Slashdot Mirror
Congress Is Trying To Expand The Patriot Act (rare.us)
An anonymous reader writes: The house is scheduled to vote in an hour or so on expanding provisions of the patriot act, allowing massive financial information sharing to include dozens of new offenses ("specified unlawful activities"), including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The house bill is H.R. 5606. My quick read is that this essentially lets FEDGOV expand massive semi-secret databases of financial transactions without a warrant while protecting banks from liability for helping them. In 5 years from 2002-2007, for example, with a smaller ability this led to 35,000 suspects but there were only 21 search warrants. Call your representative. Rare.us reports: "The proposed bill, H.R. 5606, expands Section 314 of the Patriot Act to cover non-terrorism or money laundering related investigations. Critics claim that the bill is a threat to the privacy of innocent Americans and is being rammed through Congress without debate. Section 314 encourages law enforcement to share information with financial institutions on money laundering and terrorism. It also encourages financial institutions to share information with each other." The report says the House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), opposes the bill, claiming that Treasury Department regulations will compromise the privacy of Americans as it will all but mandate financial institutions to share information with the government. The caucus also opposes the bill because it is being brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules, and is not being considered under "regular order." The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) described HR 5606 as an attempt "to stop the flow of illicit dollars to criminals and terror organizations."
I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, meanwhile us little people get fucked when the feds decide to seize everything we own and not give it back for years because they thought we were trying to launder money, or worse, look like we're trying to not look like we're laundering money, because we made a deposit just under whatever the limit is for reporting people's deposits are this week.
Someday, we'll end the war on drugs and end this bullshit, but we'll need a political party that actually believes in small government to do that.
I just fracking love how they offer us "share information with financial institutions on money laundering and terrorism" as if the two are of equal value in the good and evil matrix.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"The House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), has come out in opposition to the bill ..."
"Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
I'll bet that if this passes both houses of Congress that President Obama signs it without a moment's hesitation. I'll bet that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would also sign it in a heartbeat. So, how come we can't elect people who, I don't know, actually value and want to protect our rights and our civil liberties?
"The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC)..."
It's a bipartisan thing. You should be happy!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
That's depressing, considering her fairly-progressive stance on many social issues. Again, you just can't seem to rely on anyone's history --with the exception of Bernie... It appears he's reaching some compromise to endorse Hillary. So sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No sig for you! Come back one year!
What is FEDGOV? I mean, I think it doesn't take too many brain cells to assume it means the US Federal Government, but why is the submitter putting it in all caps as if it was some kind of acronym, or a secret code phrase? Apparently FEDGOV is something that maintains "semi-secret databases of financial transactions" (what does that mean)? This all sounds like conspiracy-theory gobbledigook to me.
Breakfast served all day!
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
It's completely in line with her 'fairly-progressive stance on many social issues'. She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah, it is just the Republitards. The presumptive Democratic nominee would never stand for s#$@ like this, would she?
(3)Court authority over assets.—
A court may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
In other words, the feds will seize your bank account to make darn sure you are not able to afford an attorney to properly defend yourself.
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones?
I can see under trump laws like that being passed.
...who's the sponsor?
from the H. R. 5606 PDF file Section 1 Short Title: This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act’’.
AISISA Though the acronym is not used in the document, notice it contains ISIS....
The HR 5606 did not pass, 229-177
http://www.c-span.org/congress/votes/
For what you mean to ask, the answer is, a Republican, because both parties want to fuck you like Douchey McDesktopdouche fucked Linux with SystemD.
Your question is terrible, though. The dude you're after is also a co-sponsor. That's how co-sponsors work. That's how co- works. There's not a Lord High Sponsor standing over the co-sponsors; the co-sponsors are all of them equally responsible and terrible douchenozzles.
Bill was defeated in the House.
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones?
I can see under trump laws like that being passed.
Hillary is more of a "stay the course" candidate than Trump.
If you are betting the odds then Hillary is more likely to pass those types of laws than Trump.
Trump realizes that we have to fix things, and he wouldn't push businesses out of the US over something as ineffective as this.
Say what you want about Trump, but he knows business and isn't easily swayed by political spin.
And this won't be the main issue in the election anyway. Stability in ones lifestyle (meaning: the ability to make a living) is the big issue, which in practical terms means the economy and job availability.
That's what everyone's worried about: whether they'll have a job next year.
Other considerations are secondary to this one issue.
Might as well be from Hitler himself.
Did not ask for this. How do we take our country back?
Not to mention like most 'conservatives'.
"Quick everyone's distracted with Pokemon Go, let's see what we can get away with!"
We're all full up on Crazy here...
Congress should be held responsible for any potential profit by their decisions, so that congress decisions aren't determined by the market profit they lead to. Perhaps with a more functional government the Iraq War would not have appeared as profitable as it did in the past, preventing it from occurring, ignoring the lack of intelligence that was involved in the past (war was not declared, due to post-WWII congress tradition, so we could call it the Iraq conflict). Instead, congress decides to focus on random Americans, consistently avoiding accountability for their actions.
The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) described HR 5606 as an attempt "to stop the flow of illicit dollars to criminals and terror organizations."
The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) probably thinks of HR 5606 as a huge step forward "in improving the ease and profitability of asset forfeiture, expanding its scope to include even more innocent citizens."
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Funny because most government overreach that affects normal people is the result of conservatives and their 'small government'. The war on drugs, the patriot act and its evil siblings in the first place, the TSA, DHS, liquor laws and blue laws in general, just about any law governing sex or adult businesses, etc. All the result of small government conservatives and their desire to control your personal behavior.
No, liberals aren't real good on the subject of personal freedom either. But enough with the one sided lies about who's addicted to government power.
Imagine you are a Jewish Gypsy living in 1932 Berlin, (two tickets to the camp)
What is the trigger event for you to make an move to another country ASAP ?
What are you taking with you and are willing to delay your move for ?
How do you chose where to go ?
if the USA has ceased to be "by the people,for the people" and now is run by the 1%ers (not the bikers !) what year is it ?
1929, 1933, 1936, 1939 ?
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
They are not helping citizends. They just want to control you like a domestic animal.
Goverment IS a terrorist, and the civilian IS counter-terrorist.
Don't worry, in the year 2021 World War III starts and many American will die.
It would be nice if just one of the examples you gave wasn't supported by 'progressives'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Election year, time to: a) Get tough on crime, b) Get sponsorship from parties that benefit from "tough on crime legislation", or c) Court the fringe vote that cares about civil liberties.
Some politicians will go for c, but a+b will probably carry the final vote.
The bill failed to pass. It required a 2/3 vote and didn't get close: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Didn't Obama count as a liberal? Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Dunno, did Bush count as a liberal?
Honestly, both parties have absolutely sucked at reducing government.
Both parties have excelled at reducing liberties and increasing criminalization of behavior.
The insurance companies WERE the death panels. What do you think happens when you have a critical medical problem and your "care" is a visit to the ER instead of the appropriate regimen of drugs and/or therapy and/or surgery?
I'll tell you what happens: they bill you, you can't pay, they turn you over to debt collection, they destroy your financial reputation (assuming you have one), and you go on being sicker and sicker. And then you DIE.
Single payer is the sane answer for the average person. For rich people, no, it's not needed. Rich people, however, are a tiny minority. But they do comprise congress -- every seat. The average worth of a congressperson is seven figures. And we wonder why the poor people constantly get the shaft. Christ on a crutch. This nation is insane.
From rare.com: "UPDATE: The bill failed to get the 2/3rds vote needed for passage. It failed with only 229 votes."
What a dumb thing to say.
Isn't the House made up of the same bunch who think the government is incompetent, can't be trusted, and is dangerous? And they are all fired to give it more power? WTF?
Its an election year, write them a letter and tell them you won't vote for them.
CIA are the terrorists period.
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9370079&cid=52494647
Cut/paste why waste time on this? Wake up.
Why wouldn't they train Indians and buy rice paddies too fuck it. Sell American land and properties all to China then make big threats with boats. Eric Schmidt is a treasonous bitch too.
https://www.news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/06/1834211/eric-schmidt-gets-a-job-at-the-pentagon
Why is Windows 10/8.1/8/7 ALL spyware?! GEE. I don't know.
MSNBC is Microsoft National Broadcasting Company
http://www.abbreviations.com/term/374902
These situations all are a chain of events from 9/11 WTC attacks and other false flags. Watch out for race bait and gay bait in the news with more Hillary soap operas.
Are you so busy 9 to 5 that you can't think? Hillary or Trump is this a fucking mindblowing decision? Did Hillary email did she not did she have a home server did she not. Fucking A, you people are reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetarded buying their shit and using their spyware.
The USA is bankrupt. That is the actual story.
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
In their game of rob and expand, they have to expand or they can't rob. These extra laws that nobody in the public is ever requesting are just literally governmental power grabs. The American government including Obama are in a disposition of long-running treason. They either get more power or die trying that is it.
Meta-data, gotta catch 'em all!
Table-ized A.I.
Ironically, GOP used Obama's alleged excess snooping to help grow their majority. The "H" word comes to mind, and I don't mean Mrs. Clinton.
Table-ized A.I.
Trump INHERITED money from his dad AFTER he got rich in New York real estate. (facts can be inconvenient) Donald's dad died in 1999, which was only about 17 years ago, but "the Donald" was already wealthy in 1970.
Trump DID get a (relatively, certainly by investor standards) small loan from his folks early on while he was a college student which he parlayed into his empire, but that's VERY different from the impression you worthless anti-trumpers keep spreading. Many people in our society get far more help from welathy relatives and do far worse.
As to your dismissal of Manhattan real estate as being as easy as "selling cigarettes in prison", you're and ill-informed idiot. If it's so easy, then why is every person with money not doing it???? Why Trump's real estate dad stay away from that market? Manhattan is a VERY expensive real estate market to operate in and anybody who does it had better have nerves of steel: you have to commit a massive pile of money on a bet, and if you lose it's a massive loss. Real estate anywhere else in the US is probably easier.
"As far as I know, most of his other ventures have been failures." -- REALLY? First, you clearly know nothing. Get out of mommy's basement and prove yourself better than Trump. Second, Trump has run something like 500 business units and had, what? six bankrupt businesses? A few he closed without bankruptcy because they just were not successful enough to be a good use of the money. His track record in business is far better than the track record of most businessmen, far better than the track record of the Clintons, of Bernie whose career as a bad porn writer was sub-par, or Joe Biden (who went from college straight to congress having NEVER held a real job in his entire life).
I'm no fanboy of Trumps, but I really despise people who have achieved nothing in their own lives but who love to drag down the accomplishments of hard-working people.
What is the point of private banks at this point then?
The fact that the government doesn't have that information on tap is quite literally the only real benefit I know of with the current banking system with all of its massive issues.
With that part gone, I don't see any benefit to keeping private banks anymore at which point it makes more sense to nationalize the banks and remove their profit motive and market speculations from the equation from here on out with the issues they have caused. Would also get rid of the Federal Reserve as well and put the government back in charge of handling the money printing as well.
That would stabilize a lot of this crap I would think, the federal reserve would no longer print our money which we then owe back to them with interests since they are actually a private company and federal in name only while on the banking systems we wouldn't have to deal with the fractal loans we got now or them being too big to fail or risk them gambling with the public's money anymore and then needing to get bailed out again without anyone held accountable for it.
I mean seriously though, short of keeping that information out of the governments direct access, what benefit is there with the private banking system? And don't give that republican rhetoric I have heard before talking about how the government couldn't run it right or anything like that, give us information based in reality that stands up to critical thinking.
"establishment" Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something is always bad.
People who hate this garbage have a VERY easy solution within grasp. Slap down all the politicians in DC with a real frightening act. Scare the crap out of them all, no matter how entrenched, in both parties.
How?
Support House Speaker Paul Ryan's opponent, Paul Nehlen, in the Wisconsin congressional primary. They guy is not a politician and is way out-gunned on the cash front as every corrupt interest in DC will stuff cash into Speaker Ryan. Very little about Nehlen matters other than that he opposes Ryan generally and on a couple of major issues most of us hate. The point is to send a message and do it with only one congress member's seat. I do not know the guy and have no connection to him, it's not important. It's the upset apple cart that matters.
If the public, and most-particularly his own party in his own district, knocks-out the Speaker of the House, consultants and career politicians in DC will go into full-panic mode. When Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary, his fellow party members in DC began to panic, but then the leadership quieted that down by convincing them it was a very unique situation, and they appeared to be right as the voters quieted-down after that election. The Speaker, however, is a very important position in government. The Speaker is #2 in line to the Presidency, behind only the Vice President in the line-of-succession and nobody in DC ever expects a House Speaker to lose his own base at home -- it's just inconceivable to the political class that the people would toss-out a person in such a powerful position, who can use that position to squeeze perks from lobbyists.
The GOP will certainly be in control of the House after November, their majority is too large to be realistically vulnerable, so there's no reason for anybody of any party not to back Ryan's primary opponent. No matter who wins the Ryan seat, the balance of power in DC will not change. Ryan losing however might finally frighten the rest of the morons in congress into thinking maybe they should spend a little more time on what the people want and less on what the lobbyists who fund the incumbents of both parties want.
If you love TPP and H1-B visas, then do nothing. Paul Ryan is a huge supporter of both and is clearly your guy. He will either help Hillary pass TPP and any related offal or try to stop Donald from opposing/limiting them. If you are sick of H1-B visa abuses and oppose TPP and all the other multi-national corporate garbage, you can get a lot of bang for your campaign buck by helping just one candidate (Nehlen) spank one particular incumbent (Ryan). Replacing a guy of one party with a guy from the same party is a very easy lift compared to flipping a seat from DEM-to-REP or from REP-to-DEM. Replacing Ryan is the violence-free and gunpowder-free political equivalent of a rifle shot as opposed to a political shotgun blast - a narrowly-targeted high-reward play.
This law makes absolutely no sense. It would damage the (inter)national Drug War industry business model. The
- law enforcement
- prison labor
- prison construction
- lawyer
- medical
- mortuary
- banking
- courtroom trial
- diplomacy
- government
- government financial
industries - and probably many more - depend in whole or in part on Drug War industry revenue. If government(s) wage the Drug War too effectively, the money flow will stop. If Government(s) do NOT wage the Drug War, the money flow will stop. Government(s) must wage Drug War somewhere in the middle. On the revenue (y-axis) vs. Drug War fighting effectiveness (x-axis) curve, Government(s) want the point where the curve slope is zero, to maximize revenue flow into Government(s) and drug flow into the Proletariat . . .
Or don't you realise who is running your country?
The Patriot act should be getting reduced, not expanded.
Does this mean they're finally going to crack down on Congressional insider trading?
Can you site where Trump and/or Hillary specifically commented on this bill?
Ironically, GOP used Obama's alleged excess snooping to help grow their majority. The "H" word comes to mind, and I don't mean Mrs. Clinton.
Honald? Hernie?
Cripes, when the Italian mafia, Irish mob, et al. were running extortion rackets, they'd at least leave you the hell alone if you paid up the extortion fees. The criminal cartel in Washington DC shakes you down for a huge chunk of your earnings under threat of violence and STILL wants to make your life miserable.
I've been regularly calling, e-mailing and sending snail mail to my reps and Senators for the past friggin MONTH trying to stop those scumbags from undermining my Right to firearms ownership. Now I've got to double down and try to impede this BS?
Oh well, guess I can stuff 2 letters in each envelope. The staffers will probably think it's suspicious when I call them twice in a row about two different issues, but I'm sure I'm in some secret database anyway.
She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
It's adorable you think conservatives aren't the same way. The only real difference between them is how they prefer to fund their government expansions and which social programs they favor. Liberals prefer taxes and conservatives prefer to borrow the money. Neither one of them has the slightest real interest in reducing government in general. There hasn't been a single instance where the overall size and reach of the government has been reduced outside of draw downs from major wars in the last 150 years. Doesn't matter which party is in power, the result is the same. If you think conservatives "never met a government power they didn't like" then you aren't paying any attention. They like power first and foremost no matter what spin they try to put on it.
And remember next time you are about to call a Trump supporter an idiot, this is the sort of crap that Hillary has absolutely no problem with.
Sorry, but Trump supporters are idiots, regardless of whatever else is true. The man is unfit to be President.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
For you.
The Patriot act should be getting repealed, not expanded.
FTFY.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
This move was completely expected. Congress is in favor of the maximum amount of spying that they can get away with.
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
No. Obama is a left-leaning centrist.
Sorry, but Hillary supporters are idiots, regardless of whatever else is true. The woman is unfit to be President.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Most Republican congresspersons are not at all conservative. Even most of those claiming to be.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This shit continues? Polticians, police, and the National Guard are going to have to worry about something bigger and badder than the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, they're going to have to worry about the American public-in-general getting pissed off about being treated like criminals in prison, or animals in a zoo.MEMO TO CONGRESSIONAL ASSHOLES: Get the ever-living-FUCK out of our business! All your surveillance? All your snooping? All your sticking your noses into everyone's gods-be-damned business? IT IS NOT 'STOPPING' ANYTHING! Get correct, Congress, or get the fuck out. Enough is too much!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I agree with you both. Our fine country has many idiots.
*cite
Last night's vote on this failed ... so hopefully this is now stymied.
My local paper recently ran an article on these abuses.
“We the Prisoners”: The Demise of the Fourth Amendment
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot act. He didn't end either war. He didn't reduce the military spending. He didn't do anything to oppose the militarization of the police. He didn't speak out against atrociously oppressive laws by republican state legislatures. He didn't do anything concrete on climate change and the little he did came too late. He basically didn't change anything and offered no real hope. He didn't reduce US support for Israel or give any kind of balanced response to the events in the region. He was the perfect DINO.
Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Again - not supported by the facts. He issued the lowest number of executive orders of any president in the past 70 years. His immigration policies didn't do anything that hasn't been done by every president since Reagan. His last supreme court nomination is a noted centrist whom republicans used to support. He didn't declare any wars and only engaged in one major military action - which had UN approval and involvement.
He also didn't reduce them though. He didn't reclassify marijuana, end private prisons (at least federally), or act against mandatory minimum sentences. He didn't try to repeal PATRIOT and he didn't actively oppose NSA spying (which started well before him).
Truth be told. Obama's administration is basically a no-score win.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot act. He didn't end either war. He didn't reduce the military spending. He didn't do anything to oppose the militarization of the police. He didn't speak out against atrociously oppressive laws by republican state legislatures. He didn't do anything concrete on climate change and the little he did came too late. He basically didn't change anything and offered no real hope. He didn't reduce US support for Israel or give any kind of balanced response to the events in the region. He was the perfect DINO.
Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh! As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Again - not supported by the facts. He issued the lowest number of executive orders of any president in the past 70 years. His immigration policies didn't do anything that hasn't been done by every president since Reagan. His last supreme court nomination is a noted centrist whom republicans used to support. He didn't declare any wars and only engaged in one major military action - which had UN approval and involvement. He also didn't reduce them though. He didn't reclassify marijuana, end private prisons (at least federally), or act against mandatory minimum sentences. He didn't try to repeal PATRIOT and he didn't actively oppose NSA spying (which started well before him).
Truth be told. Obama's administration is basically a no-score win.
Look at the content of those executive orders and not just straight numbers. Declaring that federal workers will get both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off (yes, that was an executive order!) isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants. Obama has shown his true colors. When he doesn't get his way through proper channels, he takes his ball and goes home - after issuing an executive order.
Wow. A whole comment section delivered by criminals and tax evaders. No wonder the prisons are so full (i.e. expensive) and my taxes are so high (i.e. I have to pay your share for you).
Hypocrite.
Table-ized A.I.
>Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh!
I cited facts. You just denied it without a single shred of supporting evidence. Typical rightwinger seeing what he wants to see.
>As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
False. Presidents have frequently pardoned people who haven't been charged. Most famously - Ford pardoned Nixon who had not been charged with any crime.
> isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants
As I pointed out and you ignored - he did NOTHING in terms of immigration that wasn't done by EVERY president since Reagan. The immigration policy under Obama is unchanged from what Reagan did - he just continued the policy which has had ZERO changes in 30 years. Every president used the deferred action clause which a republican congress wrote into the law to give amnesty and the criteria for amnesty has not been changed by anybody - including Obama. Like I said - you see what you want to see and don't bother to check. Your chosen example of an excessive policy is one Reagan instituted based on a Republican law and where no president since has made any changes up to and including Obama. Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.
If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true.
Fox news has been lying to you.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo...
I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
>He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo..
True, but to be fair that wasn't for lack of trying. That one is on congress.
>I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
Everyone of those things were started by Bush (except bringing the ground troops home). He just expanded USE of one side and contracted use of the other - but they were not new powers - he inherited those. There are so many valid things wrong with Obama, it's amazing how republican keep having to invent imaginary ones.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Oh - and those are all things liberals are just as furious about as you are - they sure as hell aren't liberal or progressive policies, in fact they are exactly why I called him centre-right.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.
Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true. Fox news has been lying to you.
The immigration act may have been signed into law by Reagan, but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. The same executive order half the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional.
I would love to discuss immigration policy. I am pro-legal immigration. Myself and two siblings married people who legally entered the US. I am vehemently against illegal immigration. I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law. I welcome guests through my front door, but anyone climbing through a window will not get a warm welcome.
As for Fox news, I don't watch it. All news outlets show too much bias. All twist statistics to support their preconceived notions.
I see what you did there. Nice.
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. DAdams
Sums it up nicely for both of you.
>Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
I never said or suggested that the one caused the other - they just happened to happen at the the same time. Both statements however are true. Obama has just recently surpassed Eisenhower's deportation record - which was the previous highest.
>but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families.
An identical order to the ones signed by every previous president since Reagan - and which the act gives specific authority to the president to do. This was one of the key reasons the supreme court refused to strike it down -because every previous president has signed identical orders. The fact that the act gives him free reign to decide who to deport and who to give amnesty to means you cannot accuse him 'expanding' power by using power that has existed since Reagan.
>I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law.
Perhaps - but it's even worse to punish children for the crimes of their parents.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Putting it off as "those things were started by Bush" is naive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 1995 sounds like the Clinton years to me, and for the aircraft to have been put into service in 1995, it had to have serious development underway back under Reagan.
I'm no Repblican, I hate 'em all and think the system is fundamentally broken - or at least could be significantly improved with a lottery style selection of decision makers, and that in itself is a sad statement of our state of affairs.
Like registering for selective service, all young men and women aged 25 should register for public leadership. There would be a screening for above average ability to do the job, leaving a pool of perhaps 35 million people eligible for leadership service, out of which our representatives are selected at random. Couldn't be worse that the current system of selective corruption.
I agree the system is broken - but I would favour a system of ranked selection voting. So voting for a third-party candidate doesn't have to equal voting for the guy you LEAST want in power.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This right here. We've been saying for 15 years that the Patriot Act (and all similar legislation) would eventually be expanded beyond terrorism to criminalism. And this attempt is exactly that. The next step is to expand it to include collections, By-Law infractions, licensing problems and all the rest.
When you create these megaspy databases then creative thinkers will endlessly find creative new uses for that data. Hell, I can imagine revenue opportunities! "Hey, AngryDad123, we've noticed that you are six months behind on your tax payments! For the low, low price of 10% of the balance, we will advocate for you with the tax man. We guarantee that your payments will be lowered by 30% or more, or you don't owe us a dime! We have thousands of satisfied customers!"
This is the fruit of the Panopticon tree. Eat up because there's going to be ever more of it on the menu!
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it"
I don't actually agree with this, but it's virtually impossible to distinguish between those who crave power for their own purposes and those who would seek a position of power to achieve good things.
It's always too late when you find it's the former.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And...there goes some more of our 4th amendment protections "for our own good"...secret warrants are bullshit. What the gov't can find and analyze that people give out freely is incredible. But hey now the autocrats wouldn't be able to blackmail and coerce us with out our private info...so sad...
A president can certainly pardon someone before they are charged. There's plenty of citations, here's one
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I myself think abortion is terrible, but I realize that the Democratic policies will result in fewer abortions due to social changes.
Cheap storage VM.
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
I can't tell if you were serious or just trolling. The vast majority of Republicans don't care about race, ethnicity, or sex (yes, we do care about gender to an extent) when it comes to determining who best qualifies. Also, Obama seems to be a Socialist in Democrat's clothing; his agenda certainly doesn't follow the Right's. IMO, Hillary would be even more extreme, but I'm leery of Trump as President.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I myself think abortion is terrible, but I realize that the Democratic policies will result in fewer abortions due to social changes.
You truly don't understand Republicans, instead you attack the caricatures painted by the Left. The vast majority of the Right believe that women have the same rights as men. The Left has labeled the Right's stance on abortion as "Women's choice". My view is heavily influenced by my religious upbringing. I believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases; that we need to protect the rights of the fetus within reason. The woman (in most cases) made the choice to engage in activities which resulted in pregnancy; she should be held responsible for her decisions. The man should also be held responsible for providing for the child. There are cases where I don't think abortion would be morally wrong such as rape or when the fetus is not viable (eg. missing organs) or the mother's life is in peril. I think there should be safe places to perform abortions in such cases. Alas, these are just my morals (shared by many of the Right) so I don't know if it would be moral to force them on others. In any case, my tax dollars should not be used on elective abortions.
why don't you love a little more thought, there. your naivete is disturbing, to say the least. Our government is run by criminal treasonous scum who should be hung on tv. wake up.
No caricatures here. I actually tune in to AM radio a couple times a month to keep myself awake when I drive.
Cheap storage VM.
Still, it was never supposed to be permanent.