republicans and republicans trying hard to appear not to be republicans. I don't like libertarians either, for that matter, as their party stances lead to an impoverished low class, no middle class and the end of civilization as we know it today.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
58. Re:even a broken clock... by sjames · 2014-01-26 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  It's a big problem, and affects the Ds as well. Honestly, Eisenhower sounds more like a D that today's Ds do.
59. Re:even a broken clock... by bmajik · 2014-01-27 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Firstly, I really recommend people watch this video series. It's brilliant:
  http://www.thegreatcourses.com...
  One of the things discussed here was that Hamilton and Madison, architects of the new national government, were acutely familiar with the history of self-governance experiments elsewhere in Europe, from ancient Greece onward.
  They sought to avoid the inevitable decline of all previous attempts of such societies. Madison, especially, observed that factionalism led to the decline of all such pluralistic, democratic societies. Once one faction gained sufficient power, it marginalized opposing factions and consolidated power.
  Rather than trying to eliminate factionalism, Madison's basic idea was to depend on it. He proposed a national government whereby differing factions would always be at each others necks, with no faction really having the possibility of gaining enough power to completely suppress all the others. Factionalism can be broken down along a variety of axis (wealth, education, aristocracy, etc), and Madison tried to work that into the construction of the government as well. This also helped balance the VERY different perspectives of Jefferson, the rural populist, and Hamilton, who would be happy if everyone still wore powdered wigs.
  So, we can certainly debate how well Madison's plans have worked out in practice (e.g. do we really have multiple competing factions? Or just the illusion of controversy, ala the WWF wrestlers...), but in principle, the two major parties arguing against policies and practices chiefly when used by their opponents if part of the plan. According to Madison, the system _needs_ opposing factions in order to outlast the previous European attempts at self-governance.
  It would be interesting to do an analysis of legislation that was swept through the federal government with broad support, and tabulate how often that legislation was ultimately found to be harmful/undesirable...
  
  --
  My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Oh, the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.
1. Re:Oh, the irony by ganjadude · 2014-01-25 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, The vote passed the senate 98-1-1 and only 64 members of the house voted no. The patriot act was bipartisian.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:Oh, the irony by causality · 2014-01-25 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.
  You actually think there are two parties? They are two factions of the same party. It's your basic duopoly. If it were a marketplace, the average person would understand why that's bad. This is power, something even worse than money in terms of the damage it can do.
  
  The best analogy is the way all US wireless phone carriers overcharged for text messaging. None of their prices were related to the actual cost of delivering the service (zero for GSM-based phones). None of them wanted to try undercutting the competition because they all made more money that way. They each recognized it was in their interests not to rock the boat.
  
  That's what a two-party system is like. That's why the Founders warned against allowing one to develop. At the state level, it's the same two parties who write the election rules and neither has any incentive to make it easy for third parties to get on the ballot. Effectively, the two parties serve the same function as the trade guilds of old: to lock out competition.
  
  It's to be expected that they take turns being the bad guy. It's called good cop, bad cop, and it's a method of manipulating the voters by playing them in the middle.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
3. Re:Oh, the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sort of. The Patriot Act is simply too large to have been drafted in the timeframe allotted, so we can start with the obvious truth that whoever really wrote it had it on the shelf awaiting an opportunity. That is chilling, and under-reported, enough.
  It's also worth noting that the two people in Congress who were capable of stopping it were exactly the ones targeted by the anthrax attacks--attacks which have never been solved. Isn't that convenient? Well, it certainly was if you were the Bush Administration anyway...
  Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of this unconstitutional law because the far right corporate media drumbeat was going to brand them as unpatriotic or worse if they even wanted to figure out what they were voting on. But hey, it was OK, because they were only going to violate the Constitution for a little while, right? Except that it keeps getting renewed, and renewed, and renewed even though it is very highly obvious that terrorism as an actual threat to the US is completely overblown.
  Time to end this idiotic war on the American people, end the TSA, end the wholesale harassment of absolutely everybody at the borders, and stop spying on everybody's Internet and banking activities.
4. Re:Oh, the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-25 10:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sorry, but the Patriot Act extension in 2011 was overwhelmingly supported by House Republicans, 196 Republican yeas to 54 Democrat Yeas.
  http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376
  The extension was not in any way "bi-partisan".
5. Re:Oh, the irony by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-25 12:10 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but the Patriot Act extension in 2011
  I don't think he was talking about the Patriot Act extension.
  Look back in 2001 and see how bipartisan it was. The two parties knew they could take advantage of people's fear and irrationality at the time, so they pushed it through in a bipartisan effort. Those are their true colors. What you see today is merely a reaction to more voters waking up and realizing that the Patriot Act sucks, so now politicians are pretending to care.
Re:Considering they're fighting so hard against Ob by dale.furno · 2014-01-25 08:35 · Score: 2

Who is working to end this?
not Obama, that is for sure
The only change thus far has been that the the NSA has been ordered to use the Rubberstamp FISA court.
the appearance of change. not actual change.
Re:Considering they're fighting so hard against Ob by sideslash · 2014-01-25 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Obama who is working very hard to end this
[citation needed]
Realization Dawns by IonOtter · 2014-01-25 08:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Back in 2002 or so, when people were really starting to rally against the PATRIOT act, the usual faces were all over the media, calling detractors "terrorist sympathizers" and worse. More than a few openly called for such people to be labeled traitors.

Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors? (source)

And here's Paul Krugman with regards to Rush Limbaugh back in 2002...

As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism." (source.)

I can't remember where it happened, or who exactly said it, but someone confronted Rush Limbaugh about his words and said, "Imagine if Hillary Clinton were to become president, and she has the power that you want to give President Bush."
Well.
It would appear that has a very good chance of happening. And what was laughed off back in 2002, is now staining underwear in 2014.

--
[End Of Line]
1. Re:Realization Dawns by Microlith · 2014-01-25 09:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  most of the dangerous terrorists were lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and killed.
  Were they? Sounds more like a rationalization or ex post facto justification for those wars. I would argue that they didn't exist at the proclaimed threat level that was presented, given the lack of any real attacks in the mentioned time frame.
  
  Now it's 2014 and the President is using the IRS
  We'll just ignore, like the GOP did, that the IRS went after "Occupy" groups as well, and that every group investigated did get its non-profit status eventually.
  
  EPA, and ATF to harass and attack his political opponents.
  I know that people who hate Obama love to make baseless claims, so I'm going to have to ask you for some examples of this.
  
  Government threats are real and present.
  And they were ignored wholly from 2001 to 2008, then suddenly they became the biggest threat ever.
2. Re:Realization Dawns by Microlith · 2014-01-25 12:26 · Score: 2
  
  No one justified anything. Stop trying to change the subject.
  I'm not changing the subject, I'm directly questioning your assertion. There's no evidence that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did a single, goddamn thing to prevent terrorism in the US. None.
  
  Making it OK for the President to use the IRS to to harass and attack his political opponents?
  It still hasn't been shown that the President was involved, I'm sure that his enemies would be all over the news if they had any actual evidence for it. But, again, we'll ignore the fact that "occupy" groups were overly scrutinized as well. You still didn't respond to my question regarding the EPA and ATF being used against political opponents.
  
  "Suddenly" the President is using the IRS to harass and attack his political opponents.
  Let's ignore the fact that the prior president started two wars and helped needlessly expand the power of the executive, increasing the threat to the public. Face it, you're a partisan hack and ignored the wrong-doing until "not your guy" ended up in office.
Re:Nobody.... by rmdingler · 2014-01-25 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Governor Perry of Texas was in the news this week backing the State's Rights side of Colorado's marijuana legalization,
but I suspect the homosexual angle will be solely Democrat for some time to come because of the religious objections.
The anti-surveillance stance reminds me of the rally against deficit spending by whichever Party is presently out of power.
The roles in our two-trick pony show are amusingly interchangeable.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The law of unintended consequences by XxtraLarGe · 2014-01-25 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

These guys never take into consideration that you should never grant yourself any powers you wouldn't want your enemies to have...

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
1. Re:The law of unintended consequences by HiThere · 2014-01-25 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What you miss is that the Republicans and the Democrats are only pretend enemies. They are actually allies. So their "enemy" getting the power they asked for isn't something that bothers them.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Oh, the data! by causality · 2014-01-25 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who can you recommend?
If you are mature enough to understand that most are not anarcho-capitalists, I'd recommend the Libertarian Party. They're the only ones I know of who are serious about reducing the size and power of government, which is badly needed right now. If that ever happens (ha ha!) I'd be open to other ideas myself.

I could not in good conscience recommend either major party. I'd personally rather back the underdog that's not going to win, than be Satan's Little Helper, but that's me.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Put your money where your mouth is by MikeRT · 2014-01-25 08:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Pass a resolution calling for the prosecution of all federal agents who engaged in the practice of "parallel constructions" and in particular try the entire clandestine side of the DEA as a criminal conspiracy operating under color of authority for its major role in that.
Re:Nobody.... by Bartles · 2014-01-25 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the democratic party doesn't have abortion, same sex marriage, welfare, and racism, what do they have left? Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.
Re:Nobody.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-01-25 08:58 · Score: 2

Inconveniently, it's not confusion so much as disagreement that you are encountering on that one. People just can't get enough of the intoxicating feeling of having society and the power of the state united behind their personal tastes. Worse, some of them think that this feeling is objectively good, as well as pleasurable.
Re:They now have proof that it can be abused by causality · 2014-01-25 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's all about the targets.
Republicans never thought the targets would be other American citizens.
Obama has proven them wrong.
Yes, for some reason there are still large numbers of people who need proof that something which happened every single other time (power being abused) is, in fact, going to happen again this time if you start with the same conditions.

I generally call these people "idiots", but you may prefer such terms as "numbnuts", "morons", "imbeciles", etc.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Where Will They Find the Courage? by Nimey · 2014-01-25 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's an election year.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Nobody.... by Captain+Splendid · 2014-01-25 09:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.

Good point. Probably why the GOP won't be seeing the inside of the White House anytime during the next 6 years.

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:Oh, the data! by fustakrakich · 2014-01-25 09:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh please. The government isn't run by the people you elect. It's run by the people who finance their appearance on the TV. And if all you people didn't play along, the velvet glove would come off. Power and privilege is never given up peacefully. The 'underdogs' are allowed to mouth off because nobody's listening.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Ramming: ACA vs USA PATRIOT Act by mjkuhns · 2014-01-25 09:37 · Score: 2

Then again, Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in a staggeringly atypical rush for such sweeping legislation, amid what was for much of the country a state of still-raw shock and terror.

By comparison the Affordable Care Act -- "Obamacare" if you insist -- passed both chambers with significant majorities after lengthy and intense debate. Debate, moreover, on issues and policy responses that were both familiar for some considerable time beforehand.

I'm not aware of any standard, detailed definition for "ramming" legislation through, so presumably this must remain a matter of personal opinion. But for my part, I really don't see a persuasive case for suggesting that the ACA was "rammed through" but the USA PATRIOT Act was not.
Watergate? by acidradio · 2014-01-25 09:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wait a minute. Weren't these the same people who broke into the Democratic Natl. Committee's headquarters seeking to pilfer with documents and information?
Re:Oh, the data! by anagama · 2014-01-25 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Greens are interesting too ... essentially libertarians with a greater willingness to ensure a social safety net and protect the commons (environment) from being abused by a few who profit at everyone else's expense.
Honestly though, I'd vote for either. The DNC and GOP are so corrupted by and enslaved to their donors, I'd be happy to see anyone kick their collective elephantine asses.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:That's not what I see. by causality · 2014-01-25 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Christian Right still has a HUGE stranglehold on the party and that's why unless the Liberian leaning candidate is also for government control of sex, marriage, and reproduction (especially abortion), they will have no chance.
Which is really hilarious considering that I've read the Bible, and I couldn't find "tell thy neighbors how they shall live" anywhere in it. I did, however, find a great deal about not judging.

The religious right's only real interest seems to be using force and threat of force (police power of gov't) to demand that others live only in ways they approve of. They obviously have no real belief in the power of their Biblical message to convince, nor in their own ability to set a good example which works so well that others want to follow it voluntarily. It's just the name of Christ used as an excuse to control people. If they were true to their belief and had the love and forgiveness it demands, and attained the joy it promises, I believe the urge to control others is one of the first character flaws they'd overcome.

The modern political arm of "Christianity" reminds me of what Gandhi (a Hindu) said. He said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are nothing like your Christ."

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
FTFY: GOP notices that NSA spies on them too by gestalt_n_pepper · 2014-01-25 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yup. Even the most dimwitted Republicans have figured out that America's secret police do not discriminate. They spy on *everybody* who might need to be arrested or blackmailed (i.e. everybody), congress included.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Re:That's not what I see. by HiThere · 2014-01-25 10:29 · Score: 3, Informative

You didn't read it carefully enough. There are many places where "god" commands that their neighbors be destroyed or enslaved because they don't behave exactly the way the current spokesman for God thinks they should.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:There are two parties, just not the ones you th by inode_buddha · 2014-01-25 12:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.

--
C|N>K
Re:There are two parties, just not the ones you th by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-25 12:43 · Score: 2

"hat's why instead of voting for PARTIES, you need to understand where the candidates you can choose between lie on the statist/non-statists continuum ..."
... and realize that the statist - non-statist (others call it authoritarian-independent) continuum is not directly related to the Left-Right continuum.

That's why THIS was invented.
Scotsmen by starcraftsicko · 2014-01-25 15:31 · Score: 2

Cause true libertarians believe
Libertarians are... whatever they say they are. They don't need to be defined by you; certainly they do not need to be defined into a corner as you are attempting to do here. Yes, the ideas you've discussed have been promulgated by those who would call themselves Libertarians, but these ideas are not necessarily true of all, or even most modern would-be (l)ibertarians.
The Libertarian Party has adopted questionable policy perspectives in part because they have never had a serious chance of participating in government. (l)ibertarians who have wanted to govern (in the USA...) have had to, by necessity, find a place in one of the parties that were willing and able to do so. With the expansion of programs like the NSA's data collection, with the emergence of private data, with the expansion of all of government, it's really not surprising that more people would want a third option. It may be possible for another party to participate.
You could call them Democrats who feel that Obama and co. are guilty of massive overreach.
You could call them Republicans who feel that Bush and co. were guilty of the same.
Democrats will probably call them backwards racists.
Republicans will probably call them anarchists.
But if they all start to call themselves (L)ibertarians, watch out.
But no True Scotsman expects that to happen.
Re:That's not what I see. by symbolic · 2014-01-25 15:55 · Score: 2

It should be noted that this comes from the same Old Testament they conveniently ignore day in and day out.
Re:Oh, the data! by anagama · 2014-01-25 17:29 · Score: 2

Apparently you didn't really pay attention, it being so much more fun to criticize.
Jill Stein was the candidate last season. She's a medical doctor.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Politics on /. by FreedomFirstThenPeac · 2014-01-26 05:56 · Score: 2

People, this is one forum where I would have hoped we would all be familiar with the political compass and could read at least the abstract and conclusions of papers like Merlo2011.
That said, the Republicans are in a civil war between the "statists" and the "liberals" (in the european sense of the word). The Dumbocrats (sp?) are similarly torn, but they are miraculously immune from questioning by the Media-ocratic press. Meanwhile, the rest of the planet (~6B not in Europe or US are basically killing themselves, us, and anything else as they squabble over whose imaginary friends are the most potent (sorta like a real-world extension of the Friday night fights between StarWars fanboys and Trekkies, but with real bullets and real bombs).
When I taught military strategy, I often asked mystudents if they thought rational societies could win out over irrational ones. The mathematics of mutual assured destruction (the context for my question) fail in the absence of a form of rationality on both sides. In the 60s and 70s there was a form of that rationality as required by the assumptions. I fear that in the present world there is no such bi-lateral rationality, at least not between the Western European styles of government and the theocratic forms we are confronting.
Good luck with all that. Myself, I don't live near a ground zero during these time. Welcome to World War IV.

--
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.