Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act Spy Powers To Expire As Rand Paul Blocks USA Freedom Act Vote
Saturday, we mentioned that three major spying powers that the U.S. government has exercised under the Patriot Act might be nixed, as the sections of the Act granting authority to use them expires. The Daily Dot reports that Senator (and presidential contender) Rand Paul today used Senate rules to block a bill which would have extended those powers, which means that as of midnight Sunday on the U.S. east coast, sections 206, 207 and 215 of the Patriot Act will have expired. Says the Daily Dot's article, linked by reader blottsie:
The reform bill, which the House passed before leaving town for a week-long recess, would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records under the Patriot Act's controversial Section 215 but leaves the other two provisions intact. ... Sunday's procedural meltdown was the second narrow defeat for the USA Freedom Act. In a late-night session on Friday, May 22, the bill fell three votes short of an initial procedural step after [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell lobbied hard against it. The Senate's failure to meet its deadline was a blow to President Obama, who on Friday had warned lawmakers that the country would be vulnerable if the USA Freedom Act did not pass.
At least it becomes a new bill rather than a reauthorization. The stink that sticks to the yes voters is far worse for passing a new bill rather than just reauthorizing someones elses dirty work.
Considering the anthrax attack that was used to promote the Patriot Act in the first place, you have very good reason to be afraid. People who want the power provided by those corrupt laws will be more than willing to do quite extreme things to get that power back.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's
I am not an American citizen, but a Greek... I HONOR THOSE WHO HONOR THEIR OATH AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.
This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime
I am not an American citizen, but a Greek... i have no problem with Democracy doing what is supposed to do: pass the Patriot Act, and then kill it... no problem with me!
I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill
I am not an American citizen, but i am a Greek... if i could vote as an American citizen then Rand Paul would had my vote (i liked his father also) - dictator Obama and his supporters can go fuck themselves (YES, THEY CAN).
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
And how do you feel about Rand Paul's pro-life stance? How about his anti-gay marriage stance? How about his pro-world police stance?
I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's
This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime
I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill
Blame Obama? Thats the punchline to this joke of yours? It isn't funny, because it is predictable and wrong , and at this point.. pointless.
I am proud to be an American, but for real reasons, not because of the thinly veiled and predictable power grabbing and posturing going on in the Senate leading up to the 2016 election cycle. Let's break down your delusions here one by one so we can tease apart the cluster-fsck of convoluted pseudo-logic that comprises your post:
I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's
I take from this you mean to imply that you are an immigrant and trying to position yourself as someone who has an outside perspective to the "unwashed masses" of us who have elected Obama not once but twice. Welcome to America! You do realize that the people you are talking up, namely the Republican party have repeatedly tried and tried again to make it so that people like you cannot immigrate to the US, to close down the borders and make it so that America is a "closed society" which goes against the principles of the founding fathers and the very principles that have repeatedly made this country a world power, namely it's diversity. This makes me start to doubt the truth of your claim of being an immigrant, the contradiction of ideas you present paints the larger picture that you are just saying this to try to make it look like you are one who "should" be a supporter of Obama, who has, despite being undermined by the Republican controlled Congress and Senate, worked around the clock in his term to keep America diverse and open and a free society.. but this is just the beginning of the mess of conflicting ideas you present here.. we continue with your convoluted points...
This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime
It becomes clear here that you get 100% of your news from FOX, which reinforces the conclusion you are not an immigrant, because why wouldn't you be getting some of your news from BBC or CBC or some other actually "Fair and Balanced" news network that actually is balanced by its very nature, not just it's contradictory, politically and religiously motivated tagline, that the PEOPLE know is just false advertising, based on actual evidence of how that news network bleats out one sided, 2 dimensional programs like "Glenn Beck" or "Bill O'Reilly" whose purpose is not news reporting, but trashing the Democratic party at every turn.. If you are actually a well informed citizen who has migrated to the US, you should know better than to buy into that crap, so It is pretty clear you are someone misrepresenting yourself to make it look like your points have more weight than they actually do. This is /. and despite idiots like you posting here, the regular posters here are intelligent and know better. You continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper though..
I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictat
Debt is a distraction. The country's had a debt since the very first administration, and conservatives have been predicting imminent doom and gloom every year. Except it hasn't happened, each generation's standard of living increases, grandkids are better off than their grandparents. Reagan proved deficits don't matter, after campaigning against Carter's $68 billion deficit then raising that by a factor of four.
The private sector thrives on debt and money creation. Government should too. If government spends money financed at zero cost through the Fed to improve the General Welfare, why would unexpected, runaway inflation occur? But as a hedge, index all incomes to inflation to eliminate any inflation tax. Indexation guarantees purchasing power does not decrease.
In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic. We can and should spend more on social services, such as a Basic Income.
fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)
Wrong. Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up
Pretty much everything either of them have ever supported supports my statement of them being fascists - particularly if you use a definition of fascism that makes sense rather than just one that is used as a generic label and put-down for anyone who you disagree with.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.
While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.
This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.
p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.
p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.
what do you mean "we should spend more on basic income"???
are you saying i should just quit my job because the government ( you) will pay for it? THANK YOU!!! ive been waiting for this day for so long!!!!
Yes, basically. Firstly, why not? It will provide enough for basic food and basic shelter but little in the way of luxury. We are rich enough collectively to make sure everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their heads.
Secondly, this is more or less already the case.
The thing is if you have a basic income, you can also scrap a whole bunch of laws. Minimum wage, tax credits, food stamps, all that can just go in the bin. The basic income is more transparent and simpler. It also doesn't require vulnerable people to dealwith vast amounts of government buearacracy.
Finally it subsidises rich companies less. At the moment many large companies etc don't pay a living wage, so people need to get employed and then get some form if income support. Oh and people are trapped living paycheck to paycheck so the companies can more or less be as evil as they like. Once people have a basic income, they have the choice whether to sell labour for that price and also have much more freedom in negotiations.
Most of the arguments seem win-win to me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Irrelevant. Refusing to recognize valid marriages from another State is clearly unconstitutional, and grounds for the Supremes to bitchslap the State(s) in question. Article IV, Section 1 is pretty clear....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"