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.

345 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am so jittery... as the clock strikes Midnight I will no longer bask in the protective glow of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. I cannot fall asleep without the reassuring sound of telephone records being gathered. Surely something awful will happen tonight or tomorrow. Maybe I will try to organize the neighborhood for a continuous vigil until the Act is restored. But first, I'll just turn on the radio and catch some news...

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Don't be scared my little Yankee "barbarian" friend, let a Greek hug you... everything will be o.k.! BUT: remember that EVIL BARBARIANS (not like those who voted for the Patriot Act) exist... please DON'T FORGET!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    2. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      1. reassuring sound of telephone records being gathered
      2. turn on the radio and catch some news...

      Run these concurrently in separate tabs. You might also enjoy this 1971 re-creation. Also the chicken heart that terrified Bill Cosby as a young child. Even Mr. Roger's Neighborhood combines well with dark ambient industrial.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    3. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Don't be scared my little Yankee "barbarian" friend, let a Greek hug you... everything will be o.k.! BUT: remember that EVIL BARBARIANS (not like those who voted for the Patriot Act) exist... please DON'T FORGET!

      Thanks kindly. And hey --- on behalf of my country, I'm truly sorry we unleashed credit default swaps upon the world. That shit must have escaped from a lab somewhere.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    4. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    5. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Don't be scared my little Yankee "barbarian" friend, let a Greek hug you... everything will be o.k.! BUT: remember that EVIL BARBARIANS (not like those who voted for the Patriot Act) exist... please DON'T FORGET!

      Thanks kindly. And hey --- on behalf of my country, I'm truly sorry we unleashed credit default swaps upon the world. That shit must have escaped from a lab somewhere.

      Thanks kindly. And hey --- on behalf of my country, I'm truly sorry we made you believe that our problems is your (" barbarians' ") fault (although those "credit default swaps" was!)

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

      You are right to be concerned. Only Saturday, a young female student on a United flight tried to lay her hands on a can of cola. The flight attendant had been alerted to the danger (no doubt as a result of the Patriot Act provisions) and prevented the woman arming herself, storming the cockpit and flying the plane into the rebuilt World Trade Center. Who will monitor the intentions of these desperate terrorists if the Patriot Act provisions lapse?

      Seriously, the administration would prefer the provisions are renewed as it reduces the number of acts they carry out illegally. In reality, however, they will continue doing what they like, as they have been for decades. No prosecution for their illegal actions is possible, because the evidence of wrongdoing is classified for security reasons.

    7. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yes, something awful will happen, some unnamed person from a three letter agency won't be able to peruse your porn while he's at work. :P

    8. Re: I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They just extend their creative interpretations of still existing laws as as they do already.

    9. Re: I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

      My post was intended as flippant, but I do know the full story.

      The woman was treated normally by the United flight attendant. Rude service by United is the norm, and excusing it by claims that it is necessary for security par for the course. However, the argument that a young woman armed with a cola could be dangerous was pretty ridiculous. The better airlines provide, not only cans of soda, but even small bottles of wine. I am unaware that these have ever been used for terrorist purposes.

      She was upset, posted about it on her Facebook page, and responded to media enquiries when the story went viral. Was there any Islamophobia? I think at least one of the passengers telling her to "shut the f--k up" was probably motivated by an antipathy to Islam. I certainly would not speak that way to any young woman.

      You are quite right that the story has been blown out of proportion. That said, many people exhibit a quite irrational fear and hatred of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are normal folk whose dress code may or may not be old fashioned.

    10. Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There's never good reason to be afraid of anthrax in the mail, unless maybe you're a hated major public figure. Remind me how many people that killed?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re: I'm afraid! Please send hugs! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      She was denied an unopened can of soda. Full has nothing to do with it.

      An unopened can in a pillow case _is_ a weapon.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he's got my vote.

    1. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Mine too. He ain't perfect but he's the best bet in town.

    2. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by wxxy___ · · Score: 2

      Versus everybody else who I either disagree with on everything flat out, or they pay lip service and then never do anything or do the opposite of what they claimed to begin with.
      Not like any Presidents I know.

    3. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

      True. Actually requiring Congress to declare war before you can attack another country? Ridiculous. Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

    4. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need Sanders to use the same tactics to block any Republican cuts to Social Security.

    5. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by NormAtHome · · Score: 2

      That's my problem with politicians in general; they makes promises and say anything they need to in order to get elected and then do a complete 180 turn around and once in office break every promise they made to the people who elected them.

    6. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      who modded this interesting??? should be flamebait.

      if you are going to make such a claim, please, back it up with facts.

      Last i checked wanting to end the war on drugs, work on REAL civil rights reforms, and balance the budget were not crazy ideas

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably that these silly ideas will do any good.

      It is crazy shit as usual. Declaring war? Pointless, Congress approved of all the recent military actions and a good chunk wanted more. Term limits? As if that was near as much of a problem as the whole electoral system. Cutting taxes? Big deal. Everybody promises that, but all it does is get us another day older.

    8. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (2) try to buy a house with a loan so big that the monthly payments are bigger than your monthly net income.

      FTFY

    9. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ichthus · · Score: 1
      --
      sig: sauer
    10. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rand Paul isnt for any of those things. They are sound bites.

      Look at his budget proposals some day. They paint a different picture

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by fortfive · · Score: 1

      Representative Democracy. The worst system ever devised, except for all the others.

    12. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      how would you recommend I make my decision. I guess I could vote for hill-bush-rub-chris. he/she is a great choice.

    13. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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?

    14. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if you cut spending as well, yeah..it works....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      im fine with all of them. especially because he is not trying to push any of that

      alot of pro lifers simply believe what they do, say what they say, and if you STILL wanna do it, go for it. - thats rand

      his stance on marriage??? you mean following the constitution and leaving it to the states????

      How can you claim hes for world police when everyone of his detractors claims (wrongly) that he is an isolationist???

      try harder

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Except that it hasn't worked anywhere, anyplace. But yeah, aside from that it works.

    17. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Representative Democracy. The worst system ever devised, except for all the others.

      You think we have a "representative democracy" here in the US?

      Representative of whom? Do you believe this government represents you? Do you think it represents the will of the people?

      https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...

      https://www.opensecrets.org/ov...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Brulath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

      Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing, as they're going to encourage politicians to look for places to be employed once they're finished with their term (as a primary focus for the entire term). They also reinforce short-term thinking, as the individual politicians won't need to deal with the fallout of their decisions if they have no chance to be re-elected. Finally, the networking and experience required to get anything done in any political environment takes quite a while to build up – if you replace people at too high a rate they'll never reach the efficiency stage, which may or may not be a bad thing depending on your views.

      Most simple solutions are horribly flawed, which is often the main reason they haven't been employed previously. Cutting taxes isn't likely to help much with paying off the 21 trillion dollar debt, for example, unless new taxes on richer people are introduced.

    19. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You lie. Spending cuts have worked well on the state level in recent years, and nationally circa 1923.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the cutting taxes one is pretty insane.

      The country can't afford to provide health care for everyone. It can't afford to look after its veterans. It can't afford to keep its freeways in serviceable condition (in fact, in such bad shape that the bridges are collapsing!).

      America doesn't need tax cuts. It needs tax hikes, and military spending cuts.

    21. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      cutting spending.... doesnt lower the debt??? funny, we might as well just give every american a billion dollars since it doesnt really matter anyway

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    22. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I bought a house without a loan, a damn nice house. I worked hard, saved money, and waited until I had enough.

      Keynesian economics is the primary fraud that regards deficit spending as a good idea, and I'm certainly not going to cripple my mind by taking an economic course that promotes Keynes' hoax.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    23. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering he wants states to decide, and doesn't want us to be the world police.. He has my vote, and you're fucking clueless.

    24. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    25. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Spending cuts and tax cuts worked well? Sorry but you are wrong. Spending cuts and minor tax increases have outperformed the former every where.

    26. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Deficit spending is how the private sector thrives. Government can and should create money to provide for the General Welfare in the form of a Basic Income. You are still free not to opt in, and to conduct your finances as you see fit; but there is no reason to force everyone else to conform to your feudal economics.

    27. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      it could if we stopped spending money on pet projects and downsized the redundancy in government. we waste billions a year that could easily make up the difference.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    28. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Funny

      and if you think we should be paying more, please, lead by example. give more of your paycheck to the government

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      how am i free to not be forced in if the government raids my paycheck every week? you are not thinking this through

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    30. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If living on only a poverty-level basic income sounds better than working your current job, then, yes, I want you to quit your job. What kind of monster would want you to stay working such a job?

    31. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, dude, you have to put down the pipe and work for a living. There's no escaping the working for a living part, long-term. All we have is all we make, and so the fewer people work, the less we have - no games with money can change that. The best thing the government can do is provide incentives for people to work hard and be successful, by not punishing that. Tax everyone the same; don't create a special hated class of people who are taxed more. We shouldn't be spending more that we're all willing to pay in taxes, whether that's less or more than today - this game of "spend more and tax him over there" cannot survive much longer.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      explain to me why everyone continues to complain about business leaders running for president... when you are claiming that the government should be run more like a business

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    33. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary is misleading; the act will probably pass on Tuesday, and the provisions will be restored. It's depressing how completely dishonest this story is.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    34. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Not if it is accompanied with tax cuts. Pay attention.

    35. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if we still bring in more money than we spend its still a net gain.... pay attention

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    36. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.

      To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.

      So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.

    37. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    38. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      > Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing
      While your argumentation is sound, incubents for life are not great either - status quo tends to get more and more entrenched - bureaucracy keeps growing indefinitely even after system achieves base performance. All the problems of executive branch seeping into legislative.

      When country starts to suck, people get disillusioned with politics, lethargic. This further amplifies the feedback loop - less informed voters, more need for term limits to enact at least some change.

      Otherwise posts of career politicians are still replaced due to pawn exchanges, death and occasional corruption scandal - which luckily prevents efficacy converging towards zero as time goes. However members are keeping post for two decades or more in extreme cases, and we get very nasty things - paradoxically short sighted planning due to populism (because low quality voter base), rampant coat changing, high level corruption - old guard is well connected for it, compared to n00bs in office.

      > if you replace people at too high a rate
      It's an interesting game theoretic/social problem - design optimum algorithm to dynamically adjust term limits. Perhaps applying progressive handicap to ballot results depending on time already in office. But just like fixed term limits could be counterproductive, no term limits at all could be sticking head in the sand, hardly optimal.

    39. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your "Starve the Beast" Economic theory was shown to be an abysmal failure in two different studies by the Libertarian Cato institute.

    40. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Wait a second there. You don't believe that an organism becomes a person simply by riding down the magic birth canal?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    41. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We need national issue votes, not just representatives, similar to "propositions" in some states. The trick is to make the hurdles high to include one such that the national ballot is not gummed up with stupid issues and political gimmicks.

    42. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      For the record, I breath through my mouth because my nasal passages are quite narrow (as in, doctors have been surprised their probes don't get in very far without force), and they are usually full of mucus. It's been that way since I was a kid on a farm.

      So, for all the posters who think "mouth-breather" is just a cute phrase to call somebody, kindly go fuck yourselves. For some of us, mouth-breathing is the only solution to suffocating.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    43. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it does. Ultimately the people get the representatives they vote for.

    44. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I think politicians are already chasing post-office jobs pretty aggressively. Most people have been following the Hastert story, where the government is charging him with withdrawing his own money in an improper fashion. My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money? Supposedly it's all coming from his time after Congress.

      We have term limits in California. If they've made a difference, for good or ill, I don't see it.

    45. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Eh? I bought my house without a loan. Is fiscal responsibility so out of fashion people are starting to think it's impossible?

    46. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What's the problem with that? We only have permanent bases in countries that have welcomed us, with open arms, to build those facilities. It is a benefit to us to have the means to pre-emptively stop attacks that are heading our way (admittedly, not the typical scenario) and it is a benefit to the countries allowing us to operate within their borders to have us not only ready and willing, but also present, to protect them should the need ever arise. Sounds like a win-win to me.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    47. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maintain a wise diet, exercise moderately, get laid off, then get hit by a bus. And live. Then, be glad the government was there to pick you up.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    48. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You think we have a "representative democracy" here in the US?

      Yes, because you vote in representatives who vote for you instead of voting directly on every issue. That's the name for the structure of the government that you have. No one sait it was a GOOD representative democracy:)

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    49. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    50. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, dude, you have to put down the pipe and work for a living.

      Ad homenim, as expected from one who lacks a rational argument.

      I have my own company and I work hard and enjoy it, and I still support basic income. There's little point in trying to win you over with rational arguments since you're clearly of the opinion that anyone supporting this is a workshy slacker. If I've got you wrong, and you are actually interested, then there's plenty to read onlinbe about it.

      Tax everyone the same; don't create a special hated class of people who are taxed more.

      For certain definitions of the "same", sure. How about taxing everyone's disposable income the same. Taxing gross income the same disporportionately affects poor people more becaue the value of money is not uniform. If you can barely affort food, an extra $10 a week is worth a lot more than if you're earning $100k.

      We shouldn't be spending more that we're all willing to pay in taxes,

      Well that means we spend $0, because some people are unable or unwilling to pay any taxes. Still, I like roads, fire engines and etc.

      this game of "spend more and tax him over there" cannot survive much longer.

      Depends how it's played. If you make it corrupt, when you tax the poor and middle class and pile the money on to the richest the sure, it can't survive. Wealth redistribution is however useful.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    51. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing the term representative democracy, for a democracy that's proportionally representative.

      Representative democracy is where you have a specific assigned representative you can go to, this is what we have here too in the UK, we have a local MP who we vote in to represent us in parliament.

      But not every system of democracy has that local representative, some you just vote for the government and if you want to speak to them you contact them directly, rather than your elected local political representative. No one represents your area in this sort of system, they just represent the country as a whole.

      This is not to be conflated with a proportionally representative system, for example, in the UK 1/3rd of local representatives were elected with less than 30% of the local vote, and more than half less than 50%. As such in the UK we have a representative system because your area has a representative in parliament, the problem is that it is not proportionally representative such that although we have a representative in theory, he doesn't actually represent us in practice because he often has only the support of a minority of local constituents.

    52. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      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!!!!

      That would make you a minority, according to an experiment that those crazy Canadians have run a while ago to see what the social effects of universal basic income would be.

    53. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic.

      So they are, but the president does not unilaterally decide economic policy.

      A Paul in the office would primarily mean two things. First, he'd dismantle as much of the executive as he could within the boundaries that are set out by the Congress (just to give one example in addition to this whole NSA thing - he could legitimately, by executive order, remove cannabis from all DEA schedules, effectively legalizing it on federal level). And second, he would veto most Congress bills, so only supermajority bills could pass. I suspect that budgets would ultimately fall into that category.

      I'm somewhere between liberal and libertarian with a dash of socialism, personally (e.g. I support universal basic income guarantee), but I'd be willing to tolerate Paul's cookery on economic issues if this means a major advance in individual rights, more sane foreign policy, and further democratization of government (through electoral reform and decentralization). Hell, if US stops waging endless wars overseas, that alone will have a greater positive effect on the country's economy than any fiddling with taxes.

    54. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yet you're getting one, time after time. Perhaps it's time to make your criteria a little bit more narrow.

    55. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We only have permanent bases in countries that have welcomed us, with open arms, to build those facilities.

      The governments, perhaps. But not the people of those countries, in many cases. Especially since many of them aren't even democracies, and so don't represent their citizens even nominally.

    56. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      his stance on marriage??? you mean following the constitution and leaving it to the states????

      And how does that work once people that are married in one state travel to a different state, or conduct any sort of activity that is affected by their marital status across state lines?

      The only way this can work given the Full Faith & Credit clause is if every state is required to recognize marriages made in any other state. Which would make same-sex marriage bans in conservative states largely meaningless.

    57. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As the productivity grows, the amount of wealth that one person can produce can (in fact, already is) well in excess of what that same person needs to live fairly comfortably. Today, that excess amount goes mostly to make the very few live lavishly to the point of grotesque. But there's no reason why that same amount can't be spread around more evenly for UBC.

      As for taxing everybody the same: good idea! Let's start by making the capital gains tax rate the same as that for the personal income tax, hmm?

    58. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sure, because there's no way one can possibly get sick without making the "wrong choices".

      As far as "the will of the people"; the people can speak of themselves. But you sure as hell don't speak for them.

    59. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      And how does that work once people that are married in one state travel to a different state, or conduct any sort of activity that is affected by their marital status across state lines?

      Pretty much the same as things worked back in the day when only Nevada allowed for quick & easy divorces. Note that those divorces were perfectly valid in all States, since the Full Faith and Credence Clause requires all States to honor that sort of thing when done by other States (note that you don't have to remarry when you move from State to State, even though the marriage is done under State law).

      In other words, if the Feds stay out of the marriage business, if you want to get married to someone of your own sex, then just go to a State that allows that sort of thing, get married, then head home...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    60. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a few states have actually refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and most purportedly "states rights" proponents in this debate supported them in that (I have no idea where Rand stands on it personally).

    61. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state. To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below

      By that logic Greece should be paradise.

      Right now most big, rich, western countries with high quality of life are supporting themselves either via oil or via debt. That is not sustainable, which is why many European countries are either significantly cutting back the state or being told they really need to by various creditors. Balanced budgets as in Germany are sustainable, but Germany is also a fair bit poorer than people realise: wages have hardly gone up there for many years.

    62. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Then you have not thought things through logically, I'm afraid.

      That's all fine and good until you have a large portion of the population either receiving said 'mincome' or in retirement. Have you checked what direction the demographics are trending in the US? Ever-fewer workers are supporting an ever-increasing population dependent on government. It's unsustainable and quickly approaching collapse already.

      Where's the money going to come from to pay collective Pauls when you run short of select Peters to rob?

      All this is perfectly fine. Frankly, long-term our problem is going to be figuring out what to do with all the people out of jobs due to pervasive automation, and UBI is the obvious way to solve this. I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.

    63. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that a few states have actually refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and most purportedly "states rights" proponents in this debate supported them in that (I have no idea where Rand stands on it personally).

      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"
    64. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We need Sanders to use the same tactics to block any Republican cuts to Social Security.

      They shouldn't be just "Republican" cuts - the Democrats should also be enthusiastically behind reforming that transfer tax program. If you think that program is a good thing, you should also be solidly behind changes to it, like raising the age at which money starts flowing from people who are working to those who have retired. If you are reflexively against doing the things necessary to prevent such entitlement programs from completely swamping the federal budget, then you are part of the problem, and part of why it will ultimately implode, leaving nobody with that program's annual transfers.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    65. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      If your reasoning is correct, then everyone working in restaurants, stores and other service oriented jobs are providing zero to what "we have", as they do not make anything.

      Having a job and making something is not equivalent. The majority of jobs in the US are in the service industry, and are non-productive in the sense of creating part of "all we have". No games with money can change that, as you correctly point out.

      Therefore, the change in providing a living wage will be minimal. Those who are motivated and burn to make things will still be making things, and in fact, many who today have a job adding nothing to what "we make" will change that situation and *get* a job making things, improving the economy.

      Keeping people trapped in low skill, non-production jobs just to punish them for not getting out of the trap cannot survive much longer.

    66. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Representative democracy is where you have a specific assigned representative you can go to,

      The problem is, the people who are assigning us our representatives are sociopathic oligarchs.

      My point is not proportionality. My point is that our representatives actually represent people who mean us no damn good.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it does. Ultimately the people get the representatives they vote for.

      Except the slate of candidates people are give to vote for are all selected by the same wealthy sociopaths.

      Remember, in our system here in the US, the money primary comes before anyone gets to vote.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Hodr · · Score: 1

      The main problem with the basic income is that it pretends that tax payers are completely rational. Even if you lay out the argument in plain terms that explains how giving someone else $10 will in the end save them $1 from what they are spending now, they will balk at the idea.

      If you institute basic income, a very good portion of the wealthy in this country, the people with true mobility, will either move their income out of the country or find more reasons to avoid contributing.

      And the ever shrinking middle class cannot afford to pay for everything.

    69. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Congress critters already spend the majority of their time and attention on gathering funds and planning for their after-government service life.

      Putting in a reasonable limit (I would say 3 terms) would allow them enough time to keep the status quo financially; meaning those inclined to do so will get rich from back room dealings and insider trading, as well as moving into lobbying positions post term.

      However, what it will do is break up the dynasties. It will rotate the people at the heads of the various committees so that you don't get people who are too powerful to cross. It would also encourage a more open platform, as not everyone can campaign on the same issues.

      And for the non-corrupt, the good guys, 3 terms gives them enough time to accomplish whatever it is they were going to accomplish, or to figure out that they will never get it done.

    70. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Look at his budget proposals some day. They paint a different picture

      I suspect the ones that he supports all get his State a good deal on federal money, however the picture painted here is that that is only doing what he was elected to do. Senators (are supposed to) represent the State.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    71. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Cutting taxes isn't likely to help much with paying off the 21 trillion dollar debt

      Lets be honest here. The national debt is only serviced, never repaid.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    72. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again.

      Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit. Reality is that being in the doldrums had little to do with large/small state and all to do with a good/bad banking system.

      That is not sustainable,

      Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems.

      Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.

    73. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      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.

      Do you really think that its moral for the Federal government to maximize its revenue?

      ...maybe you do?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    74. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The main problem with the basic income is that it pretends that tax payers are completely rational. Even if you lay out the argument in plain terms that explains how giving someone else $10 will in the end save them $1 from what they are spending now, they will balk at the idea.

      Sounds rational to me. That's a net loss of $9. Not much, but no one really needs just $10. Assuming ratios scale with absolutes, giving $10,000 would be a net loss of $9,000.

    75. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      So you're deciding your vote on a single issue that will halt surveillance for all of a day and a half?

    76. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Keynesian economics is the primary fraud that regards deficit spending as a good idea,

      It's less the economic religion you choose to follow and more about the lack of appropriate regulations. Countries with stricter financial regulations were the ones that came through the GFC relatively intact. Americans seem to struggle with this concept.

    77. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Seriously, are GOPers collected from a special ed school? Just read down to the paragraph where "opposed" is in bold and you have your answer.

    78. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by asylumx · · Score: 1

      It's a net loss of $9,000 when your current path will lose you $10,000 -- so it actually puts $1,000 back in your pocket. Still seem rational to oppose it?

    79. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again

      Um, according to their own figures which are highly dubious they were, but now are not anymore. And whilst a primary surplus is an interesting metric, you can't simply ignore debt. It's not ignorable. What they actually have is a massive deficit they cannot fix.

      Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit.

      Bear in mind that there was a lot of lending from bad banks which was then taxed.

      Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems. Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.

      As I pointed out already Germany is paying off its debts, it has a real budget surplus. Other EU countries have low interest rates because the ECB is more or less outright funding them at this point: it's not a real market when one of the biggest players can create their own money.

    80. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out already Germany is paying off its debts,

      Exactly. A big government/high taxes state that is doing so well that is paying off their debts. Just like the USA under Clinton. Then what happened under budget cuts&tax cuts during Bush Jr presidency? back to record deficits.

      Just look at the data: tax cuts with budget cuts have never worked, anywhere.

    81. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Keynesian economics is the primary fraud that regards deficit spending as a good idea, and I'm certainly not going to cripple my mind by taking an economic course that promotes Keynes' hoax.

      During the financial crisis, America instituted Keynesian policies (e.g. "quantitative easing") while Europe instituted austerity policies. Considering the results, it's hard to argue that the Keynesian policies didn't work better.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    82. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      for the amount of work done in greece at the moment it is a paradise.

      not for long of course. or maybe. who knows, they've been dodging the bill for quite some time. if they weren't in eu they would have forefeited the debts already through some revolution or another.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    83. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      States, and the gold backed currency national system were both currency users not currency issuers, in which case yes, the budget works like a household and must be balanced or bad things happen. Under a fiat system like we have now at the Federal level, a balanced budget would actually be a bad thing in the current circumstances. As a fiscal conservative it pains me to say that, but that's the truth. (S – I) = (G – T) + (X – M)

    84. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      That depends on where you live. For many parts of the American heartland which are low population density then sure that's doable with a reasonable amount of hard work, frugality, two incomes and a long waiting period. (not optimal, but doable) For anywhere with within about 500 miles of the coast, which generally have higher population densities and thus higher property prices, no it's pretty much impossible for all but the upper class.

    85. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Okay, what other issues should I decide my vote on? In what way are people different?

    86. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Government can and should create money to provide for the General Welfare in the form of a Basic Income.

      Create money just to give out to people? Seriously? Please open a history book and look up Germany in 1934, or a newspaper and look at Zimbabwe. Printing money to pay government bills just screws the public. Money printing must be offset by taxes or some other destruction of currency, such as a natural deflationary trend or a paper shredder, or you wind up with loaves of bread costing thousands of dollars.

    87. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Hmm that's odd. I had a similar situation happen to me and I made it through without government intervention. Its called a budget.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    88. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Fund a Basic income at zero cost, through the Fed. Indexation eliminates any potential inflation tax.

      Businesses can decrease wages as much as they like, automate, outsource, etc. without worrying about harming the General Welfare. Why would unexpected, runaway inflation occur?

      But as a hedge against potential price-gouging, index everything (incomes, savings, everything) to inflation so that purchasing power does not decrease.

      Hold lots of challenges to stimulate individuals (on a basic income, or not) to innovate. Business can further reduce costs by crowdsourcing innovation. Again, why would inflation occur? Simply create the $6 trillion or so per year for a basic income.

    89. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Can't plan for everything. Glad you're okay though; otherwise, there would be no counterexample to prove my point.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    90. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you just demonstrated the irrationality he was discussing.

      He pointed out that giving the $10 will *SAVE* you $1. That's a net *gain* of $1, not a net loss of *anything*. Something that saves you money costs you *less* than the alternative, not *more*.

      He didn't say "net" and "save" is only a useful word when there is a net loss. Words mean things. If you're saying that giving someone $10 means I get $11 in return later, then that's a 10% gain, and worth something. Giving someone $10 so that I can save $1 is ludicrous and an obvious net loss.

    91. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well that means we spend $0, because some people are unable or unwilling to pay any taxes. Still, I like roads, fire engines and etc.

      We are collectively a democracy. I'm content with any taxing/sending level agreed on by the democracy, as long as everyone pays. Everyone must have skin in the game - no "robbing individual Peters to pay collective Paul".

      Wealth redistribution is however useful.

      You confuse income with wealth, I think. No amount of income redistribution will achieve wealth redistribution. No matter how much water you pour from my bucking into your colander, you'll still be dry.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    92. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, those wealthy sociopaths wouldn't be so wealthy if people didn't keep voting with their wallets and buying their stuff.

      Do you buy Sheldon Adelson's "stuff"? Do you buy George Soros' "stuff"?

      The wealth of oligarchs is isolated from consumer sentiment.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    93. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We are collectively a democracy. I'm content with any taxing/sending level agreed on by the democracy, as long as everyone pays. Everyone must have skin in the game - no "robbing individual Peters to pay collective Paul".

      Well, you've just set up a system where you're only happy with $0 tax. Some people simply don't have the money to pay. If you expect some bum living under a bridge (and you did literally specify that everyone---with emphasis---must pay) then wonder how you think said bum might pay.

      You confuse income with wealth, I think. No amount of income redistribution will achieve wealth redistribution. No matter how much water you pour from my bucking into your colander, you'll still be dry.

      Income distribution does redistribute wealth, or it reduces the accumulation of wealth for richer people and effectively gives to poorer people by providing public services and utilities (such as roads) they they could never afford alone. Infrastructure is genreally made by taking income (if you prefer) from richer people and making it into wealth which is shared by many everyone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    94. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      then wonder how you think said bum might pay.

      Same percentage of income would work just as well to ensure everyone has some skin in the game. Also, the bum living under the bridge likely has a net work between $0-10, making him wealthier than a huge portion of America, who is in net debt. Sobering thought.

      Income distribution does redistribute wealth, or it reduces the accumulation of wealth for richer people

      Well, OK, by your "infrastructure" definition sure - if only out government could spend more than 20% or so of it's budget on stuff like that (it mostly just takes money from group A and mails it to group B, under the excuse of "taxing the wealthy", which never happens).

      But personal wealth, the ability to reach financial independence before retirement age, that's always going to require individual choice and sacrifice of fun today for independence tomorrow, a rare enough trait.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    95. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      Can you really not understand "making" as "providing needed goods and services"? Are you just being pedantic? Or did you really not understand that all the goods and services we collectively have available are all the goods and services we collectively provide?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    96. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Ok, explain why does the government owe you healthcare?

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    97. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We're still waiting for the promises spending cuts from Grahm-Rudman and every other 'increase taxes today and we'll cut spending tomorrow' type deal.

      At this point it's time for 'spending cuts first' then, maybe, tax increases tomorrow (tax increases only after we get all the spending cut we are owed, back to the '80s).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    98. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You believe numbers coming from the Greeks? That's how they got into this mess in the first place.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    99. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I never said it does, but The Population voted for a President who did and enough of Congress agreed. There's also a greater public good served by controlling the spread of disease and keeping the populace able to work and contribute to society for as long as possible. That feeds into the minimum wage discussion, as well, which I'll get to. Personally, I make well over minimum wage and my insurance cost less (and for better coverage) before Obamacare, but I recognize the value of both.

      A livable minimum wage means people can afford to take time off of work when they're sick, which means Joe, the guy making your burger (or serving your lobster, this isn't just limited to fast food) has the option of taking the day off instead of spreading his illness to your food and, thus, to you. A socialized health care system means Joe can also see a doctor when he takes the day off due to that illness, get treated, and get back to work sooner. That makes Joe a more productive member of society while ensuring that Joe isn't spreading his illness and making others less productive. Joe's livable wage and government-backed free health care aren't just a benefit to Joe, they're a benefit to all of the people he would otherwise have made sick, and anyone those people would have, in turn made sick, and so on, and so forth. In other words, to society as a whole, even those of us who don't live on minimum wage and free health care.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    100. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Correct, I can't understand it as that, because that is not what it means. A vast majority of both goods and services provided are not needed but merely *wanted*. Your failure to understand the difference is key here.

      And yes, implementing a living wage will reduce some availability of luxury goods. In exchange it will increase the availability of investment capital and improve scientific advance rates, especially over the long term, immensely.

    101. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Stop lying. Clinton had one projected surplus (if you include the SS trust fund scam). It went pop when .com did. He _never_ had an actual surplus.

      Clinton also owned .com, as much as Bush owned the banking mess.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    102. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by jbengt · · Score: 1

      We only have permanent bases in countries that have welcomed us, with open arms, to build those facilities.

      The Germans and Japanese certainly welcomed us with arms, but I wouldn't call the the welcome "open", more like "open fire".

    103. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The constitution used to protect us from 'Two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.'

      Making transfer payments legal gave the wolves all the power they need. Since then it has been a 'bread and circus' contest for votes. Wolves are approaching 50%, then it's over.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    104. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's hard to argue that a common currency worked better. Europe fucked it'self by having a common fiscal policy without a common economy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    105. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There are no Keynesians. Only print and spenders with a cover story.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    106. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Buy a house with a loan or buy a new car with loan.

      One of these is a good idea financially, one is a terrible idea financially.

      It's an incredibly dumb idea to buy rapidly depreciating, non performing asset with a loan.

      Getting loans for liquor is an even worse idea.

      The US government is taking out loans for crack.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    107. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I think politicians are already chasing post-office jobs pretty aggressively. Most people have been following the Hastert story, where the government is charging him with withdrawing his own money in an improper fashion. My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money? Supposedly it's all coming from his time after Congress.

      Better question: How does someone withdraw his own fucking money in "an improper fashion?" It would be deliciously just if Hastert had voted for those smurfing rules.

    108. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing

      Yeah they are. Seriously, they really are, necessarily.

      as they're going to encourage politicians to look for places to be employed once they're finished with their term (as a primary focus for the entire term)

      You're confusing a hypothetical with what is actually happening right now. Members of Congress are there to get as much influence as they can before dropping out and being paid ridiculous amounts of money to lobby. Moreover, politicians should look for places to be employed after they're finished, because they should be private citizens that enter public service for a time, then leave to go back into the private sector. Our government does not exist to make the people in it rich, that's not its purpose and it gets corrupted when people use it like that. So, not only do we need term limits, but we also need to find a way to severely restrict lobbying, if not make it outright illegal. One step would be to simply bar any former public official from being a lobbyist. I am not a fan of government placing restrictions on what people can do, but in the case of the people actually leading the government, they most definitely deserve additional restrictions. They have proven that time and time again. I would also like to see politicians barred from investing in public companies or real estate while in office. If they want to be part of the government, if they want to be a public servant, fine, they are there to serve, not to enrich themselves.

      They also reinforce short-term thinking, as the individual politicians won't need to deal with the fallout of their decisions if they have no chance to be re-elected.

      You're making the assumption that the only fallout one would receive from bad decisions is in the form of people not voting for them. How about society in general shunning them? How about protecting things like their "integrity" or "good name"?

      Finally, the networking and experience required to get anything done in any political environment takes quite a while to build up

      Which is only because of the current corrupt pay-to-play system which we need to remove. Term limits are a great start.

      Most simple solutions are horribly flawed, which is often the main reason they haven't been employed previously.

      Some simple solutions are horribly flawed. Others, like congressional term limits, have never been tried previously. For some reason the people in power don't really want to limit their own power. Interesting how that works.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    109. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      If you accept that taxation is a necessary evil -- that is, both an "evil", as in a bad thing to be avoided if possible, but also necessary, as in we can't avoid it completely -- then progressive taxes to be spent primarily on social welfare is the obvious conclusion, because of the principle of marginal utility:

      If you have to do this bad thing to achieve a good thing, do the bad thing more to the people with the means to bear it than those without (a CEO will miss each dollar less than a fry cook would), because then you're doing less bad overall; and do the good thing more to the people with the need for it than those without (a fry cook will appreciate food stamps much more than a CEO will).

      As far as basic income goes, I like the idea of what is effectively a basic income via a progressive income tax that can go into the negative. If everyone paid in taxes half the difference between their income and the mean income, plus the actual intended per-capita tax rate, then you would have essentially a flat tax plus a redistributive factor that lessens the tax burden on the poor and provides supplemental income for the extremely poor, at the expense of only the extremely rich. If pre-tax incomes were distributed evenly, it would be exactly a flat tax. The more unevenly the pre-tax incomes became, the more and more progressive the taxation would become, pulling all incomes toward the mean with a force proportional to how far from the mean they are. There is still always an incentive to work, and because it's based on the mean we can never be spending money we're not actually making, so the "all we have is all we make" issue isn't a problem.

      And you get all the simplifying benefits of a basic income. Don't have to have a bunch of government-controlled services. Leave everything to the free market to provide the services and just make sure that everybody has enough to afford the basics. Nobody would ever make less than half the mean income (before the actual flat tax part comes out), and that should always be enough to at least scrape by.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    110. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      There's a law of Internet discussions by which the person who first uses the word "lie" is the almost always the one doing so:

      From factcheck.org:

      Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

      A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

    111. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance. That's not even remotely the same as health care and the people are stupid for thinking it is.

      Furthermore, if you want people to take sick leave, vote for mandatory sick leave, not higher pay. But you know what happens when you do that? People just abuse it. They take the days off where they are not sick and come in when they are anyways. You can't legislate people into being responsible. Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time. Its not the "American Dream," but its doable. Again, you cant legislate people into acting responsible, and forcing more money into their pockets doesn't change that.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    112. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.

      You "expect" these things, yet provide no details on how exactly you "expect" these things to be or become fact.

      Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation? Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor? Altruism? Altruism is a virtue only when it is voluntarily given. Otherwise it is theft and slavery.

      On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.

      Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    113. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Show me the year the US debt went down?

      Factcheck is a partisan joke.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    114. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The people collectively? Yes

      Adelson owns among many things casinos, hotels, an Israeli newspaper.

      So, what you're trying to say is that Sheldon Adelson is representative of people from other countries. Then we agree.

      Those casinos, newspapers, investment management companies, etc. get money by selling things to customers, and not just other elite rich people customers.

      So, what you're saying is, we have a "representative democracy" but it represents the people of a different country?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    115. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance.

      If you can afford it. Otherwise, everyone who can afford it is subsidizing it for everyone who can't.

      Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time.

      Minimum wage, part time 16hr/wk. That's all some people can get (and a second job is out of the question because they want open availability, which the first job prevents them from having). That's $6032/yr gross, $5143/yr net assuming standard deduction. Show me a budget that allows a single person to survive on $429/mo (I rounded it up to make it easier on you). Be sure to include city and state, so I can know *where* a person can survive on that budget.

      Sure, they can find a room somewhere for $150/mo, ride the bus to and from work (4x 4 hour shifts is 8 trips per week, 34 or 36 trips per month depending on how the days fall so we'll average that to 35) at $2.50 per trip that's $87.50 per month. They need clothes, one outfit per day for two weeks to minimize laundry costs, plus an outfit to wear for laundry, so 15 outfits, replaced every 6 months as clothes do wear out, so an average of 1.25 outfits per month at a cost of $20 per pair of pants and $15 per shirt if we're going cheap, which comes to $43.75 per month. We're already up to $281.25 and we still have to do laundry and eat. Ever been to a laundromat? 2 weeks worth of clothes costs $10 to wash, 26 loads per year, that's 2.16 load per month, $21.60 per month for laundry brings us up to $302.85, leaving $126.15 for food. That miiiiiiiiiiight be doable in some cities, but not in most. And we never actually got that 16/hr per week job because guess what? We can't afford a phone for them to call us on. And if we did somehow manage to land a job anyway, we've lost it within the first month because we can't afford a phone for them to call us on to tell us they need us to come in. Or we've wasted bus far (2 trips) because they couldn't call us to tell us they actually didn't need us that day; on top of now not getting paid for the day.

      Yes, a budget and roommates solve everyone's problems.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    116. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so you want to force people to make the goods and service you think are important, rather than leaving it up to individual producers and consumers. Will your central committee produce a five-year plan? Will you blame 70 consecutive years of poor harvests on "a cold winter", as Obama just did for America's GDP this year?

      Historical technological peacetime advancement was driven almost entirely by capitalism. So many inventions languished for centuries before the industrial revolution simply because there wasn't sufficient reward for doing something useful with them (except where there was a wartime use).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    117. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Show me the year the US debt went down?

      2000 and 2001 in constant dollars and, more importantly 1996 to 2001 in percentage of GDP.

      You can easily find this data in wikipedia. The fact that you haven't proves that you care about defending ideology rather than what actually happens in real life.

      And if GWB had not implemented the "revenue increasing" tax cuts the debt would have been completely wiped out in a few short years. You don't have to believe me, Alan Greenspan said exactly this when he begged congress to implement tax cuts.

      Factcheck is a partisan joke.

      That's what sore losers say when proven wrong by a non-partisan organization.

    118. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Cutting government spending can be bad for the economy, leading to lowered GDP and lowered tax receipts. Macroeconomics is complicated and not well understood.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    119. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Wat.

      Really, wat.

      A living wage FREES UP people to work on WHAT THEY WANT. The exact opposite of your only way of thinking outside of raw capitalism. No central committee. No five year plan. Just people, working with what they like at the pace they like. You know, like those who invented modern science and made huge advances used to do, when they were not contrained by the need to sell their time for peanuts.

      Seriously, at least learn the first thing about your opponents arguments before you barge off into la-la land.

    120. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Federal Government should not be in the business of maximizing its income. However, the government does have to collect taxes, as running up debt without good reason is a bad idea. The politicians should not be in the business of lying to the public about the effects of tax cuts (sigh).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    121. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You probably didn't manage your money well, then. My house payment is comparable to what a rent payment would be, and builds up equity. In the meantime, given the mortgage interest deduction, the interest on my mortgage is probably less than what my investments are making. I could pay off the house in a few weeks of shuffling money around, but AFAICT I'm better off not doing it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    122. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Taxing the same percentage of income is one way to go. I'm willing to be taxed more heavily than people less fortunate than me, actually.

      However, I'd really like to see the rich paying at least as much a proportion of their income as I do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    123. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My heart attack cost about $70K by the time the dust settled, and as heart attacks go it was a minor one. Most people can't afford that, and most people would have been out of work longer (I have a desk job, and was able to return to work as soon as I was confident driving).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    124. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's acceptable to allow one that is bad, but noticeably better. If you keep iterating on it, eventually you'll actually get a decent candidate. More importantly, if you keep voting out the worse guys, being a worse guy will stop being profitable in politics.

    125. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Lolz, you are using a 16 hour work week as your base argument for a minimum living wage. I'll just stop there.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    126. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation?

      If you have to ask this question, I have to surmise that you're not familiar with a joy of an interesting job well done. Don't worry about it. There are enough people who are willing to work for the sake of doing interesting things and/or killing boredom.

      Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor?

      There won't be anywhere where they can keep "more of the value". When you get into the situation where 99% are jobless because of automation, there are only two ways to go from there: either you have wealth redistribution, or you have a Luddite uprising that smashes the machines and rewinds the civilization back, and forces it to stay there to maintain social stability. The former option allows for further technological progress, the latter does not. If you personally had that choice, which one would you take?

      On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.

      There's no way to demand compliance when there are literally hundreds of people lined up behind you willing to do the job that you're currently doing.

      Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.

      History of past economic systems is generally not applicable to newer ones. If you tried to forecast the success of a capitalist system based on your personal experience in a feudal society, and the past historical track record in, say, Antique slave societies, you would have to conclude that it's an unrealistic utopia, because 90% of the population are needed just to grow the food for everyone else.

      Thing is, as technology advances, it eventually accumulates enough changes to force a significant leap in how economics work. It's not really voluntary - the society either makes a leap (and this can also go smoothly or bloody, depending), or it falls off the progress bandwagon and gets stuck in past, and eventually gets conquered or otherwise pushed around by those who stayed on the track.

      Capitalism is based on the notion of a workforce that has to work for a living, and on there actually being enough work necessary to satisfy the day-to-day demands that everyone has to do their parts. This assumption is not going to hold true for much longer. In fact, it wouldn't hold true in developed countries today already, if not for outsourcing - why bother with robots if Chinese ex-peasants are a dime a dozen? But those peasants will ride capitalism into middle class themselves, and then outsource to Africans; and then Africans will ride it, and then there's no-one to outsource to - and then it's robots anyway.

      And just as feudalism couldn't survive and compete once agricultural techniques advanced to the point where the majority of the population didn't have to be involved in it, so capitalism won't survive once industrial production advances to the point where a single human is sufficient to control a factory that can supply the demands of an entire city.

    127. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      How is Greece doing these days?

    128. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Must be doing great since it made massive cuts in spending like you wanted. Canada on the other hand must be doing terrible since it didn't.

    129. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Is this the Sanger theory of life; wherein you're not human unless her society says so?

    130. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      How does a community activist get the divorce records unsealed (of his opponent) when a judge has already ruled it was in the children's interest to seal them? Heck, Obama made the majority of his fortune from selling books. One wonders what he'll make on the boards of nearly every insurance company in America.

    131. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      I can't wait till Oprah gets this applied to her residence. Tax away!

    132. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      I agree. A Republican set up the country for financial failure and the Democrat elected executed the plunge.

    133. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Hey it's all some people can get. Not everyone is as employable as you and I.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    134. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Interesting that in your quite wordy post, that you found no time at all for any words about reduced spending. Lots of support for more taxes, and some added spice against those that might suggest that we are better off with less taxes, but nothing at all about reduced spending.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    135. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      People shouldn't necessarily work on what they want, they should work on what others value (whether that's a want or a need). Obviously it good when you can find an overlap between the two, but there's really a sharp limit to the number of professional masturbators, bong-hitters, and video-game players needed in an community.

      Those who invented modern science actually spent much of their time working on projects for their patrons, just as artists did at the time. It's every adults duty, at least until retirement, to discover something that others value enough to pay for, that they won't hate doing, and get trained as needed to do that, then make that contribution to the community.

      There's just no other way for the goods and services we all want and need to spring into existence. Not tax structure causes food to grow, nor houses to be constructed, nor the trash to be hauled. People doing what others value so that they can have the things they value makes all that happen.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    136. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      No worries, looks like it's still doing OK. Thanks for explaining anyway!

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    137. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      But as a hedge, index all incomes to inflation to eliminate any inflation tax. Indexation guarantees purchasing power does not decrease.

      You say that as if the government can easily step in and control the economy like that, even if we wanted it to.

    138. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by tsotha · · Score: 1

      They busted him for "Structuring", which is to arrange cash transactions for the purposes of evading currency reporting laws. The idea was if the government required reporting for $10k transactions, drug dealers could evade those requirements by using a bunch of different banks and making all their transactions less than $10k. The law only requires intent, so in theory they could charge you for withdrawing ten bucks from your account. Guess who gets to decide what your intent was? If ever there was a law ripe for abuse it's this one.

      It became a crime in 1986, the same year Hastert was elected to Congress. Since he wouldn't have taken office until 1987 we can't blame him for the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. On the other hand, he was speaker for long enough to have done something about it if he wanted to.

    139. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      You're stuck in the "force people to do things or nothing happens" mind set, which has been shown over and over to be not only false, but counterproductive. That's why you sit in "either capitalism forces people to do things or the five year plan does", and you are unable to think outside the box.

      With a living wage system in place, the whip of people not getting food on the table unless they accept whatever job is available vanishes. But that is ALL that vanishes. No other aspect of competition vanishes. People who want to have luxury goods will still work, and build things they compete to sell. People who enjoy being enterpreneurs will still be starting up companies and try to find the smartest, best people to work in them. And they will find it EASIER to do so, since more smart people are freed up from flipping burgers to make ends meet.

      People will still do what others value so that they can have the things they value. They just won't get stuck on the lowest rung for life. And if you don't care about that, then you're a white male.

    140. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Same percentage of income would work just as well to ensure everyone has some skin in the game.

      Why do you consider the same percentage of income to be fair? I don't, for reasons I've outlined above. I'm not sure I get your "some skin in the game" comment? What precisely do you mean---what effect are you trying to achieve with that/

      Also, the bum living under the bridge likely has a net work between $0-10, making him wealthier than a huge portion of America, who is in net debt. Sobering thought.

      I think it's a considerable stretch to say that someone with literally nothing, no regular food, no regular shelter is wealthier than someone with a house, clothes, TV, food etc and debt. Possibly technically true, but at this point you're just playnig semantics.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    141. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      You cant make the argument of a livable wage and then cut the hours used to calculate "livable" by more than half of full time. With that kind of math, why not just make everyone get $100,000 a year. Or better yet, lets make everyone millionaires. That will solve all the worlds problems.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    142. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Any place I ever worked that had part-time positions (I only ever held one part-time position, it was a second job as a favor for a friend who had more fiberglass work than he could handle on-schedule; beyond that, a second part-time job is a near impossibility as they all only seem to hire if you have open availability, which you can't have if you already have a job), they were 16-24hr/wk and the scheduling was usually closer to 16hr. I held a number of menial service-level and retail jobs before striking my first decent contract, so I have a sizable sample. Not a single past employer of mine routinely gave part-timers more than 16 hours per week. Not one. That, combined with the fact that most positions available outside of the professional world are part time, is my basis for using a 16 hour work week to calculate a livable wage. Sure, you can live on 7.25/hr if you're getting full-time work, that's $15080/yr; I supported my ex making barely $1000/yr over that for nearly a decade, but even if we halve that, nobody is surviving for a year on $7540, I don't care how skilled they are at budgeting. Hell, that's below the poverty level for a single person but, then, even a full-time minimum wage worker qualifies for food stamps. It's not a livable wage if we have to subsidize it.

      In most of the country, $12/hr should be livable for a single person at anything over 16 hours, comfortable for those who excel at their part-time work and are granted more hours, and even more comfortable for anyone working full-time. Bay area and NYC excepted, of course.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    143. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Again, what makes you think only non-Americans buy what they sell?

      I'll bet the number of Americans who buy an Israeli newspaper is pretty small in proportion to the amount of money that Sheldon Adelson gives to candidates.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    144. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      What precisely do you mean---what effect are you trying to achieve with that/

      The failure mode of democracy is group A voting to tax group B. Once 51% discovers they can vote to raise taxes on some 49% group without taxing themselves, everything starts falling apart. OTOH "everyone votes on how everyone is taxed "is a sustainable system.

      Possibly technically true, but at this point you're just playnig semantics./quote.

      No, that's really what wealth means - it has nothing to do with standard of living or "rich" as some think of it, it's about control of the means of production. Understanding this is a necessary step to becoming wealthy (or to remaining so, for trust fund babies). Buying a new Mercedes is negative wealth (even if you pay cash, because of ongoing costs). Taking a loan is negative wealth.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    145. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by lgw · · Score: 1

      . And if you don't care about that, then you're a white male.

      Fuck you for wasting my time with your bullshit SJW self. Just fuck off - there's no value at all to your existence.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    146. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      You again are trying to fix other problems through minimum wage. If you want to give housing to those who can't afford it, create no income housing. If they can't afford food, food stamps. Don't have a cell phone, give them one. Can't pay bus fare, give them bus passes.

      What you are failing to realize, if you give someone a comfortable standard of living for doing nothing, they will do nothing. How does that help anyone?

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    147. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, just because I recognize a detail means I am a "SJW". And instead of trying to see if there is any merit to a chain of arguments, it's a lot easier to just latch on to a single observation, slap a label on someone because of it and declare everything discussed without value.

      A shame you refuse to learn anything new, but instead cling to dogma for dear life. This could have turned into a very good discussion if you weren't that kind of person.

    148. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So, you don't want to give people a comfortable standard of living in exchange for them doing nothing, yet you propose giving them housing, food, transportation, and a cell phone, all of which would provide some level of comfort, for free... for doing... nothing? An increased minimum wage isn't going to give people something for nothing, as your proposed solutions actually would; it will, however, encourage more people to actually work. There are a lot of people out there who look at their $7.25/hr work prospects, actually do the math, and determine that they can get more in food stamps and cash assistance from the state to sit on their ass and do nothing than they can get if they take that part-time job, so that's exactly what they do. Not paying people who actually show interest in getting off their asses and contributing to society a livable wage only encourages them to sit on their asses and leech. Additionally, I find it amusing that you propose giving them cell phones when, in reality, a landline would be cheaper and make them more likely to stay at home during their off time, rather than going out and spending money irresponsibly, so they can be by the phone when their boss calls to offer them an extra shift because someone called off.

      To put it another way, you contradict everything you propose as better solutions than increasing minimum wage in your first paragraph with the statement you make in your second. I think I'll just leave the voices in your head to argue among themselves; please to provide a transcript, though, it's certainly entertaining.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    149. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The failure mode of democracy is group A voting to tax group B. Once 51% discovers they can vote to raise taxes on some 49% group without taxing themselves, everything starts falling apart. OTOH "everyone votes on how everyone is taxed "is a sustainable system.

      So even if most people agree that people on the poverty line shouldn't be taxed as much as really rich people as a percentage of income, that's somehow a failure of democracy?

      Besides, everyone is treated the same in that the laws apply uniforml and blindly based on only how much income you have (modulo wirednesses like capital gains which few people understand and never make it on to party policies anyway).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    150. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed). And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.

      I'm for the slash and burn technique. All government welfare programs could use a major budget cut and overhaul of procedure. Its called tough love. At some point you need to kick the kid out of the house so they can grow up. Otherwise, you are no better than the overprotective mother letting her 30 year old son live in the basement because the world is too hard on him.

      None of these welfare programs breed independence, entrepreneurship, or innovation. Quite the contrary. We have bred ourselves a nation of dependents.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    151. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed)

      Lack of phones for the unemployed is not the problem I want to solve. The need for the government wellfare programs we both agree ned to be heavily cut back is.

      And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.

      And you change that by changing the math. If all they can find is part-time minimum wage work, you make that livable (note that I didn't say comfortable, that was your addition to the discussion). How do you make part-time minimumwage work livable? Increase the minimum wage. Then, we'll be in a position to require a job and one or more dependent children in order to qualify for any wellfare programs; tie that qualification to the job so that losing the job means losing the wellfare benefits. The only exception to both the "must have a job" and "must have dependent children" restrictions would be a disability that legitimately prevents one from working; not just one that makes finding work difficult, but one that bars you from working at all. I can't think of any, off the top of my head, that don't also typically include living in a hospital or care facility, so that should cut down on the "something for nohing" problem.

      Minimum wage isn't a government program, it's a law put in place because businesses have shown repeatedly, throughout the history of civilization, that they will have slaves where they're not forced to have employees. Minimum wage has also failed to keep up with inflation for at least the past 50 years, so a massive increase is due in order to correct that.

      It used to be trivial to find $15/hr full-time work in a factory and support a family of 3 on a single income, but we've sent all of that work overseas and replaced it with $7.25/hr 16hr/wk shitjobs a single person can't even afford to support themselves on. Do you not agree that this needs to be corrected? We'll, we're not going to convince companies to re-open their factories on American soil (and even if they did, the unions are gone so they'd get away with only offering $7.25/hr 16hr/wk work and nothing would be solved), which leaves increasing the minimum wage as the sole solution if you want to cut back on government wellfare without increasing the prison popularion, which costs considerably more than the wellfare programs you want to cut in the first place.

      Otherwise, it seems we're in agreement regarding wellfare programs. Cut the hell out of them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    152. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, when we were setting up base camps on their soil while attacking/invading them during WWII. A base camp and a permanent base are two completely different things and any permanent bases we have on their soil today were built with their permission and blessing.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Not usually an (R) but... by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

    That's a good first move. It'd be entertaining to watch and see a Libertarian fuck up a country, too.

    1. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

    2. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      couldnt be any worse than the current "progressive" and previous neocon

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      He is not a Libertarian. He is a neocon who has adopted the title.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      please explain what he has in common with bush rove and mccain... you know, the neocons.....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      not interventionst != isolationist

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We can start with abortion and same-sex marriages. Keep in mind that he is a Republican. You can do some more reading here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      From there you can make up your own mind.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      oh ok. i see. you are equating his personal beliefs, with what he would do as president. common mistake that all to many people on both sides like to do

      his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"

      as for both of those things, federally, there is no amendment to either topic. both are issues for the states to decide. and last i checked, rand believes in states rights.

      simple mistake, you are not the only one

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      lets not forget that those are also topics he doesnt even bring up, the only time he does is when someone is trying to get a gotcha soundbyte from him. meaning they are not important issues to him(shouldnt be), which backs your point that nothing would be done to hurt anyone there

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We have no idea what he would do as president. I hope you know this.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL How cute. No, I am not a Democrat either. In fact, I have only voted for one Democrat. I voted for Clinton in his second term. Why? He was amusing and less harmful than his opposition had they won.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but now you're providing the dictators hitman services while they pose as anti american at the same time.

      good job!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what *anyone* will do as president

    13. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      My point exactly. I do not even know what I would do. I suspect that when you become president you learn a lot that changes your view. I am not sure how I would respond to what I do not know.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, but you can at least ask him what he intends to do as a president. And if he says, for example, that he is personally against weed, but would legalize it on the federal level because he believes that a federal ban would be unconstitutional, that works for me.

    15. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think some people are more trustworthy than others. I don't know if Rand is trustworthy or not. But there's other people out there that are definitely not.

      I also would rank my preferences to stands on gay marriage as follows:

      1. Wants to abolish state sanctioned marriage, doesn't think gay marriage is a sin.
      2. Wants to abolish state sanctioned marriage, does think gay marriage is a sin.
      3. Wants legalize gay marriage
      4. Doesn't want to legalize gay marriage, because it's a sin

      I am not sure where Rand stands, but I know his father was a #2, which in my book is bigger step in the right direction than being simply pro gay marriage.

      There is a difference between wanting to allow gay marriage because you have nothing against gay people, and wanting to allow gay marriage because you believe in the ideal of freedom so completely that it doesn't matter how you feel about gay people.

      I might not want to be friends with someone who just doesn't like gay people, even if he supports their right to marriage free of government intrusion, but I think that's the best attitude for a public servant to have. It shows that someone has integrity, and will stand up for everyone, not just those he likes.

      That said, I do worry that Rand is just pandering to his father's fans, and doesn't actually embrace those ideals, but is rather just grandstanding and seeking more power and glory.

      He seems to dodge tough questions, rather than just answering them honestly like his father did.

      When asked "So you would legalize crack and heroin?" Ron says "Yes!" then explains why he would, and Rand tries to change the subject. I certainly think Rand is more of a politician than his father. Which makes him appeal more to Republicans, and less to me.

    16. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"

      The problem is that he thinks HE is the one who gets to decide what is constitutional, no matter that the constitution grants that power to the Supreme Court:

      "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so" [reference]
      -Rand Paul

      --

      Enigma

    17. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he oozes sleaziness bound in a nice jacket. I hate to admit it but I preferred his father BUT I absolutely commend him for this. His stance on gay marriage, and I only listed a couple of his faults, is that they should be illegal BUT they should be allowed to have a civil contract. Separate but equal. I say that, to do this, we need to abolish all future marriages and all should be allowed a social contract.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I would be in favor of converting all past marriages into a default civil contract as well.

      I also think it is important that marriage not bestow any unjust benefits (i.e. like tax breaks) or any unjust penalties (like higher taxes). It should just be for determining powers of attorney, beneficiaries, custody, etc, and even then it shouldn't be phrased in a way that prevents any 2 or 3 or 15 people from receiving the same benefits.

      On the personal side of things, I don't think churches (or any person or organization) should be forced (not that they are) to marry anyone they don't want to.

      I wasn't able to find an official position from Rand Paul on gay marriage (or marriage abolishment), but his comments aren't encouraging. If you know of an official position, please link me.

      What's sad, is that he still may in fact be the best Republican candidate.

    19. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Expand all the comments IF you will accept Wikipedia as factual. I included a link in this very thread in a response to GanjaDude.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia is factual enough for me. I actually looked at that article, but I was searching for "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage".

      Parts of that section of the article actually seem pretty good. He agreed with striking down of DOMA. One could almost infer (though I would be careful), that he is proposing the removal of "marriage" from the federal government, and replace them with "marriage reference-free" contracts.

      He says he believes in the historic religious definition of marriage, but I can't imagine that he would support the prohibition of allowing religions other than traditional Christianity from marrying people. (For example: I don;t think he could/would oppose a gay friendly church from marrying people if it's not federally endorsed)

      And surely he wouldn't try to prohibit a state from eliminating the state sanctioned marriage (states rights and all).

      I would like to see not only equal rights for gay people, but equal rights for unmarried people. I would personally like to see the supreme court striking down federal and state marriage as unconstitutional (equal protection clause), due to the fact that it creates different classes of people (married vs unmarried), even if we assume everyone is onboard with providing gay people with equal rights.

      I kind of doubt he would support removing the right of States to sanction marriages, even though it is a rather libertarian position. I don't even think Ron would support this (given the fact that he voted for DOMA to combat "judicial activism")

      But the devil is in the details, and good luck getting Rand to answer a controversial question with the appropriate level of nuance, if it has the potential to hurt him politically.

    21. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      From what I have observed he is on par with Hillary Clinton when it comes to answering direct questions. It is almost as if he would rather put out a press release where he states what he wants/believes and thinks that should be enough. I am impressed with what he has done in this instance but I think it is a political ruse (I am cynical, I know, it is bad for my karma my sarma says.) as he knows, full well, that there will be a "fix" for his interference. When the fix arrives, in a day or two, he will have the chance to vote against it but it will not matter as it will have enough support from others of BOTH major parties.

      So he has the chance to score big political points now as we are ramping up for the campaign season. Then again, it is always campaign season... Anyhow, it is annoying to see so many people calling him a Libertarian. He is not... He has some things in common with the party but he is clearly a Republican. In fact, he is running to be the Republican candidate. What would be interesting would be to see him make it onto the ticket and have his dad as his running mate. I may actually vote Republican if that happens. Why? The LULZ would be worth it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I really dislike Hillary, even more than Rand. I really hope she is not the nominee (but I'm not betting on it). If she is the nominee, I think I would rather have Rand as her opponent. The fact that he is allegedly "left" of Hillary on some "libertarian" issues, might make the debates more interesting. Not too mention, if the republican were to actually win, I can't say I would like any of the other any more.

      Apparently Gary Johnson will run for the libertarian nomination. I voted for him in 2012. I thought he was pretty good. He seemed like a younger, saner version of Ron Paul. He was certainly more likeable than Rand.

      I don't take a good libertarian party candidate for granted. In 2008 they had a Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root. I never thought I would have voted for a Republican because he was more of a libertarian than the libertarian candidate.

  4. so what by slashdice · · Score: 2

    Just a couple weeks ago, a US Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA was violating the law. It doesn't matter what's legal and what's not, they'll just do it. c.f. "above the law".

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    1. Re:so what by weilawei · · Score: 1

      c.f.

      It's one word. Not two. Only 1 period. "cf." == "confer".

    2. Re:so what by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least now the pretense will be gone.

    3. Re:so what by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      1st person imperative: confere

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    4. Re:so what by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Informative

      At least now the pretense will be gone.

      Until Obama, or the puppeteers who make his mouth move and words come out, find some stooge to encourage to make some terrorist act that actually happens.

      The FBI are always entrapping idiots into planning acts of terrorism. It shouldn't be too hard to see to it that one of these hare-brained schemes comes to fruition, thousands of Americans die and the American public demand to be spied on again.

      I would assume thats what Obama and his masters are currently planning.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:so what by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      what? "the romans, they go to the house??"

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:so what by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      What have the Romans ever done for us?

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    7. Re:so what by weilawei · · Score: 1

      The Romans may not have given us massive amounts of civil engineering technology or anything, but Latin has done something for us.

      Latin's a dead language,
      As dead as dead can be.
      First it killed the Romans,
      And now it's killing me.

    8. Re:so what by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Thats funny you think it makes the slightest bit of difference what the law says.

      The main purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, including the government!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  5. Thanks Rand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is the right thing to do. You and Ron Wyden are about the only reps who seem to honestly give a shit about the constitution. Nice work. Keep it up.

    1. Re:Thanks Rand! by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Wyden just sold out on the TPP http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

  6. So they can go back to collecting in secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They'll still collect if they want to, and they'll label it important to security, and they'll do it in secret. This is all just for show and you're all eating it up.

  7. Is this a win? I can't tell... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Huffington Post was live updating the proceedings, and said this:

    USA Freedom Act advances 77-17

    In a stunning reversal from last week’s drama, the USA Freedom Act was passed by a vote of 77-17. The bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly several weeks ago will now move forward and is likely to receive a final vote on Tuesday.

    The bill fell three votes short of the needed supermajority to advance last week but with the clock ticking on controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, supporters of NSA surveillance thought that the proposed reforms were better than letting the program expire entirely.

    Rand Paul stated that the Freedom Act will likely get passed on Tuesday.

    Wait... did we win or not? Isn't this just a 2-day repreive?

    1. Re:Is this a win? I can't tell... by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Is this a win? I can't tell... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      if he stops them from renewing it they have to make a new bill and pass it not as easy and being it failed to be renewe they will be pressured to remove the things blocking it from being renewed,

    3. Re:Is this a win? I can't tell... by ormico · · Score: 1

      yes, unless something unexpected happens this is just a short reprieve.

    4. Re:Is this a win? I can't tell... by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      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.

      Like how the stink stuck with those who voted for the original PATRIOT act? Oh wait, no it didn't.

    5. Re:Is this a win? I can't tell... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well it gives us 2 day to contact our Senators and have them not listen to us. If you want to know who supported it you can find it here. I guess my 2 senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar really don't want people to keep their freedoms and want various agencies to take clearly unconstitutional actions like issuing general warrants. Maybe they need some public shaming so it will be clear that they want to take your freedoms away.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  8. Wait until midnight by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    If it dies, it's because they already have something to replace it. We will be informed on a 'need to know' basis. They will decide when we 'need to know'.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Wait until midnight by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      exactamente.

  9. Useful technique by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

    That's a useful technique - agreeing or conceding the immediate issue, while making nebulous unsupported statements about everything else. Look to see this for the next year or so. "I agree with him on this issue, but everything else is crazy".

    ...problem is, that "agreeing on this one issue" seems to happen a lot. Like, for most issues.

    Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

    1. Re:Useful technique by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

      Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.

    2. Re:Useful technique by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

      Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.

      Voting against the Patriot act was a good thing, but everything else Bernie Sanders he stands for is just batshit crazy.

    3. Re:Useful technique by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Did everyone else hear the WHOOOSH over this guy's head?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Useful technique by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I heard it. Problem is, that Whooshing sound coming from across the aisle in both directions is what will prevent either of these men from being president.

    5. Re:Useful technique by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      What part of Sanders' is batshit crazy. Please have some examples.

      You did seem to miss the joke, but to answer your question, Sanders is an economic idiot. He really thinks that "too much" consumer choice for deodorants or sneakers causes hungry children.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    6. Re: Useful technique by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Batshit crazy to think you can couch his plans in such bullshit. All the things you list are bat shit.

      Free college? Do you want another million 'pot studies' majors? At least the current batch is stuck with the debt they deserve.

      Take care of the elderly, sick and poor? Absolutely bullshit. We can't afford what we have going now on this front and the last thing we need is another disincentive to work.

      Rebuild the infrastructure? If you just want to have a union jobs program, that is insane. You have to pay for it and NOT build ideologically driven projects (High speed rail through the midwest? Fuck NO!)

      Minimum wage is the best example of what you list. Minimum wage is also minimum skill to get any job. Completely batshit, unless your hidden agenda is to put more people on the government tit, thereby increasing your power.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Useful technique by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      It's sad. At this point, I'd welcome either one of them with open arms given the alternatives.

    8. Re:Useful technique by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I'd gladly take him as the Vice-President part of a split ticket, as per my sig.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  10. Forward emails and calls until fixed? by bsharitt · · Score: 5, Funny

    In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.

    1. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.

      Don't worry - they're almost certainly still doing it. They just won't be bothering with any FISA rubber stamps or procedural filings.

      I mean, come on. They obviously weren't concerned even with the Constitution up to this point in time; why would they start worrying about more ephemeral congressional votes now?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by Livius · · Score: 1

      They love Freedom(tm) that much!

    3. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I should automatically forward all my spam to that address. I am sure they will appreciate it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, if you have anything really juicy in there -- a bit of porn, some records of your cocaine transactions, maybe some private account numbers and your social security number, you can always send them to me. I'll make sure there are no terrorists hiding under your bed.

      And of course, I'm completely trustworthy.

      My address:

      John Doe
      Secret Agent for U.N.C.L.E.
      Hiding Under Your Bed (but I'm a nice guy, not a terrorist, and there isn't any more room under here)

      In fact, don't bother sending them. I've already got them. And BTW, you snore...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    5. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      You don't have to worry your pretty little head about that. It's already been taken care of.

      --
      -Styopa
    6. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I suggest:
      cat /dev/urandom | nc nsa.gov 25
      and:
      cat /dev/urandom | nc nsa.gov 80

      --
      Time to offend someone
  11. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This would have a lot more meaning if the NSA had anything to fear if they break the law.

    1. Re:Well.. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Might I make a suggestion here. I would go for them to be either to be drawn and quartered, or crucified. I would settle for just having them executed and their head placed on a pike as a warning to future generations though. Although we do seem to have a suitable pike already in DC so that would seem to be a lower cost option.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  12. Wow! They will stop once the legal power is gone by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    You really think they will stop just because the legal justification they claimed is gone? They will just invent a new legal theory to justify what they have always done, what they always do, and what they have always been planning to do.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  13. Don't get too excited by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    The Patriot Act was in the end largely an expansion of existing government powers. This did not create the CIA, FBI, or NSA. They will still exist even if the Patriot Act is not extended at all, and they will still have a lot of power to spy on Americans. In the end, this is a great move of political posturing, but it doesn't really help us as much as a certain presidential candidate wants us to believe.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Don't get too excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the end, this is a great move of political posturing, but it doesn't really help us as much as a certain presidential candidate wants us to believe.

      Heh, Just like Obama in 2007 on that 'health care' thingy. How do you pick which lies to believe or not believe? Party affiliation?

  14. Reforms... are they positive? by rsborg · · Score: 2

    The Huffington Post was live updating the proceedings, and said this:

    USA Freedom Act advances 77-17

    In a stunning reversal from last week’s drama, the USA Freedom Act was passed by a vote of 77-17. The bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly several weeks ago will now move forward and is likely to receive a final vote on Tuesday.

    The bill fell three votes short of the needed supermajority to advance last week but with the clock ticking on controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, supporters of NSA surveillance thought that the proposed reforms were better than letting the program expire entirely.

    Rand Paul stated that the Freedom Act will likely get passed on Tuesday.

    Wait... did we win or not? Isn't this just a 2-day repreive?

    Please note this [1] is one of the bills being proposed (by the sitting Senate Intelligence Chair, no less):

    The bill Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr released last Friday is bad enough for the way it expanded the existing illegal dragnet. I argued here Burr’s bill would give the Intelligence Community everything they lost in 2009 and 2011. [...]

    So think about it - is this just a 2 day reprieve or 2 days so they can rollback more restrictions and make things worse than they are now?

    [1] https://www.emptywheel.net/201...

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  15. I feel proud as an American! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I feel proud as an American! by fortfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      . . . under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

      Wait, is this sarcasm? You're gunning for the funny mod, right?

      Because, A., the PATRIOT Act (writing the word "patriot" in reference to these orwellian measures makes my stomach turn, but that's not what I'm talking about here) was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., and passed under their stern, wagging fingers, and, B., Obama operates from the White House, whereas it is the Congress whose building is Capitol Hill.

      I'm confused because Paragraph 2 is an accurate representation of the current state of affairs. I mean, Obama is a far sight short of his promises, much like most Democrats these days, and totally wrong on this issue, but he is way less of a totalitarian/authoritarian than CRB executive was. And, at least one or two of his policies are meant for the benefit of the Plebs.

    2. Re:I feel proud as an American! by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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!
    3. Re:I feel proud as an American! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      :-) Which PEOPLE are you talking about?

      "If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" said Tom Charlton, 64, a retired sales training manager for a tire company, who was first in line at a book-signing with Paul in Davenport. "If this can stop one attack, it's worth infringing on legal citizens' rights."...

      "I don't want the mall to get bombed because they didn't get the information they needed," said [Vivian] Martin...

      Sally Cram, 62, said after leaving a town hall meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that she supports the NSA program because "I'm a person who believes our government tells us the truth."...

      These are the American citizens who keep this stuff alive, because they believe... It doesn't matter if Rand Paul is occasionally right. Being "right" has very little to do with anything.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:I feel proud as an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    5. Re:I feel proud as an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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 voted for that so-called dictator Obama twice, and I'm glad I did. I think he's doing a good job, although admittedly he had an easy act to follow.

      I would be suprised if there was any major government - and by that I mean a government of a country large enough to have a substantial military force, with modern equipment - that does not now spy on its own citizens, as well as other country's citizens. 9-11 was a wakeup call to countries all over the world, and it's not just about Muslim terrorists. Job #1 of a government - ANY government, IN ANY historical era - is to protect its own citizens against violent attacks from outsiders, or from criminal elements within. If they don't manage that, that government will be forcibly replaced, either by their own citizens or by the country's enemies.

      And communications in the Internet and mobile age are now streamlined for everyone, including for the bad guys. Look, I was real happy in the days before we had the WWW, mobile phones and all this neat stuff, we all had a lot more real privacy back then. But going back to the '80s or early '90s is not an option.

    6. Re: I feel proud as an American! by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      I'm a German. SIEG HEIL!

      I'm a Greek. ZITO I NIKI!
      (German: "SIEG HEIL" - English: "HAIL VICTORY")

      Watch Greeks saluting the Greek NaZi HERO Ioanni Metaxa... the men under whose regime Greeks fought against Italians/Germans (AND Soviets... Stalin and Hitler were still allies!)

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    7. Re:I feel proud as an American! by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      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).

      Ron Paul is Mr McGoo. He is so fucking blind and senile, if he were president he would be the last one for sure, because he would drive the country into a brick wall. Fortunately the average American is significantly smarter than you.

      As i wrote i respect both Pauls - Rand and his father Ron. And as i wrote i am just a Greek... i don't have the right to vote as an American citizen.

      I expressed my opinion, you expressed yours - Democracy will do its "thing" and the average intelligence of Americans will be expressed!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    8. Re:I feel proud as an American! by geekmux · · Score: 1

      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

      Oddly enough, while I do agree with you, I find myself very frustrated that we seem to have a lone voice on Capital Hill when it comes to opposing that regime.

      Why is it seemingly only Rand Paul's job to stand against laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? (Yes, I'm speaking to you, every other lawmaker representing the People).

      I find myself laughing that lawmakers are still made to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution...makes you wonder what the hell for.

    9. Re:I feel proud as an American! by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Nomination for best of AC mouth(keyboard?)-farts.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    10. Re:I feel proud as an American! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You feel proud for the actions of others? That doesn't seem too rational to me.

    11. Re:I feel proud as an American! by r_naked · · Score: 1

      Well, I have two words for them -- FUCK YOU!

      If they don't mind being spied on, then repeal the 4th amendment (there is a process for that). For now however, we have the 4th amendment, so they can go cower in their homes like the little pussies that they are.

      Fucking un-American ass-holes.

      --
      -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    12. Re:I feel proud as an American! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Yes, we can rant and rave all we want, they don't hear any of it. The simple fact is that we are outnumbered. Nothing else matters at this point.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:I feel proud as an American! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      On May 26th, 2011 Barack Obama signed an extension of the Patriot Act into law. He assumed ownership of it at that point.

  16. I might have to vote for this guy by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    Dunno what else he stands for, but he just made a huge "hell ya" in my book. I'm sure I'll find out in the next few days he's a misogynist endangered species farker.

    Seriously, dunno what else he stands for but his efforts to let this abomination die wins him major points in my book.

  17. So What! by bobf0648 · · Score: 2

    Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

  18. Rand Paul may have done only one thing right ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy

    Even if that Rand Paul guy has done only one thing right that ONE THING still represents one thing MORE than all the other congress-critters (plus senate critters) on the Congressional Hill!

    Hey, as a citizen of the United States of America I do understand the problem with the devoid of quality of the congress-critters, and I know I do not have any more option to pick and choose --- whoever does anything right in the Congress in this days has become a RARITY, something that the People can appreciate, and we do appreciate that gesture, whether it is genuine or not, very much!

    Yeah, call me bat shit crazy all you want - as long as we can dump that motherfucking law out you can call me anything you want!!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  19. Who are the fascists?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    . In the end Rand Paul is just another fascist conservative running under the "libertarian" banner even though his notion of liberty is quite twisted

    Excuse me?

    Who the fuck are the REAL fascists here??

    The ones who UPHOLD the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the ones who STEPPED ON IT??

    Other than name calling what else you fascist liberals can do?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Who are the fascists?? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck are the REAL fascists here??

      Wow, I'm sorry I have insulted you to such a degree that you feel justified in using profanities.

      I challenge you to think about the meaning of fascism, here. Fascism refers to the extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people. Indeed the Patriot Act could qualify along those lines, and I am no fan of it.

      However, the Ron Paul cult has been champions of fascism for a long time. The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people. Rand Paul fighting the Patriot Act renewal is just window dressing to encourage people to not pay attention to their driving motivations.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)

      something neither rand nor ron supports.

      if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Other than name calling what else you fascist liberals can do?

      By definition, there is no such thing as a facist liberal. Or a facist communist. Or a facist conservative.

      Facists align themselves away from all three of those ideologies.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Who are the fascists?? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are many different sorts of government that feature "extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people", and that condition is not at all the defining characteristic of fascism (which is a particular variety of regimented society).

      Of all major politicians of the last 50 years, the Pauls stand out as the obvious promoters of freedom, enemies of regimentation and concentration of power.

      The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people.

      Your complete absence of understanding is on display here; the goal is to remove power because power causes abuse.

      "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:Who are the fascists?? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational, and use definitions in a political discussion here on slashdot. You must be new here.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      since when did constitutionalist fascist???

      wanting to let the 50 states decide, instead of the 1 federal government doesnt seem like consolidating the power, it seems like it is spreading the power to 50 different entities rather than a single large one like the neo cons and progressives would prefer.

      they want literally the exact opposite of what you claim they do

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      sorry. that first line should read "since when did constitutionalist meanfascist???

      you are making an argument not relivent to the discussion. Rand is for going back and following the constitution, which means following the 10th amendment. which means if its not explicit in the constitution, its a states right

      as for the elitism comments, seems like class envy to me, and its not something that i care to partake in

      please, if you think rand is a fascist, id LOVE to hear who you want to be elected who would actually follow the constitution, and remove the federal government from my life.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Who are the fascists?? by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Progressives in America are totalitarian, use whatever label you prefer. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. No intrusion into daily life by government is forbidden, as long as it's for the common good.

      "We're going to have to take things away from you for the common good"

      "The problem with letting the people decide is that they often make the wrong choice."

      "It should be illegal to broadcast false claims relating to a political debate."

      "I'm all for free speech, but hate speech isn't protected."

      "I don't want my neighbor to be able to own a firearm - he's more dangerous, if just by accident, than any criminals."

      "It's not right to make a rape victim testify to the cops or a court, or to make her face her accuser - it's just too emotionally traumatizing"

      More and more this is the stuff of the mainstream American left, not just the progressive extreme.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Who are the fascists?? by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do not know the meaning of fascism. Instead, you're using the term as a mere epithet.

      Fascists have a view of world history in which ethnic or national groups are primary. They have a Hobbesian theory of society and the State where the nation must be reified as an individual, where disagreement and competition must be forcibly suppressed. Economic ideology is corporatist: having nothing to do with business corporations, but rather a form of guild socialism - central planning, where market competition is suppressed by the State, and sectors of society and the economy, such as agriculture, business, labor, etc. are regimented into organizations under a single governing body and forced to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of each organization and the body as a whole.

    11. Re:Who are the fascists?? by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

      The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    12. Re:Who are the fascists?? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Holy crap!

      Someone on Slashdot actually finally describes fascism correctly. And from the looks of it, it was written off the cuff, rather than simply cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia (not that I would trust their definition nowadays).

      In addition, it was stated as a simple matter of information. There is no hint of judging whether the system is 'right' or 'wrong'; it just is what it is.

      With very sincere respect, I salute you sir.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:Who are the fascists?? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Fascism refers to the extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people.

      So... something leftists are always pushing for? You know it's no accident Hitler called his party the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

    14. Re:Who are the fascists?? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I agree that all that stuff is bad. How is it any worse than what the right does?

    15. Re:Who are the fascists?? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Your definition of fascism is seriously weird, and not at all historical. Quite the opposite - most totalitarian regimes, including fascism (which, after all, what the word "totalitarian" was originally coined for - by Mussolini himself, no less!) have a huge, bureaucratized state apparatus with significant authority. Yes, that apparatus is used primarily to ensure that the few people on top of the pyramid stay on top, and that the rest are doing what those people on top want them to do, but that is not small government in any sense of the word, and is not at all what the Pauls are trying to sell.

    16. Re:Who are the fascists?? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      When people talk about the size of government they mean the power it has over our lives. If you look at dictators they are rarely doing the killing and intimidation by themselves. They require a huge state of police, soldiers, henchmen, spies, etc to keep everyone in line.

      Your argument is that the more diffuse the power is the farther from fascism we are and I agree with that. Taken to its logical conclusion that would mean government should have very few (if any) power. That would leave the most power in the hands of the individuals.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    17. Re:Who are the fascists?? by will_die · · Score: 1

      He is using the modern definition of fascism.
      In addition to what was brought up the two main aspects of it are:
      1) Are against communism, ok this is somewhat historical.
      2) You love the country you are a citizen of.
      3) You believe that people should have the rights to join together and petition their government.
      Bring up 2 or more of those in a conversation and you will be labeled a fascist. Just visit various kook sites like dailykos, huffington post, or similar and try it.

    18. Re:Who are the fascists?? by jittles · · Score: 1

      "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

      The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

      My understanding is that Jefferson loved his slaves so much that he enjoyed the company of a few of his female slaves.

    19. Re:Who are the fascists?? by totallyarb · · Score: 1

      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.

      Ah, I see the source of the misunderstanding here; it's quite a common problem when conservatives talk to liberals: you use the same words, but to mean different things. When GP talks about a "big government", he means a government that is big in terms of the scope of its powers and responsibilities. It's not a matter of headcount, which is how you seem to be using the term. An absolute monarchy can be a "big" government if the monarch feels he is entitled to micro-manage the daily lives of his subjects. Or it can be a "small" government, if the monarch just lets people be. Likewise, a vast bureaucracy that does very little could be considered a "small" government, albeit a very inefficient one.

      Sure, in practice, more power in the hands of government usually means more government employees required to deal with enforcement and administration, but the "size" of the government (to the right, who are usually the ones talking about it) is a philosophical point, not a practical one. So in those terms, a fascist government is by definition "big".

      Incidentally, President Obama made the same mistake in his first inauguration address - he said something like "it's not about big government or small government, it's about a government that's the right size to help its citizens"; neatly missing the fact that big government v small government is about whether the government is there to "help" people, or just there to administer justice and provide national defence and basic public infrastructure.

      --
      -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    20. Re:Who are the fascists?? by totallyarb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

      I stand open to correction here, but my understanding was that Jefferson inherited the vast majority of the slaves that he owned, and his only known purchases of slaves were in order to reunite family members who had been separated by sales to different masters. It's true that he didn't free many of his slaves, but that was (apparently) because life for an ex-slave in Virginia in the 18th century was arguably nastier than being nominally "owned" by a caring owner. He also attempted to pass laws through the Virginia state legislature that would have abolished slavery (his bill was defeated), and included an anti-slavery diatribe in the original Declaration of Independence, which was cut by the committee before it was published.

      When you get right down to it, there is not a lot one man - even a President of the United States - can do when the culture of the time is against him. But he seems to have done about as much as he could in the circumstances, so criticising him from a perspective more than two centuries later seems a bit unfair.

      --
      -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    21. Re:Who are the fascists?? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant? Oppose totalitarianism in any and all forms!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:Who are the fascists?? by Rufty · · Score: 1

      That would leave the most power in the hands of the corporations.

      ftfy

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    23. Re:Who are the fascists?? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      sorry. that first line should read "since when did constitutionalist meanfascist???

      It doesn't. However Rand is not a strict constitutionalist.

      Rand is for going back and following the constitution, which means following the 10th amendment. which means if its not explicit in the constitution, its a states right

      He advocates that inconsistently. He wants to obey the constitution when it fits his ends. Other times he doesn't give a damn about it. He is no less hypocritical on his interpretation of the constitution than most other politicians, he just makes a bigger deal about it and fewer people are willing to call him out on it. Being as slashdot in particular is overrun with members of Rand's father's cult, he has nearly a guaranteed friendly audience here.

      please, if you think rand is a fascist, id LOVE to hear who you want to be elected who would actually follow the constitution, and remove the federal government from my life.

      Try reading the full constitution before attempting to lecture on its contents. Then go find an actual definition of fascism before pretending that Rand is not one. Then come back and we can try this discussion again.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    24. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational,

      Trying and succeeding, I think.

      You must be new here.

      A comparison of our UIDs shows that you're the newbie.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    25. Re:Who are the fascists?? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Your fabricated quotations are nothing but straw-men.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    26. Re:Who are the fascists?? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you believe anything Hitler said, because he said it, you're almost certainly wrong. In fact, the name predated Hitler's involvement in the party, and the socialist contingent was purged in the 1930s.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Who are the fascists?? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at examples of fascism that are actually, you know, examples. Aside from Italy, this also includes Spain and Portugal, and many South American countries at one point or another. All of them were the same in that regard.

      What you call "corporatocracy", OTOH, is not fascism. It's something else entirely. There is a confusion there because Italian fascists were corporatists, and sometime later, people, esp. native English speakers, confused the meaning of the term "corporatism" with the meaning of the word "corporation" that they're familiar with (but which is not at all what fascist corporatism was all about).

    28. Re:Who are the fascists?? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You know, the simple fact is that the states are a bunch of corrupt little fiefdoms that would be at constant war with each other like medieval Europe if not for the feds. Our obligation is to provide strong oversight, but we have abdicated our responsibilities. The government's failures are our failures.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    29. Re:Who are the fascists?? by totallyarb · · Score: 1

      If you believe anything Hitler said, because he said it, you're almost certainly wrong.

      Hm. That's veering into Hitler Ate Sugar territory. Just because Hitler was a bad man doesn't mean every word out of his mouth was a lie. And in this case, I think tsotha is right - "National Socialism" is a pretty good technical description of "Fascism".

      Bear in mind that the name "Fascism" comes from the symbol of the fasces - a bundle of sticks bound together. The message is: "Individually we are weak, but together we are strong." Fascism is, therefore, essentially a collectivist ideology - the nation becomes strong through joining together. And Hitler was very much all about suppressing the freedom of the individual in order to strengthen the nation.

      The difference between National Socialism and conventional ("International"?) socialism is not the structure, it's the goals - fascists collectivise in order to be strong, socialists collectivise in order to help the weak. But to somebody who thinks about politics as essentially a question of the relationship between the individual and the state, there's very little difference between the two forms.

      --
      -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
  20. What a cluster **** by jopsen · · Score: 1

    Seriously, some people are pro the "USA Freedom Act" because they think it's a start on the path to reigning in the "Patriot Act", and then again others with same agenda are con the "USA Freedom Act" because they would rather have the "Patriot Act" expire.

    And on the other side, people who want more surveillance, are also split between the two, either seeing "USA Freedom Act" as the only way to avoid everything expiring. Or seeing the "USA Freedom" act a blocker for getting the "Patriot Act" re-authorized.

    It's sad you can't just agree to disagree and then vote on the subject (perhaps compromise), rather than playing games trying to out smart each other.

    1. Re:What a cluster **** by Drakonblayde · · Score: 2

      The sad part is that the act just moves the spying to your communications provider. And part of the bill gives them immunity for providing the records (section 105) and also to compensate them for doing so (section 106)

      The USA Freedom Act is the same crap, this is just Capitol Hill Monte being played. About the only good thing about the act is that companies will actually be able to admit their under FISA gag orders.

    2. Re:What a cluster **** by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The fact that the Feds would need a warrant is a slight step forward.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Lemme ask you this ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co ...

    Please spare me the history lesson, dude

    I do need to ask you a question, tho ...
     
    Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

    Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by DarkTempes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it's Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R, WI-5), the same guy who sponsored the Patriot Act.

      I'm not a fan of political parties as a concept but just saying...

    2. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The mantra of Blame Bush is so old and tired. Yeah, I blame Bush for what he did, and I blame Obama for making the crap Bush did the new normal, which is actually worse. GWB was seen as on the radical side of exercising presidential powers -- Obama's making that the new baseline makes reform much less likely and so Obama's presidency is ultimately even a worse disservice than GWB's was. Unless of course you want to live in a US where most all power, eventually all, lies in the Executive branch.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Joe Biden was the original author:

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

    4. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... under the dictatorship of Obama ...

      Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

      Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

      What kind of a dictator "asks" Congress for anything? A proper dictator would, you know, dictate his commands, and any Congressman who refused to rubber-stamp them would be fired, or shot (or both).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by HairyNevus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I really can't wait until we get a new president. Then it will everyone bitching about the next one will get told to blame Obama, and then people will counter that blaming Obama is old and tired but the new president is somehow worse for not being radically different.

      You know what I really honestly and non-sarcastically can't wait for? The day when you idiots stop voting these people into power. As long as the race for presidency--as long as most every political race at every level in this country-- is between a Democrat or a Republican, that will never happen.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    6. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Informative

      What kind of a dictator "asks" Congress for anything? A proper dictator would, you know, dictate his commands

      A clever dictator asks Congress for things he does not want, so that he can deflect the blame to Congress when they fail to pass it. You don't see presidents asking for permission about, say, drone bombings in various countries.

    7. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by cavreader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The President is the Commander and Chief of the US armed services. Under the War Powers Act he can declare war without getting Congressional approval. The President has 90 days after the start of the war to convince Congress to support his decision. If they do not agree they have the power to stop providing the money needed to prosecute the war. The drone strikes are carried out with the permission from the countries where the attacks take place. Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghani governments have given the US permission to conduct drone attacks in their countries. No matter how much those governments try to deny it to their general public they have approved the US drone operations. And it does not matter one bit if the Patriot Act or any similar act exists because the national security agencies will still do pretty much anything they want any way. I doubt seriously whether the NSA really cares about losing the ability to collect metadata. And any similar program that involves collecting large amounts of data will also be no big loss. The NSA and CIA can pretty much do anything they want outside of the US just like every other intelligence service in the world can come to the US and nose around. I personally think the US should eliminate the TSA and let you keep your shoes on when you go through airport security. I think the government should do what the people want and roll back all of the security measures put in place since 9/11. I am willing to take the risk of becoming a victim from a terrorist attack. If there is a terrorist attack that kills a sizable number of people the government should just track down those responsible and kill them with absolutely no large military deployments or prolonged presence in a foreign country. When the public starts complaining that the government should have prevented the attack the government can honestly say they discontinued all of the over reaching domestic related national security measures just like the US public wanted.

    8. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

      Dictators don't ask.

    9. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 1

      It's bipartisan. The thing is, they will let it expire, use that to get into office, stage or provoke another major incident, then reinstate the patriot act, only tougher. Using the excuse that getting rid of it made the country vulnerable to terrorist attack. Later the skeptics, and anti war protesters will group together and fight to stop whatever insane killing is going on. The Democrats will take credit for this and use it to get back into office. It's a tag team match between big oil and the motion picture and movie industry.

    10. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 1

      Except you're not getting a new president. You're getting a copy of an old one.

    11. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      A clever dictator asks Congress for things he does not want, so that he can deflect the blame to Congress when they fail to pass it

      If he didn't want it, why did he renew it last time? He's got a veto for that sort of thing.

      Note, by the by, that both this time and last time, the Dems in the Senate were pretty solidly in favor of renewal

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      From the article (emphasis added):

      The Clinton bill is a mixture of: provisions eroding constitutional and
      statutory due process protections, selective federalization â" on political grounds â" of state crimes (minus state due process rules), discredited ideas from the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the extension of some of the worst elements of crime bills of the recent past.

      So it's just a rehash of the powers that Reagan and Papa Bush wanted but couldn't get.

      Those in power want more power...regardless of political affiliation. Shocking.

    13. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by tomkost · · Score: 2

      posting again non-AC... Agree with all you said, except one part. The vast majority of my fellow Americans don't even realize there are other options beyond R and D. That's because the media is complicit in excluding 3rd parties and preserving the duopoly. Since Citizens United, it's only gotten worse. So the Supreme Court is also to blame. None of the three branches of government support the people any longer.

    14. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Its true. Hillary will either be an Obama copy, or just as likely, a Bill Clinton copy. Presumably without cigars.

      The Republican candidates will be either Bush copies, or corporate CEOs, or Fundamentalists.

      Oh, and there's a socialist running this year too. That's sort of new, last one we had was Eugene Debs in the beginning of the 20th Century. Looks like we're due for our socialist this part of the century.

      I honestly have no idea who to vote for. More to the point, I'll probably facepalm more than once over the subsequent four years over the person who I do vote for.

    15. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Both are running scare -- little political downside to approving it, massive political downside if an attack happens and it isn't wasn't passed.

      Makes no matter if it would have helped or not, those looking to knock out incumbents will scream the incumbent should have done more.

      We may predict this will happen now when, not if, the next attack occurs.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well, to be pedantic, the President most certainly *cannot* declare war. Only Congress can do that. It's even in the Constitution and everything.

      However, you were probably were referring to his de facto ability as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces to actually use those forces as required. And that is more or less correct. Congress can't tell him what to do with them directly, but they can remove all of the funding for them if he starts looking like he's running an actual war.

      As for privacy... I agree that terrorism is a relatively low probability threat to most Americans. However, it is certainly one that could grow to become more serious, if not checked. We need to find an appropriate technological balance between legitimate intelligence gathering and privacy.

    17. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that when Obama is President, Congress using it's Constitutional powers to withhold funding is cast as, "Republicans holding guns to the heads of the American People." So don't count on that working.

    18. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3

      It's bipartisan. The thing is, they will let it expire, use that to get into office, stage or provoke another major incident, then reinstate the patriot act, only tougher. Using the excuse that getting rid of it made the country vulnerable to terrorist attack. Later the skeptics, and anti war protesters will group together and fight to stop whatever insane killing is going on. The Democrats will take credit for this and use it to get back into office. It's a tag team match between big oil and the motion picture and movie industry.

      Don't get too comfy with this.

      The Senate will likely pass the Houses "freedom act" bill that basically puts most of the Patriot act back in function, with the single difference being that the metadata will be housed at the phone companies, and a warrant will be needed for each query into it.

      Better than before, but certainly not doing away with it totally as I'd like, and start over. The other provisions for lone wolf and traveling wiretaps will be back in full force though.

      Likely this will be law again by Wednesday.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Well, the election system isn't helping either. It's very unlikely a third party will ever get a decent momentum the way the system is set up. On the other hand the SNP and UKIP (both rather single topic extremists though) managed to break up what was basically a two party parliament in the UK, so maybe there is hope.

    20. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by towermac · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true.

      There are always a few candidates early in the mix that are not retread copies. It's just that they are always destroyed early, I guess before you noticed that they were running.

      We have a few that are 'independents' this year; hell even one on the Democrat side, which you don't see too often lately.

    21. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by towermac · · Score: 1

      They are tricking you. We could get by with the 2 parties if the primaries weren't so totally screwed up.

      But even so, We sometimes come close to getting a real person.

      Last time, 2 that come to mind are Herman Cain and Newt. You know good and well that Cain was not part of the big money establishment. Which is why he had to be destroyed.

      Newt, on the other hand, was in like Flint at one time, but wouldn't play ball, so they used him against Clinton and then ran him out of town on a rail. Then, he has the nerve to almost come back in 2012 and win Georgia. They fixed him good this time didn't they...

      We get good people (well at least not already bought and paid for) in all the time. They just don't last long.

    22. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The problem in finding balance with security measures is that no one really knows if any of the current programs, laws, and actions are actually preventing any attacks. I tend to believe that the US foreign intelligence services have their hands full dealing with problems in other countries and have very little time or reason to waste resources on the domestic side of things. Their attempts to automate and electronically compile data to detect security threats has been a failure and that is most likely why no one is really that upset with stopping programs such as the metadata collection effort. The only ones making a big deal over the issue is the feckless politicians looking to score points "fighting for homeland security" or "fighting for privacy rights". The problem the US faces is that the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, and all the other law enforcement and security agencies still do not play well with one another. Each agency has their own programs and priorities that sometimes overlap but each agency still guard their turf a little too much. The government attempts to correct this has resulted in jurisdiction issues and possible 4th Amendment violations when one agency collects information under one set of evidentiary rules and then shares that information with another agency who did not meet the evidentiary requirements to legally possess the information and then used it to prosecute a crime.

    23. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      The system is broken, and effectively guarantees a two-party system. Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 92, which resulted in precisely zero representation in government. If 1 in 5 people voting for a 3rd party gains that party no traction, what hope is there?

      And you suggest it's the "idiot voters" fault? The game is rigged.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    24. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I thought I covered the independent under "socialist". Which he actually is, I'm not just calling him names. Unless I missed another independent in there.

      And yes, there do tend to be some different people early in the process. They usually either have no chance, they have one idea and one idea only, or they have a completely impractical platform. Although they're colorful for about five minutes, I think that they'd actually be worse than the retreads, for the most part.

      I don't mind bland candidates, I mind that the candidates that we have because they're both bland and only vaguely competent.

    25. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I blame Bush for what he did, and I blame Obama for making the crap Bush did the new normal, which is actually worse.

      Noticing a pattern yet? Noticing that this has NOTHING to do with which political party is in power?

      Yeah... this country has been taken over. The nifty part is we do not know who or which organized group of people did it, but you can bet they are exceedingly wealthy... enough to make Bill Gates blush.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    26. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope that it all implodes an these provisions are left expired. Barring that, Mitch McConnell just introduced a measure that would remove one of the less evil portions that prevent further use of "secret interpretations" like we saw with section 215. Either he's trying to poison it, or he's just a complete asshole bordering on enemy of the state.

    27. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by towermac · · Score: 1

      "I think that they'd actually be worse than the retreads, for the most part."

      Why would you think that? Based on what the establishment has told you about them? By the time we are even aware of them, the narrative seems to be already set.

      And yes, I knew you meant Bernie. Speaking of him specifically, as a conservative, I'd vote for him over any current Dem and most of the current Republicans. Those people are exactly the same; a vote for them is saying you love things just the way they are.

      What we need is a really good politician. Bill Clinton was a decent politician, and Reagan was pretty good.

      Those are about the only two I can think of in my lifetime that were good at the job of being a politician.

  22. Don't worry... by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

    ... in a few weeks the powers that be will let (if necessary, "encourage") an act of extreme terrorism on US soil succeed. Then they will go back to the well, and congress will enthusiastically vote us all into chains at the same time they increase the budget and personal power of all of the shadow spooks keeping us safe.

    Well, probably not a few weeks -- that would be too suspicious. But look for it within the year, especially if they can find a poster-child terrorist they can point at and say -- look, if only we were tapping everybody's phone (including yours) we could have found him in time to prevent this tragedy...

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:Don't worry... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ... in a few weeks the powers that be will let (if necessary, "encourage") an act of extreme terrorism on US soil succeed.

      If they have the knowledge available to 'allow' an act of terrorism with that type of precision, doesn't that mean their surveillance is working pretty well?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Don't worry... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Working so very, very well that they can, I'm sure, easily winnow it out from the fact that you recently got HIV from your neighbor's husband and are trying hard to keep it from your two wives and the insurance company you are trying to get a huge life insurance policy from so that if your reckless skydiving hobby or the gang you work for as a drug mule kill you, your thirteen children, ten of them illegitimate-r, won't all starve, information that they would never ever use against you unless, of course, it suited them to do so because, for example, you were openly exposing their secrets or calling for the limitation of their powers on the Internet.

      Which is a good thing, because if, say, all of this extra surveillance power was useful only against the criminally stupid non-terrorist private citizen because a) there isn't enough bandwidth in the Universe to monitor all the bandwidth of the Universe (God has the same problem, BTW) and b) contrary to popular belief, it is really simple to send encrypted messages that the NSA cannot detect or, if they detect, crack and terrorists -- even ones that are stuck in the 15th century as far as their religious ideals are concerned -- are not that stupid and have access to all the tools needed to secure lines of communication, the spook-lords might take it into their heads to notice that the only real difference between a spook and a terrorist is that the spook has nicer things and a 403k and dental.

      So they could always, I dunno, stage a terrorist attack in such a way that it got blamed on some hapless Muslim who is inconveniently outspoken and who communicates with his elderly mother in Syria on his cell phone (oops, I mean communicates with his "mother" in Syria, wink wink nod nod know what I mean) or arrange for you to have an accident (I mean an "accident") driving home to work to kiss your wives and deliver a load of cocaine to the Peachy Blister street gang in your neighborhood.

      Sure, I know, paranoid government conspiracy ravings, and there is nothing to have stopped them from doing most of this before 9/11 and the Patriot act but a certain amount (we hope) of genuine attachment to the ideals of America beyond the letter of the law and the letter of the law and possibility of consequences if caught at it. I feel every bit as comfortable about it as I used to feel with humans with imperfect brains, sociopathies, gambling debts, and blackmailable secrets sitting on top of nuclear weapons with the means at hand to immediately deliver them and detonate them.

      Oh, wait, did you say that those days haven't really ended, and that somewhere out there is a young man with undiagnosed bipolar disorder whose wife just left him for another woman managing a locker full of nukes just begging to be used to columbine the two of them and a few dozen square miles in all directions of their -- I mean his -- house?

      Time to honey-badger it. What we don't know, can't hurt us. Which is what most of us do, lest we go mad.

      And hey, they could be genuine patriots, right? Observe everything but reveal nothing that ought not to be seen no matter how illegal, immoral, extortable it is, as long as it isn't "terrorism"? All without any sort of real accountability or audit?

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    3. Re:Don't worry... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure, I know, paranoid government conspiracy ravings

      Yeah, you're kind of going off the deep end lol

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. blowback by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    I'm a little bit afraid of what our Intelligence Apparatus will do if backed into a corner.

    I'd feel a lot better if Senator Paul was fighting for increased oversight over the NSA's off-the-books budget. I mean, we already know that they don''t give fuck-all about the law.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:blowback by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "NSA oversight"... that's like "matter/anti-matter". You're not gonna get both, well, not in the same room.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Re:Midnight is in the morning by Drakonblayde · · Score: 2

    The provisions expire midnight Jun 1, 2015, not May 31, 2015.

    So, as of right now, and as of the time you posted, the provisions have not expired.

    However, the program is already in shutdown, as they had to start turning it down early in order to be in compliance with the midnight expiration

  25. Re:Rand Paul may have done only one thing right .. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if that Rand Paul guy has done only one thing right that ONE THING still represents one thing MORE than all the other congress-critters (plus senate critters) on the Congressional Hill!

    While I applaud him for so openly opposing the bill, he's not the only one in Congress who has. There were 121 votes against the bill in the House.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  26. Re:So What! A Roadmap... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

    The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.

    1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
    2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
    3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
    4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)

    The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:

    There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.

    That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:

    Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

    NSA should not have wanted th

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  27. The 4th Amendment is America by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I've always considered the "Patriot Act" to be a mockery of American values of honesty. The DOJ's disenfranchisement of all Americans is as worthless as those who would wish us to be gone. Grinning Showoffs have profited greatly from this baseless fear. Some showoffs have stopped grinning, and a few can never grin again. If the West wishes to stop more grinning show offs, the easiest solution is large scale, ocean based environmentally sound desalination plants pumping water to the dry areas of this planet. Powered by Solar and Wind. It's off the self technology and cheaper than the life of one american.

  28. Nonsene, both of you! by linearZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co ...

    Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

    Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

    This argument is exactly the argument they want. because this argument leads nowhere.

    The patriot act was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co. under a republican controlled congress. And it was backed by Obama under a democratically controlled congress, and - if not for the exception of one guy with a backbone - almost got pushed through a Republican controlled congress by a Democrat president again. So you are both right. What are your points?

    The one thing that you two probably agree with, the one thing that polls have shown like 80% if Americans agreeing with, is that the Patriot Act is nonsense and needs to be repealed. Yet, over 99% of the elected representatives seems to want the Patriot Act passed.

    Meanwhile, armchair yahoos such as yourselves are busy arguing about which politician is to blame? Balderdash! How about blaming all elected officials, except for maybe Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders? If you can only think of this through the lens of political parties, how about going with the vertebrate and invertebrate parties? I know, without their own news channels, it is hard to imagine....

    --
    Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
    1. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      because this argument leads nowhere.

      More like it leads places you don't want to or just cant acknowledge as valid.

    2. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by nine-times · · Score: 3

      The one thing that you two probably agree with, the one thing that polls have shown like 80% if Americans agreeing with, is that the Patriot Act is nonsense and needs to be repealed. Yet, over 99% of the elected representatives seems to want the Patriot Act passed.

      What do you imagine this is all about, then? Why do you think there's such a discrepancy?

      My running theory is that it has nothing to do with political parties or oppression. The elected officials support the PATRIOT Act because they're cowards. They believe that the American people are stupid and fickle, and that even if 100% strongly support repealing the PATRIOT Act, those same people will still blame their elected politicians for "not doing enough" when the next terrorist attack comes.

      And they're right to believe it. There will be another successful terrorist attack. There will. Someday, under some circumstances; it's only a matter of time. And when it happens, no matter what the circumstances are, the general populace will panic, and they'll do all kinds of stupid things. And the funny thing is, you might not realize this unless you really pay attention, but the general populace has no memory. It doesn't matter how much they disapprove of the PATRIOT Act now. As soon as there's a successful terrorist attack and they're scared and confused, they'll be absolutely irate that we aren't spying on more people more often. They won't have any idea why the NSA stopped monitoring all of our phone calls, but they'll be angry at anyone involved in putting an end to it.

      I mean, if you talk to people now, nobody was ever in favor of invading Iraq. Go ahead and ask people, and they'll get upset and say they don't know why we went in, but it was a big mistake, and they always knew it was a mistake. Or they'll say they were tricked. But back when it happened, it was popular enough that representatives were afraid to oppose it. At least some of those people are mis-remembering. Same thing with all of the deregulation going on during the Clinton era, which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten happened during Clinton's presidency. Everyone remembers that they economy grew under Clinton, but everyone forgets all the deregulation and Walmartization going on at the time.

      People have no memory and no principles, so they're just running off of whatever they're feeling at the time. Our elected officials tend to base their policies on irrational fear and bigotry because those are the most consistent and trustworthy feelings.

    3. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Another thing that must be kept in mind is this is not some issue about funding some obscure little program to feed a certain variety of pigeon in a specific park some place. This is in fact a large news making issue that the public has become quite familiar with it, its also an issue that is closely tied to very fundamental questions about who we are as nation, and what the Constitution means in the 21st century..

      You can't be POTUS and not have a strong opinion on an issue like this, Its your job as leader to form one even if you don't have personal convictions. Obama can't duck this one and be fulfilling his responsibilities any more than an umpire can refuse to call "ball" or "strike".

      You are either for it, and should be willing and able to articulate why or you are against and ought to be willing to take a strong position there too.

      For or against as President in a post Snowden political landscape he owes us more than backing the USA FREEDOM ACT, which as near as I can tell changes nothing other than who owns the building the hard-drives sit in and some nonspecific language about "tools to fight the terrorists".

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It was Obama. He signed the Patriot Act Extension into law in 2011. We wouldn't be talking about this if he had vetoed or refused to sign. As of just before midnight on May 26th, 2011, Barack Obama assumed ownership of the Patriot Act.

    5. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by linearZ · · Score: 1

      Oh, I've acknowledge who's to blame:

      over 99% of the elected representatives seem to want the Patriot Act passed.

      Do I want to acknowledge this? No. That last thing I want to acknowledge is our democracy being that fucked up. But I know that blaming one or a few guys who claim they are on different political teams instead of acknowledging the REAL problem causes far more harm than good.

      --
      Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
    6. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      The only way to limit the governments ability to harm you, is to limit the size and power of government.

      Of course that means you have to give up the government "Helping" people you like and support.

    7. Re:Nonsene, both of you! by linearZ · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that the elected officials that have offered the biggest opposition to the patriot act - Bernie Sander and Rand Paul - are often sold to us as "radicals", far left and far right. When I hear these guys speak, and read their platforms, they aren't that different. Radical in the US is center in most other countries. I feel I agree with about 90% of what each has to say - both seem reasonable and rational!

      And so what makes them radical? That they willing to take a stand and go on the record for what they believe?

      As time goes on, the whole thing seems more like a show, with the few politicians that seem to have some backbone to buck the extremely fucked up system getting labeled as radicals. The fact that Americans continue to elect the rest of those bozos is a reasonable cause for this cynicism. But I have to wonder if this is assigned a cause to the resulting effect, or is more going on?

      --
      Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
    8. Re: Nonsene, both of you! by linearZ · · Score: 1

      Because anarchy is the only way to utopia, right? Who needs police or roads or defense. Man is a peaceful creature, and humans by nature will go out to fend for themselves without conflict or cooporation with others.

      If there is one thing that anarchists, communists, and facists all seem to agree on is that the current system (unless it is their own) isn't worth the effort of saving. The ideal of that type of "revolutionary" bluster in the US is rubbish. Statements like yours are not about the arrogance of these politicians helping those whom one may like or dislike, they are about you not getting your way.

      Do you really think the anarchy you propose will seriously ever happen in the US? You are a fool if you do, and if you're not a fool, then you are just hypocritcally espousing an oft-echoed rhetorical position meant to get someone in power that may help people you do like. I.e, you're a tool.

      --
      Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
    9. Re: Nonsene, both of you! by linearZ · · Score: 1

      You need to look up the "USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005". At the time it was signed into law by a Republican controlled congress, both house and senate.

      In both cases, the original 2001 bill and the 2005 re-up, Bush signed the law. While I wouldn't doubt that W had no idea what he was signing, Ron Paul (Rand's father) brought forth plenty of evidence that much of the original language was written long before 911 and proffered by the VPs office to the Senate as a starting pont.

      But if you really want to think that Bush and Chaney bare no responsibility, while nearly every elected official since does, if that is what helps you sleep at night, well... God bless ya.

      --
      Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
    10. Re: Nonsene, both of you! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      that's nice where did anyone mention anarchy ?

  29. So who is going to jail for violating it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So who is going to jail for violating it when it's off the books? The same guys that didn't go to jail when they were caught breaking the law by torturing people?

  30. What's really going on? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I think the reality is that all of the wiretapping, spying, etc. is going to continue, but the results will be much less visible. Countries have been spying on each other forever, and most spy on their own citizens to some extent.

    One thing I have to wonder is this -- whether you like the President or not, he's pretty much the only person in the world who knows most of what is going on in the military and intelligence community. So I've always been curious about the real state of affairs...none of us have access to the information he does. It must be interesting getting back from the inaugural ball, waking up the next morning and walking into your first daily briefing where you find out the difference between what made the news that morning and what's actually going on in the world. "Good morning, Mr. President -- here's your nuclear launch codes, your security detail, and the four scenarios the Joint Chiefs have worked up for a possible land invasion of China...choose one." There's a reason heads of state age prematurely -- and I'm guessing this is a large part of it. I know I'd be a little worried about being the ultimate authority responsible for 300 million people. Like the sign on the desk says, "The buck stops here." So, for example, if the President chose to continue the Patriot Act data collection, there was probably a reason for doing so, especially since he campaigned on rolling back a lot of this. Whether this was done by his military/ntelligence advisors to keep things easy, or driven by something else is the question.

    All I'm saying is that none of us knows what's actually being done with this information. I'm of the opinion that, while the threat may be overblown, some of the intelligence gathered through this program at least helped connect the dots on a few things. No one just walks into an Internet forum and announces they want to join ISIS and are looking for something to blow up. We'll see what happens...it's probably nothing, but it will be very interesting to go back late in my life and see what was declassified from this time period.

  31. Political pendulum, back and forth by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Some terrorist(s) will kill many dozens or hundreds in the US and everybody will want snooping back. Just you watch and see. Bookmark my post. I've been around long enough to notice political patterns.

  32. Wont make any difference by bug1 · · Score: 1

    The law was bought in to give them permission to do something they always did anyway, you think a politician can stop them now ?

    Until one of them goes to Jail nothing will change.

  33. Re:So, you're only a good guy if... by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I do not like it but I am not a woman and I have no say in the matter. The majority want it.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  34. When all the choices on the ballot by waspleg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are carefully selected by corporate money/the rich who own them then there is no real change since it's the same hand up the ass of both party puppets.

    1. Re:When all the choices on the ballot by microbox · · Score: 1
      Image a world where Al Gore won the 2000 election. Maybe he would have done the same things that Bush did:
      • Pull the plug on the hunt for Bin Ladin
      • Ignore warnings of an imminent terrorist attack
      • Invade Iraq until false pretenses
      • Give huge tax cuts that apparently pay for themselves with economic growth
      • Stack government science committees with fundies
      • Use a pseudo-scientific definition of life to pull funding on stem cell research

      I am sure that Gore would have made many annoying mistakes, but you are fooling yourself if you think both parties are the same.

      People in politics are motivated as much by their personal beliefs as anything else. Judge them by what they do.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  35. can't they get anything done? by Skapare · · Score: 1

    can't the senate get anything done? ... oh wait!

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  36. Except of course... by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this won't stop the NSA and FBI, CIA, etc from continuing their unconstitutional surveillance state...

    1. Re:Except of course... by macbass · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I trust no on in these positions to stop just because it is unlawful to continue. Especially with all the whining about how "useful" (i.e., no proof that they helped in anyway) they have been. Perhaps I've been jaundiced by all 24 and all those other programs but since when does the expiration of a law mean anything? It's not like enforcers can seal off a room or disconnect servers from the Intertubes.

  37. Hillary next by phorm · · Score: 1

    What I'm expecting is that if Hillary gets in, many woman voters are going to see her as a saviour only to be sorely disappointed when she either ignores any prominent womens' issues or outright craps on them, especially issues she's promised to address (similar to how Obama did to many of his supporters).

  38. vertebrate and invertebrate parties by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Your comment made my day! :)

    Paul B.

  39. Re:Anthrax by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

    Which anthrax attack are you talking about? The one many years ago, or the attack from a few weeks ago, where our own government sent live anthrax spores through the postal system to unsuspecting labs, exposing dozens of people at minimum, to test if they were ready for just such an attack? (Yes, this really just happened, and it hasn't gotten nearly the airtime it deserves, since it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by the government)

  40. My issue w/ EVERYBODY by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Normally, I wouldn't have problems w/ wiretaps, if we didn't have recent cases like the IRS auditing people based on their political beliefs, as came out. But I do have problems, and here it is.

    Who are the vocal supporters of continuing all this? It's the Bush Republicans - I mean guys like McCain, Gramm, McConnell, Christie, Rubio, Santorum, et al. Aside from Paul, real Conservatives like Ted Cruz have expressed reservations about this. Also, I'd take the jibes of the McCains more seriously if they supported other secutity measures.

    Since 9/11, what has been the biggest gaping hole in our security? It's been allowing Muslims to continue to come to this country, no questions asked. While it's tough for people from Mexico, China or India, people from Saudi Arabia - the country of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers - can get visa stamps on their passports from their travel agents. Not just that, Mid East Muslims coming here is as easy as taking a flight from SFO to JFK. And Muslim immigration has increased to the point where they dominate cities like Dearbornistan.

    So all the Republicans concerned about our security - why aren't they publicly opposing Muslim immigration? The last major Republican to have done that was Tom Tancredo, and his candidacy in 2008 went nowhere. McCain and Gramm, as well as a lot of the mainstream candidates, including the Pauls, have supported amnesty. While the primary beneficiaries of them may be Mexicans, there are a huge number of Muslims too in the mix, who won't be subjected to any deportation despite participating in terror threats or other criminal acts.

    And the rhetoric about ISIS - let's revisit why it became an issue in the first place. Some journalists captured in Syria were beheaded, and that's when the collective blood of the media began boiling. But if members of the media are stupid enough to believe in their own lies about how benign Muslims are, why should American - or any non-Muslim troops from anywhere - be responsible for their stupidity? The whole issue would never have happened had Western journalists stayed out of Muslim countries following the so-called 'Arab Springs' and let them run their own civil wars. While I don't support Obama's anti-Israel policies, at least his policy of not sending US ground troops there is a sound one. In fact, he needn't even conduct bombing operations there.

    Also, this policy of blocking US and other Muslims who want to go to Syria to join ISIS - my question - why stop them? Let them go, but revoke their citizenship the moment they are in Syria - or even Turkey. Let them join ISIS, and fight in battles in Raqqa, Tadmur, Ramadi or Tikrit. Why are we howling over (un)Americans who want to go and wage jihad/taqfir wars? Let them go and die there, and meet their 72 virgins or whatever.

    Also, in all the arguments about the situations in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and so on, or on what should be our policy towards ISIS, when two or more of your enemies are fighting each other, what does one normally do? The sensible response is to get into the seating area of the theater and open the popcorn. Why is the West agonizing over supporting Iran, or Syria, or Yemen's government or anybody else for that matter? Just let the Shi'ites and ISIS fight it out, and if we have to do anything at all, it should be to supply each side adequately so that the war never ends. Hopefully, that should drain out all Jihad-minded Muslims into battlefields in Iraq and Syria, and we'll have less of them in our countries.

  41. Re:So What! A Roadmap... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    All of this is moot. ...unless you actually believe that we haven't invented quantum computing already.
    This is moot unless you believe quantum computing isn't already here.

    You are in a little twisty maze of quantum computing, spooky at a distance..
    You are in a twisty little maze of quantum computing, all entangled.
    You are in a little twisty computing of quanta, all moot.
    You are in a moot of quantum twisters, all charmed.
    There are some keys on the ground here.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  42. Not saying it's good... by jopsen · · Score: 1

    I would love to see you stop bulk collection in foreign countries too...