The "naysayers" that voted against the Amash Amendment give me the impression they are just back pedaling because they didn't think the overall vote would be so close.
NOW, because of the close vote, they're saying "Oops, well, changes still need to be made, we just didn't like this one."
Bullshit... big steaming piles of it.
Voting FOR the Amash Amendment instead of playing a negotiating game with our civil liberties was the correct course of action. Now, in my eyes, any politician who didn't vote for Amash is just talking out both sides of their face.
A salary cap of say, $150,000 on all contributions to a single politician... and no "corporations as people" can donate.
In short, contributions must come from a real person.
Political campaigns would have to go "grassroots" and come from a politician's pocket, but a cap on "ad spend" would also be placed, to even the playing field for all candidates.
I like this idea-fest, but "how to" actually implement it would be another thing entirely.
If Obama were to veto though, it might add fuel to the fire on a more mainstream scale... meaning people who weren't challenging the NSA's "power grab" before, might just start doing so.
Couldn't we lobby Congress to put legislation that makes it illegal to have "top-secret, members only" meetings about public matters like the funding (not the funds themselves, the funding) of the NSA?
It seems to me they shouldn't be able to meet in secret about those things that aren't secret.
1. These "dots" could help connect you to other crimes not necessarily within the purview of the investigation they are running (even if you're completely innocent).
The fact this document is so vague is a bad thing... since most people in this country aren't reading it at all, and probably don't even know about it.
Gives me the feeling it's a "fill in the blanks" or a "blank check" type of approach to forcing some sort of legislation through.
On the post: Staffers For Rep. Mike Rogers Apparently Claim They Could Sue Me For Defamation
The equation...
1. You make your argument = 100
2. They immediately resort to name-calling while making their counter-argument = 100, - 25 for using name-calling in place of a rational argument
3. You respond with valid points supporting your case = +25
4. They respond by "going off the deep end" with baseless counter-arguments and more name calling = -75
5. You 125 Them 0 = Argument over
This is how a good percentage of political arguments transpire.
On the post: The Tide In Congress Has Shifted Against NSA Surveillance
I call BULLSHIT
NOW, because of the close vote, they're saying "Oops, well, changes still need to be made, we just didn't like this one."
Bullshit... big steaming piles of it.
Voting FOR the Amash Amendment instead of playing a negotiating game with our civil liberties was the correct course of action. Now, in my eyes, any politician who didn't vote for Amash is just talking out both sides of their face.
On the post: All About The Money: Reps Who Voted For NSA Surveillance Received 2X As Much Money From Defense Industry
what about a "salary cap" on contributions?
In short, contributions must come from a real person.
Political campaigns would have to go "grassroots" and come from a politician's pocket, but a cap on "ad spend" would also be placed, to even the playing field for all candidates.
I like this idea-fest, but "how to" actually implement it would be another thing entirely.
On the post: Democratic Leadership Says NSA Data Collection Is Fine Because You 'May Be In Communication With Terrorists'
Re: Surveillance State Repeal Act
Repeal the whole thing, sounds good to me.
Rush Holt running for President?
On the post: The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data
4 from WA State...
It's a sad day in the Northwest. Time to make some phone calls.
On the post: Congress Should Support Amash Amendment Just Because White House Statement Is So Insulting
Re: It probably doesn't matter
On the post: NSA Defenders In The Senate Flip Out Over Amash Amendment To Stop Dragnet
Uh, huh... so? Does that make it moral, ethical, or responsible?
And legal because you say so in secret? If it's so legal, let it be challenged in public court.
On the post: NSA's Keith Alexander Calls Emergency Private Briefing To Lobby Against Amash Amendment
A not so easy solution...
It seems to me they shouldn't be able to meet in secret about those things that aren't secret.
On the post: Judge Wright Denies John Steele's Motion, Says Any Problem Is Steele's Own Fault, Directs Him To Legal Clinic
Like Ken White at Popehat says...
Might not be exactly accurate, but something like that.
Other patent and copyright trolls might want to pay heed to the Prenda developments.
On the post: White House Believes Ed Snowden Shouldn't Have Any Free Speech Rights, Attacks Russia For Letting Him Speak
Kinda like Prenda...
Shooting themselves in the foot.
Reading this information, and how our Government is trying to silence a critic (a critic with evidence), does NOT make me proud to be an American.
On the post: NSA Talking Points On Utah Data Center: We're Teaming Up With Tech Companies To 'Protect' The Internet
No thank you...
We don't need you to "protect" our Internet (keyword: our). We're afraid how badly you'll screw it up.
------------
Why does it seem like these folks don't understand (at all) what they are trying to "protect"?
On the post: Former NSA Director On Privacy Vs. Security Balance: Would 'Shave Points' Off Effectiveness For 'Public Comfort'
Seriously though, as the years go by, it's seeming more and more like Huxley might be right on some of his points.
On the post: FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time
Re: Let us not forget...
1. These "dots" could help connect you to other crimes not necessarily within the purview of the investigation they are running (even if you're completely innocent).
2. These "dots" help create "confirmation bias".
On the post: LEAKED! Here's The White House's Draft Cybersecurity Executive Order
Vague is bad...
Gives me the feeling it's a "fill in the blanks" or a "blank check" type of approach to forcing some sort of legislation through.
Next >>