The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[lynchjm24]

Although pro Obamacare, not sure if I'm convinced based on one state and its possible that CA insurers have underestimated (e.g. got it wrong). Let's see what happens in an update in a couple years ... but I'll take the good news.

California Obamacare premiums: No ‘rate shock’ here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/california-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/)

Interesting numbers. A single person at 150% of FPL makes what? Just over 17k?

The silver plan premiums may work - the question is how much do they subsidize the rest of the cost sharing because the silver plans I have seen have 3k deductibles before coinsurance.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The past few months of explosive Bitcoin value and then the crash of the past couple of days is a very good example of why the gold standard is a bad idea.

Secret Service busts $6 billion money laundering scheme | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/28/secret-service-busts-open-6-billion-money-laundering-scheme/)

[Grammaticus]

What does Bitcoin or any digital currency have to do with the gold standard?

[SirFozzie]

Michelle Bachmann announces she will not seek re-election (H/T to Politico).

[cartman]

What does Bitcoin or any digital currency have to do with the gold standard?

The idea of pegging your currency value to any single commodity.

[Edward64]

A Pakistani AQ #2 which might make him a #3 or #4 level overall.

Waliur Rehman Dead: Pakistan Taliban No. 2 Reportedly Killed In U.S. Drone Strike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/waliur-rehman-dead-pakistan-no-2-killed-drone-strike_n_3351939.html)
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suspected U.S. drone strike killed the No. 2 commander of the Pakistani Taliban on Wednesday, Pakistani intelligence officials said, although the militant group denied he was dead.

If confirmed, the death of Waliur Rehman would be a strong blow to the militant group responsible for hundreds of bombings and shootings across Pakistan. The United States has a $5 million bounty out on Rehman, who Washington has accused of involvement in the 2009 suicide attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan that killed seven Americans working for the CIA.

[Grammaticus]

The idea of pegging your currency value to any single commodity.

Bitcoin is more like our fiat currency. It is not pegged to anything tangible. It is a digital algorithm which the founders say has a limited or finite amount. But they can really have as many as they want made.

Gold is a tangible object. You can find more through mining, which would introduce more into the market and impact the price. The Bitcoin people try to make it sound like their product is similar because you can "find" some through gimicks. But, they have control over the amount and how it is introduced.

The whole Bitcoin thing is a giant firecracker waiting to blow up. Mostly because Governments will use their monopoly on force to make it eventually go away. The whole value of a product like Bitcoin is the anonymous nature of the currency.

[DaddyTorgo]

Man, you really gotta love Fox news.

WTF!??!!?

All-Male Fox Panel Laments Female Breadwinners - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kORINpVUEtE#at=64)

[JPhillips]

The death of Sen. Lautenberg marks the end of an era. There are no more WW2 vets serving in the senate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

WTF!??!!?

Despite Megyn Kelly's eventual rant, the lamenting of the trend actually matches the responses to the poll that prompted the subject in the first place.

About three-quarters of adults (74%) say the increasing number of women working for pay has made it harder for parents to raise children, and half say that it has made marriages harder to succeed.

[Edward64]

Hard to believe recession officially ended 4 years ago. Housing market is only just recovering in the past year.

Recession ended 4 years ago: How far have we come? - Economy (http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/recession-ended-4-years-ago/?iid=HP_Highlight)
It's been four years since the Great Recession officially ended. Stocks have fully recovered, but the job market hasn't. Neither have home prices -- but then again, who wants to get back to that unhealthy boom?

Here are the cold, hard facts on where the economy stands, according to the most recent data

[SteveMax58]

Hard to believe recession officially ended 4 years ago. Housing market is only just recovering in the past year.

Recession ended 4 years ago: How far have we come? - Economy (http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/recession-ended-4-years-ago/?iid=HP_Highlight)


We are in such a transitional time in both the country & the world I believe. We are literally not doing things because we have impossible stagnation in the government. And thats due to corruption & useful idiots to the corrupted.

I'd like to think we'll see a major uptick of jobs in the near future but not so long as we continue to keep the construction industry on the sideline waiting to build houses or something else we dont need. Thats the sector of employment that was hit the hardest when the economy tanked & its the sector that has the most to contribute in my view still. Maybe we'll actually get of our asses & do something about it...or not.

[SirFozzie]

What the actual fuck is this shit:

Report: Gov't collecting millions of phone records under top secret order - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/06/report-govt-collecting-verizon-phone-records-165528.html?hp=r4)

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this Order, and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, an electronic copy of the following tangible things: all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls. This Order does not require Verizon to produce telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries. Telephony metadata includes comprehensive communications routing information,. including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. ? 2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."

[panerd]

Its called living under a federal government that no longer cares about the 4th amendment. (and hasn't for some time this is not an Obama thing) But I what do I know I am just a nutcase Libertarian conspiracy nut? Anyways the people get exactly what they vote for so they have no one to blame but themselves.

And remember this is just the shit that is being reported on or the press (British) is figuring out. The top story in the American press right now is whether or not the pro ball players used drugs to give them an advantage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What the actual fuck is this shit:

Trying to parse the mumbo jumbo language, I think it says they have a record of every connection made involving at least one end of the call in the U.S., time, date, duration, etc. The content of the conversation is not included.

Speculating, or even just wag'ing, about a possible use would be something like a tapped phone call where the NSA was privvy to the contents of the conversation, this would allow them to readily see who the other (i.e. non-tapped) party in the call was.

[Galaxy]

This, along with the IRS scandal, isn't going to help Obama's popularity and negotiating position.

Also, I like how it was British newspapers that broke this latest story.

[rowech]

This, along with the IRS scandal, isn't going to help Obama's popularity and negotiating position.

Also, I like how it was British newspapers that broke this latest story.

American press is too busy worrying about if the spotlight is too much for Michael Jackson's kid by putting her and her story in the spotlight.

This story is probably the worst of all of what's come out of late in my opinion. People just being listened to for the hell of it and the idea they aren't listening is BS.

[Marmel]

I thought this was established practice under Bush, and that Obama has (sadly) made it clear he was not going to do anything to change it.

Is there something different about this particular instance?

[molson]

I thought this was established practice under Bush, and that Obama has (sadly) made it clear he was not going to do anything to change it.

Is there something different about this particular instance?

Bush had the same program and openly defended it, where Obama continued it in secret for 5 years. I don't think it's been reported previously that Obama had continued this particular program, collecting massive amounts of private phone records from private carriers.

I feel a little guilty that I can't bring myself to care about either administration doing this. And I'm not sure how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy you have about numbers you call and how long the conversations are, when you know that information is logged by the phone companies. A couple of years ago, Obama made the argument that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone tower data records - i.e, where your phone is at all times. That one's a tougher call to me.

[panerd]

What's humorous is that people think this is only happening with Verizon. I would be more shocked if there was a phone company/internet provider it was not happening with. You get what you vote for... who knows maybe it is keeping us more safe? My opinion is that it is not but until enough people stop reelecting politicians on both sides of the aisle that renew the Patriot Act then they have nobody to blame but themselves when someone decides to take it a step further than Obama or Bush and start doing to Americans what we already do to a lot of innocent people all over the world.

[molson]

who knows maybe it is keeping us more safe?

It's interesting to me that the dividing line about whether stuff like this is OK isn't right/left or Democrat/Republican, it seems to be whether you're in power or not. Bush and Obama agree it's cool, most others say its not. Maybe that just shows how power corrupts. But being super-4th-amendment-protector seems like an easy position to take when you're not in the position of being responsible for national security. I'm at least willing to be open minded about it and to try to understand it from the position of someone in power - even though that's pretty impossible to do when we don't have access to a lot of the information that they're basing decisions on. I'd be more concerned if it's something that had a practical impact on u.s. citizens or regular criminal law enforcement.

[Galaxy]

American press is too busy worrying about if the spotlight is too much for Michael Jackson's kid by putting her and her story in the spotlight.

This story is probably the worst of all of what's come out of late in my opinion. People just being listened to for the hell of it and the idea they aren't listening is BS.

And I forgot to mention Benghazi.

[panerd]

It's interesting to me that the dividing line about whether stuff like this is OK isn't right/left or Democrat/Republican, it seems to be whether you're in power or not. Bush and Obama agree it's cool, most others say its not. Maybe that just shows how power corrupts. But being super-4th-amendment-protector seems like an easy position to take when you're not in the position of being responsible for national security. I'm at least willing to be open minded about it and to try to understand it from the position of someone in power - even though that's pretty impossible to do when we don't have access to a lot of the information that they're basing decisions on. I'd be more concerned if it's something that had a practical impact on u.s. citizens or regular criminal law enforcement.

No doubt. Bush, Obama, future presidents don't want a 9-11 type body count on their hands with questions about what they didn't do to stop it. I completely understand the political motivation and the people for the most part don't seem to care either so it really isn't a losing proposition for them.

I just fear when enough is enough. Every new person employed by the NSA, FBI, CIA, TSA, DEA, ATF, DOD is currently adding to our debt. There is no doubt some of the great empires in the history of the world were not undone by military losses but by economic collapse. Who knows maybe Al-Queda is smarter than we think and realize that putting a scapegoat on an airplane with a bomb in his shoe or with a truck full of explosives in Times Square costs the United States billions of dollars a year and at some point we're going to go broke. I think paying someone to keep track of panerd's calls to his wife and friends is a waste of my tax money no matter how small a cost it really is. It's like searching the 90 year old white grandma getting on a plane, waste of resources that could be spent actually keeping us safe or paying down the debt.

[panerd]

.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/s480x480/1555_10151631604339614_1825955496_n.jpg

[Galaxy]

I thought this was established practice under Bush, and that Obama has (sadly) made it clear he was not going to do anything to change it.

Is there something different about this particular instance?

I find it interesting that the Democrats, who were critical of Bush for this program, are okay with it now.

[Tekneek]

I find it interesting that the Democrats, who were critical of Bush for this program, are okay with it now.

I find it interesting that any Republicans, that were ok with it under Bush, would be critical of this.

Is anybody really surprised by this? Obama did vote to give AT&T protection back when Bush was President and has always voted for, and supported, efforts to keep this kind of thing going. I would say that anybody surprised by this has not been paying attention. It also is yet another reason to laugh at "conservatives" who foam at the mouth about how much Obama is changing things. Overall, very little has changed. Obama is not pushing a major progressive agenda and was never going to. He is much more like Reagan than many would be happy to admit (on both sides of the aisle).

[DaddyTorgo]

I find it interesting that the Democrats, who were critical of Bush for this program, are okay with it now.

Who are you referring to?

[RendeR]

The simple fact is, its been going on for 2 administrations now, its not recording content (no matter what you paranoid gits think that would be way more data than even the NSA could collect regularly) its nothing more than the records that all carriers ALREADY KEEP ON FILE FOREVER.

When there is a warrant issued for phone records, this is the info they receive. The NSA is simply stockpiling such records for ease of access involved with tracking possible terrorist threats (granted probably a lot more too but the end result is the same)

Collecting the data en-masse simply cuts out the time delay when an actual need for the data emerges.

[panerd]

From one of the paranoid gits:

It's been going on for 2 administrations? Thanks goodness its all for my safety! No constitutional issues here whatsoever. Wonder why this had to be done in secret? Nah, why question its for our safety! Terror! Safety! Please keep me updated on what else the government is doing to keep us safe.

-Paranoid git

[Galaxy]

Who are you referring to?

I find it interesting that any Republicans, that were ok with it under Bush, would be critical of this.



Lawmakers Defend U.S. Collecting Verizon Phone Records - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/nsa-said-to-collect-millions-of-verizon-phone-records.html)

Typical political posturing by both sides. Just a matter of who is doing the action and the standard reaction to the outrage to the American people, as if they had no clue to what was going on.

[Easy Mac]

Well, at least this wont get worse

[panerd]

Well, at least this wont get worse

It's all for your safety! Again though I am more amused by a facebook user who thought that linking themselves to all of their friends and acquaintances, showing their interests and political leanings, often showing where there are at any given time would be of any interest to a national spy agency. It says it right in their agency title. Of course they aren't supposed to be spying on Americans. Except of course for terror and safety and terror.

NSA taps data from 9 major Net firms | FLORIDA TODAY | floridatoday.com (http://www.floridatoday.com/usatoday/article/2398345?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7C)

[Coffee Warlord]

When there is a warrant issued for phone records, this is the info they receive. The NSA is simply stockpiling such records for ease of access involved with tracking possible terrorist threats (granted probably a lot more too but the end result is the same)

Collecting the data en-masse simply cuts out the time delay when an actual need for the data emerges.

Yes, because circumventing the constitution in the name of expediency is such a good idea.

Because everyone who decides the law doesn't need to apply to them because it's "faster this way" has our best interests at heart.

Because there's no precedence in history for what happens when governments sieze power they were never meant to heave.

[cartman]

would be of any interest to a national spy agency. It says it right in their agency title.

NSA doesn't stand for National Spy Agency.

[panerd]

NSA doesn't stand for National Spy Agency.

LOL, the lovely world of government doublespeak. Stasi: Ministry for State Security. KGB: Committee for State Security. Shin Bet: General Security Service

You're right Cartman! The S stands for security and the NSA is not a spy agency!!!

[cartman]

I didn't say they weren't a spy agency. My uncle used to work for the NSA so I'm well aware of what they do. You were the one who said it was in the agency's title.

[panerd]

I didn't say they weren't a spy agency. My uncle used to work for the NSA so I'm well aware of what they do. You were the one who said it was in the agency's title.

It is. Only a fool thinks security means anything but spying for any of the government "intelligence" agencies. But you got me!

[Coffee Warlord]

No Such Agency!

[Easy Mac]

LOL, the lovely world of government doublespeak. Stasi: Ministry for State Security. KGB: Committee for State Security. Shin Bet: General Security Service

You're right Cartman! The S stands for security and the NSA is not a spy agency!!!

Did you guys know that Hitler and Obama don't have any letters in common in their last name.

You think that's a coincidence.

Don't be fooled.

[cartman]

No Such Agency!

Yep. It wasn't until the late 70s when my uncle could actually say who he worked for. I remember that whenever he would come to visit, we'd always get phone calls verifying who we were. My dad was taking Russian classes and was once practicing speaking with my uncle, when a voice came on the line and said 'Speak English'.

[molson]

Yes, because circumventing the constitution in the name of expediency is such a good idea.

Because everyone who decides the law doesn't need to apply to them because it's "faster this way" has our best interests at heart.

Because there's no precedence in history for what happens when governments sieze power they were never meant to heave.

I think there's a lot of putting the cart before the horse here. The relevant debate isn't whether a government should break the law. I understand why people want to phrase it like that, but you're ignoring the tougher question. The test for constitutionality isn't "do I like what the government is doing?"

[rowech]

I think there's a lot of putting the cart before the horse here. The relevant debate isn't whether a government should break the law. I understand why people want to phrase it like that, but you're ignoring the tougher question. The test for constitutionality isn't "do I like what the government is doing?"

Pretty sure this passes as an unreasonable search.

[Tekneek]

Pretty sure this passes as an unreasonable search.

I would like to think that, but then there was a recent decision that said cellphone users have no expectation of privacy.

Federal Judge: Only Powered-Off Cell Phones Deserve Privacy Protections | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/federal-judge-only-powered-cell-phones-deserve-privacy)

[molson]

Pretty sure this passes as an unreasonable search.

What do you mean by "passes"? I think this just your subjective opinion about reasonableness.

My point is, people are making assumptions based on arguments that not everyone shares. It's not the position of the government that they are breaking a law because they have to. They would say that this IS constitutional. People can disagree with that, but I think we're being premature if we just skip all that, assume unconstitutionality, and then try to start this entirely separate debate about when its OK to break the law. That's some kind of argument fallacy that probably has a name that I'm not familiar with.

[molson]

I would like to think that, but then there was a recent decision that said cellphone users have no expectation of privacy.

Federal Judge: Only Powered-Off Cell Phones Deserve Privacy Protections | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/federal-judge-only-powered-cell-phones-deserve-privacy)

Ya, this is what I'm talking about, you can agree with the ACLU and think that ruling was out to lunch, or that the government as a matter of policy shouldn't do this, but you can't fairly say that the government is making a choice to violate the law in the interest of public safety when they're not actually violating the law, or when the law is unclear.

[Grammaticus]

well, it is a good thing that judges never break the law.

And they always make the correct decision and never disagree on what is constitutional.

[molson]

well, it is a good thing that judges never break the law.

And they always make the correct decision and never disagree on what is constitutional.

We are a country of laws and not men though, or something. We could all just follow our own version so the constitution and expect the government to be bound to that, but that's probably unworkable. Maybe Al Gore should have just disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and moved into the white house. Maybe bring some of the army if he feels like anyone will try to stop him.

If people think this is such a huge disaster that the government has basic phone records, they can elect Ron Paul and like-minded legislators. Then eventually, we can all live in a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. Though, I feel like in that world Verizon might assume the responsibility for national security and would gain even more power. Except that we'd have less means of being a check on their behavior.

[Tekneek]

well, it is a good thing that judges never break the law.

And they always make the correct decision and never disagree on what is constitutional.

It is what it is. If it ever makes it to SCOTUS, it won't have to be a unanimous decision to be the law of the land.

[Grammaticus]

We are a country of laws and not men though, or something. We could all just follow our own version so the constitution and expect the government to be bound to that, but that's probably unworkable. Maybe Al Gore should have just disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and moved into the white house. Maybe bring some of the army if he feels like anyone will try to stop him.

Are we even talking about the same thing? What they are doing is wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

Are we even talking about the same thing? What they are doing is wrong.

Molson is talking about a legal basis. The question of whether the meta-data is subject to privacy concerns (or whether looking at meta data is 'unreasonable' is a good discussion to have and I don't think it may be as cut and dried as people seem to believe.

Personally I don't like the NSA having this power and I didn't like it back in 2005/6 when it started, but the legal issues are a bit stickier than just "I don't like it".

[Tekneek]

Are we even talking about the same thing? What they are doing is wrong.

Here is where your soul gets destroyed. There are a whole lot of "wrong" things that are perfectly legal and are done everyday.

[Grammaticus]

It is what it is. If it ever makes it to SCOTUS, it won't have to be a unanimous decision to be the law of the land.

Correct, judges are just people like you and me. They don't always get it right, which is why there are historical examples of changes in the interpretation of what is constitutional and what is not.

There are a few threads on the guy who shot the hooker who stole his cash. If that happens 10 times, the result will not be the same 10 times. I realize that was a jury decision, but you get the point.

[Grammaticus]

Here is where your soul gets destroyed. There are a whole lot of "wrong" things that are perfectly legal and are done everyday.

It does not destroy my soul, I'm just saying if enough people don't stand for it, it will trend in a specific direction.

[Tekneek]

Personally I don't like the NSA having this power and I didn't like it back in 2005/6 when it started, but the legal issues are a bit stickier than just "I don't like it".

Yes. I don't like it. I never have. Is it illegal? I don't know, but seems likely that it isn't.

What happens if the judgments come down against it? The House/Senate will rally together and revise the law to fit nicely in some loophole provided by the judgment. They will give Verzion, et al, ass coverage so they can't get fucked by the masses who are seeking legal remedy. The band will play on.

[panerd]

We are a country of laws and not men though, or something. We could all just follow our own version so the constitution and expect the government to be bound to that, but that's probably unworkable. Maybe Al Gore should have just disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and moved into the white house. Maybe bring some of the army if he feels like anyone will try to stop him.

If people think this is such a huge disaster that the government has basic phone records, they can elect Ron Paul and like-minded legislators. Then eventually, we can all live in a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. Though, I feel like in that world Verizon might assume the responsibility for national security and would gain even more power. Except that we'd have less means of being a check on their behavior.

I don't disagree with your general point... that at this moment the law states that this is all legal. Your second paragraph is a bit of a slippery slope in the other direction. You say that we (those of us outraged by PRISM and the NSA mining phone data) are leaping from government collecting phone records to something more sinister but then turn around and say the solution to this is a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. I agree with Grammiticus... why can't the government be wrong on this one (even the judges) without bringing schools, roads, welfare, the armed forces, college benefits, etc into the equation?

[cartman]

Yes. I don't like it. I never have. Is it illegal? I don't know, but seems likely that it isn't.

What happens if the judgments come down against it? The House/Senate will rally together and revise the law to fit nicely in some loophole provided by the judgment. They will give Verzion, et al, ass coverage so they can't get fucked by the masses who are seeking legal remedy. The band will play on.

They already have that, based on the 'Protect America Act of 2007'.

[Tekneek]

It does not destroy my soul, I'm just saying if enough people don't stand for it, it will trend in a specific direction.

Theoretically, this is true. But there is a machine that is already in motion. When it comes to "security" at a national level, there is a tremendous amount of pressure to do everything possible and less willingness to sunset any of it.

[Tekneek]

They already have that, based on the 'Protect America Act of 2007'.

I was allowing for the possibility that this was found to be outside of that, but your point is taken. Either way, there will be a lot of bipartisan work done to make sure nobody pays a price for this, and that the program continues regardless of what some Judge(s) think(s).

[ISiddiqui]

It does not destroy my soul, I'm just saying if enough people don't stand for it, it will trend in a specific direction.

There are way too many people who would blame an administration for not doing enough to combat terrorism if this program was ended and then an attack occurred.

Yes, we sometimes deserve the government we get.

[molson]

I don't disagree with your general point... that at this moment the law states that this is all legal. Your second paragraph is a bit of a slippery slope in the other direction. You say that we (those of us outraged by PRISM and the NSA mining phone data) are leaping from government collecting phone records to something more sinister but then turn around and say the solution to this is a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. I agree with Grammiticus... why can't the government be wrong on this one (even the judges) without bringing schools, roads, welfare, the armed forces, college benefits, etc into the equation?

They can be wrong on a policy, ethical, or strategic level, sure. There's just some inner personal pet peeve for me that emerges when people make the conclusory statements that this is illegal and violates the 4th amendment, and when they then base all other points on that assumption. You can't start a debate by just assuming the thing that is the critical dispute in the debate. I mean, you can, I guess, but I think that's an argument fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are tough when it comes to the government because you can apply them to anything the government does and get terrible hypothetical results. To me, saying, "well, if they can do this, then what's stopping them from doing something that actually negatively effects anyone in some way," is just the mirror image of the schools/roads/welfare anti-libertarian argument. Government can obviously do too much or too little.

Edit: I got into this when were talking about infrastructure, but I think this is one of the mindsets that really holds us back, when you fight just on ideology instead of practical results and execution. Every battle in Washington is about ideology and momentum instead of problem solving. Except the people, like in the executive branch, whose job it is to actually do things. They're not looking at ideology, or at least not as much. They're looking at what they can legally do to promote national security, and what the practical positive and negative impacts of that will be. Nobody's made the persuasive case that this is illegal, and nobody's really identified any negative effects from this activity. It's just ideological arguments against it. The government can still be "wrong" to do it, or anything else, but I totally get how the decision-making is a completely different kettle of fish when you're in that position.

I'm more annoyed about Massachusetts (and probably every other state) paying welfare to 1200 dead people. The only real debate at the state houses though is whether welfare is good or bad, whether there should be more or less. Whatever it is, let's at least give it exclusively to people who are living.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - Authorities: Texas actress arrested in ricin case (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20130607/DA6P3EDG3.html)

Apparently she tried to set up her husband to take the fall for the ricin letters sent to Obama & Bloomberg. Her roles include "zombie" in The Walking Dead.

Resume here (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3735316/resume) (all bit parts basically)

[cartman]

Did I miss some memo about ricin and setting someone up? That is now twice that has happened over the past couple of months.

[Solecismic]

There are way too many people who would blame an administration for not doing enough to combat terrorism if this program was ended and then an attack occurred.

Yes, we sometimes deserve the government we get.

That's too bad. In the Boston case a couple of months ago, it seemed fairly obvious in hindsight that the brothers were going to take some action at some point. And they had been flagged by a government that really doesn't share all that much with us. Yet whatever we do with all this data didn't come into play in preventing what's pretty much an unpreventable type of attack, nor did it lead us to the attacker.

I don't see the point of keeping this information unless it's more actively analyzed. And if it's more actively analyzed, I don't want it kept in the first place.

And now we can safely assume the government doesn't always have good intentions. We already have a couple of scandals going that make Watergate look like amateur hour.

It seems like we're forever in react mode with respect to terrorism. The solution isn't in living our lives in such a manner to appease potential terrorists, because they can't be appeased and it's not what America supposedly is all about. Nor can we can put a prophylactic on the country and prevent every possible type of attack. This isn't some hokey CBS procedural.

I guess I don't know what to do. I don't want to accept these bombings as part of life, nor do I think it's particularly wise or effective to go to this type of extreme to prevent exactly the same type of it-once-happened attack.

The older I get, the less certain I am of how to run the entire country. But I know what I don't like, and it's where we're headed right now with all this spy stuff and action-by-reaction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It seems like we're forever in react mode with respect to terrorism.

Well there's certainly nothing resembling the national will needed to be consistently proactive, so I'm not sure there's a big choice left there.

[molson]

Well there's certainly nothing resembling the national will needed to be consistently proactive, so I'm not sure there's a big choice left there.

Ya, I'd love to know what "proactive" means in terms of fighting terrorism and how many people would actually be in favor of it.

In the Boston marathon thread the government was simultaneously criticized for not stopping the bombers ahead of time, not catching them fast enough after it happened, and the techniques they used during the manhunt. With regard to the first one, it would seem like people are saying the government should spy more, and at detain people upon less suspicion. But they'll never actually argue that separately, only when it's tied to a specific event like this. So basically, people are OK with the PATRIOT Act, and spying, and searching, but only when its directly used to stop an actual terrorist act. But of course it's not that clean and tidy in practice. What do you do when there's thousands of potential threats?

[Solecismic]

Well there's certainly nothing resembling the national will needed to be consistently proactive, so I'm not sure there's a big choice left there.

I'd rather be in react mode than the type of "thought police" mode necessary to stop everything.

But sometimes react mode is overreact mode. Yes, I get it, we can't put a price on the life of someone killed or maimed in an attack. But the airline response was too much. Stronger cabin doors, better baggage security and effectively using the armed marshall policy was enough. The extra resources used could better be spent examining other possible means of causing great harm.

We're very lucky that the people who seem to believe that terrorism is warranted have absolutely no idea how to best mess with us. One intelligent leader who understands our society could do a lot of damage with very little risk.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We're very lucky that the people who seem to believe that terrorism is warranted have absolutely no idea how to best mess with us. One intelligent leader who understands our society could do a lot of damage with very little risk.

+1

I've made that same basic observation for, oh, about 20 years now.

[panerd]

We're very lucky that the people who seem to believe that terrorism is warranted have absolutely no idea how to best mess with us. One intelligent leader who understands our society could do a lot of damage with very little risk.

The leader of a rival terror group should take out a few celebrities or sports stars blame it in another terror group and watch as the entire populace demands vengeance in a style that JiMGa would be proud of. :)

[panerd]

Obama: "China can't spy on Americans, only their own government can do that!"

Obama: US, China in 'uncharted waters' on cyber - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-china-uncharted-waters-cyber-073509767.html)

[Edward64]

Full story is not out set with some contradictory claims. I would like to know who in congress were briefed specifically about this and let's hear their side of the story.

NSA Surveillance Program Oversight: White House, Congress Point Fingers At Each Other (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/nsa-surveillance-program-oversight_n_3405716.html)
WASHINGTON -- Revelations of massive data mining by the National Security Agency have prompted a blame game between the White House and Congress over how much responsibility each has for the program.

President Barack Obama on Friday defended his administration’s broad surveillance operations by arguing that checks and balances ensure privacy concerns were addressed. If they weren’t, he added, citizens could point the finger at Congress in addition to him.

“These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate,” Obama said. “And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up.”

The president made references to congressional oversight 15 times during his remarks. In a separate comment to The Huffington Post, a senior administration official said on the condition of anonymity that the administration has held at least 13 briefing sessions with members of Congress on the Patriot Act and its provisions.

[finketr]

Full story is not out set with some contradictory claims. I would like to know who in congress were briefed specifically about this and let's hear their side of the story.

NSA Surveillance Program Oversight: White House, Congress Point Fingers At Each Other (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/nsa-surveillance-program-oversight_n_3405716.html)

when are they going after that whistleblower and leaker?

[JonInMiddleGA]

when are they going after that whistleblower and leaker?

Can't find the link & I'm about to head out the door but I saw a headline on that somewhere about an hour ago.

As they should.

[Dutch]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/970183_314728591993659_726092536_n.jpg

[Edward64]

Would be nice to find another Gorbachev-Reagan relationship but doubtful. I think the public image is to play nice etc. but think we should be realistic and aggressively counter China.

Obama, China Make Climate Change Agreement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/obama-china-climate-change-xi_n_3409037.html)
RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif., June 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, completed two days of get-to-know-you talks on Saturday that covered disputes like cyber hacking and North Korea and may set the stage for U.S.-Chinese relations for years to come.

The pair spent about eight hours together over Friday and Saturday at a sprawling retreat in the sun-baked desert near Palm Springs, California, an informal summit aimed at injecting some warmth into often chilly relations and providing the chance to talk about their differences openly.

While there were plenty of smiles for the cameras, there was no sign of any significant breakthrough on problems that have dogged dealings between America and China for years, particularly accusations of Chinese thievery of U.S. industrial and military secrets through cyber intrusions.
:
:
The two leaders wrestled with how to handle China's rise on the world stage, more than 40 years after President Richard Nixon's groundbreaking visit to Communist China in 1972 ended decades of estrangement between Washington and Beijing.

Although Obama said he wanted to make room for the "peaceful rise" of China, the two countries do not see eye to eye on trade, bellicose behavior by nuclear-armed North Korea, human rights and each country's military intentions.

Obama cited a "whole range of challenges on which we have to cooperate, from ... North Korea's nuclear and missile programs to proliferation, to issues like climate change."

China experts say if Obama and Xi can develop personal rapport - something lacking between U.S. presidents and Xi's notoriously wooden predecessor, Hu Jintao - and make at least some progress on substantive issues, the summit could gain historic significance.

Each leader appeared to gain something from the talks. Obama was able to set aside diplomatic niceties and talk one-on-one about the cyber dispute and other sore points.

Xi was able to promote directly to Obama his desire for a "new model of major country relationship," in which China would be viewed as an equal global player.

[cartman]

when are they going after that whistleblower and leaker?

He outed himself.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)

[Edward64]

He outed himself.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)

Good thing Booz Allen is not a public company. I would have predicted a steep drop off as majority of their business is government.

NSA leaker comes forward, warns of agency's 'existential threat' - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/politics/nsa-leak-identity/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Snowden is a former technical assistant for the CIA and has been working at the National Security Agency, the U.S. electronic intelligence service, for the past four years, the newspaper reported. He said he walked away from a six-figure job in Hawaii for the computer consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton and has holed up in a hotel in Hong Kong in preparation for the expected fallout from his disclosures.

[SirFozzie]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/970183_314728591993659_726092536_n.jpg

"We trained him to froth at the mouth on command and throw himself into a gibbering fit, in which he is only able to scream NO at intensifying volumes"

"In other words, we've found the treatment to make someone into a Republican?"

Meme's get old quick.

Edit: And not to grammar nazi, but "Food Stamp ROLES up 70%"? ;)

[SirFozzie]

S&P Warns that if the tea party attempts to slash expenditure or hold the debt ceiling hostage are successful, the US Credit rating will be downgraded (again, although it just went back up)

S&P | United States of America 'AA+/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Stable On Receding Fiscal Risks | Americas (http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?articleType=HTML&assetID=1245352834859)

[JonInMiddleGA]

S&P Warns that if the tea party attempts to slash expenditure or hold the debt ceiling hostage are successful, the US Credit rating will be downgraded (again, although it just went back up)

Note to S&P: Go fuck yourselves.

[cartman]

Sounds like some of the more sensational claims by Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian in the NSA whistleblower story aren't standing up to closer scrutiny.

The real story in the NSA scandal is the collapse of journalism | ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/)

[RainMaker]

The S&P thing is such a publicity stunt. No one is afraid of the U.S. not paying their bills.

[Warhammer]

What I don't get is if we cut expenditure (reducing the growth of our debt), our rating will be reduced?

[lynchjm24]

Stop speaking Sputnik.

[JPhillips]

What I don't get is if we cut expenditure (reducing the growth of our debt), our rating will be reduced?

They're talking about something like another sequester where the cuts would almost certainly reduce growth and tax revenue which, like in Europe, could cause the deficit to rise.

I don't think this has anything to do with a medium/long term deal on entitlements.

[cartman]

Buried in the leaked documents, is a yearly cost for the PRISM system: $20 million.

KEEP CALM and Carry On: PRISM itself is not a big deal • The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/11/prism_numbers_not_adding_up/)

[molson]

Maybe my views are a little slanted from hanging out at reddit too much but I have to take back anything I've ever said about this not as being a big deal under Obama as it was under Bush. People are completely losing their mind, right down the Nazi regime comparisons. Obama doesn't see to be as much a personal target as Bush was, but people are not happy and they're preparing for the inevitable totalitarian state this will inevitability lead to. Anything that goes wrong in this country in the next 3 years will be viewed by a disturbingly large number of people as just part of a conspiracy to justify additional domestic surveillance. Who knows what false flag terrorist attack Obama is planning as we speak.

I see it kind of like the Occupy Wall Street thing, some valid concerns that got very quickly got overwhelmed by the loudest, craziest voices. And to these voices, pretty much everything the government does is evil and wrong.

[cartman]

Maybe my views are a little slanted from hanging out at reddit too much but I have to take back anything I've ever said about this not as being a big deal under Obama as it was under Bush. People are completely losing their mind, right down the Nazi regime comparisons. Obama doesn't see to be as much a personal target as Bush was, but people are not happy and they're preparing for the inevitable totalitarian state this will inevitability lead to. Anything that goes wrong in this country in the next 3 years will be viewed by a disturbingly large number of people as just part of a conspiracy to justify additional domestic surveillance. Who knows what false flag terrorist attack Obama is planning as we speak.

I see it kind of like the Occupy Wall Street thing, some valid concerns that got very quickly got overwhelmed by the loudest, craziest voices. And to these voices, pretty much everything the government does is evil and wrong.

There is also a pretty big gap between what people think happened and what actually happened. It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

[sabotai]

It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

[BrianD]

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

Rough guess, but probably about 80% of the number of people making phone calls, sending text messages and using the internet.

[molson]

It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

I'm not sure if the people on my facebook feed are joking or not when they keep talking about the government doing this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not sure if the people on my facebook feed are joking or not when they keep talking about the government doing this.

That's probably more serious than kidding.

The notion that the calls have been "listened to" en masse has been around for quite a few years now IIRC. Where people tend to lose the finer point of the claim is that "listened to" in conventional terms is pretty much impossible. Being scanned electronically for keywords on the other hand ...

[molson]

There's a reason Tony Soprano would never use email.

[rowech]

Sam Seaborn(1999) -- It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?

[molson]

Sam Seaborn(1999) -- It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?

I'm interested to see if the push for privacy withstands domestic security issues as well. Like, with mental health records and gun control. We are super-connected and in touch with gun violence but I think we see terrorism as this thing that's done with and will never happen again. That could change.

[Marc Vaughan]

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

Thats the main thing to consider with any 'monitoring' - the amount of data which each individual generates and sends each day is practically impossible to fully monitor.

(if you doubt this consider I transmit several Gb of data individually myself - if the NSA want to try and decrypt and analyse it then they're more than welcome to .... heck if they want to help write the game then they should just drop me an email ;) )

[cartman]

That's what my ex-NSA uncle mentioned. They have always had a problem with the volume of data coming in. They never had the manpower to really analyze it properly, in a manner they would like. That is why there has been an explosion of consultants brought in to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And Snowden was apparently one of these consultants brought in to help.

[Galaxy]

Slightly different topic, but Turkey will be an interesting situation to watch.

[SteveMax58]

Where people tend to lose the finer point of the claim is that "listened to" in conventional terms is pretty much impossible. Being scanned electronically for keywords on the other hand ...

Thats exactly right. There is no need to have a human "listen" to every call just as no human is needed to physically press play to record a call.

I have no idea whether any of that is going and I've seen no legitimate reports or evidence suggesting this (en masse anyway) but its certainly not a far-fetched concept. We have text to speech, speech to text, and all kinds of intelligent (and dare I say it doesnt require very much intelligence) applications to quickly parse & glean data. The idea that it would take a lot of effort to parse through phone calls because somebody needs to sit down & listen to them is utterly archaic though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The idea that it would take a lot of effort to parse through phone calls because somebody needs to sit down & listen to them is utterly archaic though.

The last estimate I saw (probably a few years back now) was that literally doing every electronic communication in the U.S. would have strained existing resources & capabilities.

Right or wrong, that's the last thing I remember seeing try to analyze it.

[SirFozzie]

United States have confirmed that the Syrian government has used sarin nerve gas on multiple occasions and are authorizing limited military support to the rebel groups.

Cue the Kos-Kiddies screaming "Wag the Dog" and "Impeach Obama".

[molson]

I admire the administration for acknowledging the nerve gas attacks (I assumed they'd look the other way to avoid the "red line" stuff), and I admire liberals who reacts to the timing of this the same way they would if Bush was in power. At least they're consistent. But sometimes timing just sucks. You can't decide to blow off your word and act differently in important situations just because of the way it might be perceived with the timing. That takes some courage.

[SirFozzie]

I agree, and not to sound too much like Jon The Hun Jr, I'm not sure there's any good way to deal with it.

Both sides are scum and assisting either of them is likely inimical to American interests,but leaving the Syrian public to deal with both of them seems heartless and a failure as well

[lungs]

If Assad is using chemical weapons on the Al-Nusra Front, more power to him.

I hate to say it, but I think we're putting our weight behind the losing side here. Assad's recent success seems to come on the heels ofstories of rebel atrocities (mainly related to Islamists). I don't know the makeup of the rebels but it makes me hard to think there are any good guys in this fight. Which begs the question... was Assad all that bad in the first place?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bad guys killing bad guys ... yeeeaah. Let's jump right in there.

[lungs]

Bad guys killing bad guys ... yeeeaah. Let's jump right in there.

Supply nukes to both sides? :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Supply nukes to both sides? :)

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim ;)

[lungs]

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim ;)

I was going to come up with some hare brained thing about locking the aim but in the end I just figured you'd say we may as well do it ourselves.

[finketr]

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim ;)

Sure, you do. You know they'll aim to the southwest.

[molson]

Sure, you do. You know they'll aim to the southwest.

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

[finketr]

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

referring to if we give nukes to both sides you don't think they'd aim/fire them at Israel?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

There's pretty much no nation on Earth I respect more than Israel.

But I think that (knowing who both sides would target) was kinda what he meant there anyway; i.e. that would actually kill the appeal for me.

[Edward64]

Good to see some momentum and resignation/acceptance.

Arizona Medicaid Expansion Advances After Jan Brewer Forces Lawmakers' Hands (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/arizona-medicaid-expansion_n_3430371.html)
Arizona will expand Medicaid to cover nearly 300,000 poor residents next year after a bipartisan coalition passed a measure backed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) through the state legislature on Thursday.

Brewer, a conservative and avowed foe of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, announced her support for the Medicaid expansion in January, but faced stiff resistance from fellow Republicans in Arizona's House and Senate. During a marathon session that began Wednesday afternoon and stretched into the wee hours of Thursday morning before culminating in a final vote late Thursday afternoon, a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the Medicaid expansion.

Although Obama's health care law continues to divide elected officials and the public along starkly partisan lines, Brewer is one of nine Republican governors who have bucked their party and embraced the Medicaid expansion.

[Galaxy]

I agree, and not to sound too much like Jon The Hun Jr, I'm not sure there's any good way to deal with it.

Both sides are scum and assisting either of them is likely inimical to American interests,but leaving the Syrian public to deal with both of them seems heartless and a failure as well

I think what makes this really complicated is that you have Iran and Hezbollah in the mix as well.

[panerd]

United States have confirmed that the Syrian government has used sarin nerve gas on multiple occasions and are authorizing limited military support to the rebel groups.

Cue the Kos-Kiddies screaming "Wag the Dog" and "Impeach Obama".

Just make sure that we program some sort of deactivate device on all this hardware when our soldiers end up fighting against it in either Syria or some other part of the Middle East down the road.

[Edward64]

Looks as if are getting into a war by proxy. Tricky to have essentially 3 sides and each have to fight the other 2.

Decision to arm Syrian rebels was reached weeks ago, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-arm-syrian-rebels-was-reached-weeks-ago-us-officials-say/2013/06/14/3cc2d372-d51a-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html?hpid=z1)
The CIA is preparing to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria through clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year in an effort to establish reliable supply routes into the country for nonlethal material, U.S. officials said.
:
:
Syria experts cautioned that the opposition to Assad remains a chaotic mix of secular and Islamist elements, highlighting the risk that some American-provided munitions may be diverted from their intended recipients.

But U.S. officials involved in the planning of the new policy of increased military support announced by the Obama administration Thursday said that the CIA has developed a clearer understanding of the composition of rebel forces, which have begun to coalesce in recent months. Within the past year, the CIA also created a new office at its headquarters in Langley to oversee its expanding operational role in Syria.

“We have relationships today in Syria that we didn’t have six months ago,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said during a White House briefing Friday. The United States is capable of delivering material “not only into the country,” Rhodes said, but “into the right hands.”

[SteveMax58]

The last estimate I saw (probably a few years back now) was that literally doing every electronic communication in the U.S. would have strained existing resources & capabilities.

Right or wrong, that's the last thing I remember seeing try to analyze it.

I wouldn't dispute that (nor am I in any position to qualify that kind of bulk analysis) but would point out that I don't think you would need to analyze every call anyway.

Just a small algorithm to find calls made/received by people that match a database of people they want to keep an eye (or an ear as it were) on.

I have no idea whether there is anything like this going on behind the scenes, and even if it were, thats not evidence of a concerted effort of "government" trying to spy on its people for the purpose of controlling them. But the unintended consequences of such a thing is a bit scary. Where do video calls fall in this? Why not video chat then? I dont need the session hosted on a US server to capture this....just need to be ordered by a government entity to capture & provide the capture.

Just saying that technology is moving faster than our politicians can even comprehend. Not that they can't get the basic idea, but they have no intuitive grasp of the very real potential repercussions of it (and the repercussions of poorly thought out legislation as well).

Instead, they would rather talk about a-la-carte which is a waste of time to pursue for consumers as it will either happen organically or not at all. Side track item but just saying...they really don't know what they don't know.

[rowech]

Looks as if are getting into a war by proxy. Tricky to have essentially 3 sides and each have to fight the other 2.

Decision to arm Syrian rebels was reached weeks ago, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-arm-syrian-rebels-was-reached-weeks-ago-us-officials-say/2013/06/14/3cc2d372-d51a-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html?hpid=z1)

This is such a horrible mistake to get involved with.

[SirFozzie]

well, looks like a moderate won the elections in Iran. I'm hopeful that this means a bit of thawing in the relationship, but I'm doubtful that the Ruling council will back down.

[Edward64]

Not sure I understand why he is so vocal about this and why try to get involved?

Egypt Cuts Ties With Syria: Mohamed Morsi Orders Closing Of Damascus Embassy In Cairo, Urges Hezbollah To Stay Out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/egypt-cuts-ties-with-syri_n_3447517.html)
CAIRO, June 15 (Reuters) - Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi said he had cut all diplomatic ties with Damascus on Saturday and called for a no-fly zone over Syria, pitching the most populous Arab state firmly against President Bashar al-Assad.

Addressing a rally called by Sunni Muslim clerics in Cairo, the Sunni Islamist head of state said: "We decided today to entirely break off relations with Syria and with the current Syrian regime."

He also warned Assad's allies in the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi'ite militia Hezbollah to pull back from fighting in Syria.

"We stand against Hezbollah in its aggression against the Syrian people," Mursi said. "Hezbollah must leave Syria - these are serious words. There is no space or place for Hezbollah in Syria."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not sure I understand why he is so vocal about this and why try to get involved?

Sunni vs Shi'i thing seems most likely.

[JPhillips]

From CNET:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler’s disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

They may not listen to everything, but they can and do listen to whatever they want.

[cartman]

Or maybe not.

CNET Says NSA "Admits" Listening to US Phone Calls - But That's Not What the Video Shows - Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows)

It appears this is another instance of someone equating metadata with the actual content of a call.

[SteveMax58]

They may not listen to everything, but they can and do listen to whatever they want.

This is where we prefer to go with things in this country...the CYA culture of our masters. This isn't just the NSA, its businesses as well. We don't believe in the concept of high ranking officials/executives putting their personal approval on things under the guise that it would bottleneck the process. So instead of saying "Gee, perhaps we need smaller, leaner organizations & businesses" we simply ignore it (as a decision to do or not do would also be taking ownership of the outcome) until a problem comes up like this & blame the low ranking analyst.

Thats the real story I see in this whole thing.

[panerd]

Sounds more likely to me than the junk we are being fed from Obama and Congress.

Obama’s Syria Policy Looks a Lot Like Bush’s Iraq Policy



President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his “red line” and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.

Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made “weeks ago” – in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe “with high confidence” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.

Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.

The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked “Downing Street Memo,” where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration discussed Washington’s push for war on Iraq?

Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time.

We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as “Curveball.” But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.

So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the “war on terror” and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?

The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.

The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.
.

Ron Paul

[JonInMiddleGA]

That Ron Paul, always good for a laugh.

Even on the odd occasion when he's right ('cause this IS a horrible idea) he manages to be so absurd that he's reduced to comic relief.

"destroy his presidency"? {giggle} Has this damnable fool failed to notice that nothing Saint Barry does moves the needle on his approval?

[JPhillips]

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

[panerd]

That Ron Paul, always good for a laugh.

Even on the odd occasion when he's right ('cause this IS a horrible idea) he manages to be so absurd that he's reduced to comic relief.

"destroy his presidency"? {giggle} Has this damnable fool failed to notice that nothing Saint Barry does moves the needle on his approval?

JiMGa's response to any Ron Paul post I make, always good for a laugh.

[panerd]

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

At least it isn't costing the United States any money or causing any tension with major world powers and definitely has no chance of escalating any more to involving US soldiers and US lives. I guess the 50% praise/50% scorn from you though is about as rough as you will get on Obama so obviously you agree this is a terrible idea.

[JonInMiddleGA]

JiMGa's response to any Ron Paul post I make, always good for a laugh.

Fine ... but show me even the slightest shred of evidence to the moronic statement he makes at the end. I mean, hell, if anybody would love to believe there was even the tiniest glint of hope to be found for that assertion, you'd figure it'd be me.

[panerd]

Fine ... but show me even the slightest shred of evidence to the moronic statement he makes at the end. I mean, hell, if anybody would love to believe there was even the tiniest glint of hope to be found for that assertion, you'd figure it'd be me.

Yeah I felt like the Obama line was not a great conclusion and out of place but he knows the audience he is playing to. I agree 100% though with Ron Paul that another multi-billion dollar war has begun.

[JPhillips]

At least it isn't costing the United States any money or causing any tension with major world powers and definitely has no chance of escalating any more to involving US soldiers and US lives. I guess the 50% praise/50% scorn from you though is about as rough as you will get on Obama so obviously you agree this is a terrible idea.

Ah yes, the I've never criticized Obama or Democrats line.

Keep fucking that chicken.

[molson]

There HAVE been smaller scale participation in international conflicts before. Not everything has turned into Vietnam. There's no analysis or reason in anything Ron Paul says. His stated opinions on any issue are automatically generated and extreme. He's just a robot spouting the same stuff no matter the situation. Broken clocks are right once in a while I guess, but Ron Paul is fruit loop and his confidence that this will "destroy our country" should tip people off of that fact.

Who knows what the real motives are and what the outcome will be, but is the claimed purpose here so preposterous that it just must necessarily be a lie - that using chemical weapons is kind of a big deal and that the government wants heads of state to know that if you use them, your chances of winning your conflict go down because international intervention becomes more possible. Everybody has their own "red line." After conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes sense that more people's red lines are a lot further along the spectrum than what they were pre-wars. I mean geez, pre-war, just the fact that Iraq had these weapons was enough for the majority of Americans to want to full-scale invade them. There has to be some point where limited intervention is appropriate. Ron Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII, but there has to be some closer point where a more reasonable view might justify limited intervention. Maybe Obama's judgment won't turn out to be the best, but I'm at least open to the idea he isn't pumping his fist over this, excited about having the opportunity to do war stuff (to help out his "Haliburton buddies" or whatever), and making up this whole lie to justify it.

[panerd]

There HAVE been smaller scale participation in international conflicts before. Not everything has turned into Vietnam. There's no analysis or reason in anything Ron Paul says. His stated opinions on any issue are automatically generated and extreme. He's just a robot spouting the same stuff no matter the situation. Broken clocks are right once in a while I guess, but Ron Paul is fruit loop and his confidence that this will "destroy our country" should tip people off of that fact.

Who knows what the real motives are and what the outcome will be, but is the claimed purpose here so preposterous that it just must necessarily be a lie - that using chemical weapons is kind of a big deal and that the government wants heads of state to know that if you use them, your chances of winning your conflict go down because international intervention becomes more possible. Everybody has their own "red line." After conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes sense that more people's red lines are a lot further along the spectrum than what they were pre-wars. I mean geez, pre-war, just the fact that Iraq had these weapons was enough for the majority of Americans to want to full-scale invade them. There has to be some point where limited intervention is appropriate. Ron Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII, but there has to be some closer point where a more reasonable view might justify limited intervention. Maybe Obama's judgment won't turn out to be the best, but I'm at least open to the idea he isn't pumping his fist over this, excited about having the opportunity to do war stuff (to help out his "Haliburton buddies" or whatever), and making up this whole lie to justify it.

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/)

I guess I have a short memory... who was the war on terror's #1 enemy organization?

No analysis or reason? Just quotes from new organizations about how the run up to this war has been in making long before the "weapons of mass destruction" were used. I know... just facts.

[panerd]

Ah yes, the I've never criticized Obama or Democrats line.

Keep fucking that chicken.

Yes. Usually scathing...

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

1) Here is the reason Obama is smarter than everyone else (different than Bush who was an idiot)
2) I guess I don't like it
3) Let me compare him to somebody who is an iconic figure in foreign policy. (This Syria thing will probably be remember like Nixon's handling of China)

Ouch, almost has me thinking you will vote GOP next election.

[molson]

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/)

I guess I have a short memory... who was the war on terror's #1 enemy organization?

No analysis or reason? Just quotes from new organizations about how the run up to this war has been in making long before the "weapons of mass destruction" were used. I know... just facts.

Are you convinced there's zero al-Qaeda supporters in the Syrian government?

That's besides my point though, which is that you can't persuasively support an opinion if your opinion is the same no matter the facts. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but if this group was filled with disciples of Chuck Norris, you and Ron Paul would still be against it, so what difference does it make?

Edit: I'll tell you what, if your hero is right and this destroys America, or even becomes equivalent to the Vietnam war, I'll buy you a coke. How much time should we give it? Maybe a year?

[JPhillips]

Yes. Usually scathing...



1) Here is the reason Obama is smarter than everyone else (different than Bush who was an idiot)
2) I guess I don't like it
3) Let me compare him to somebody who is an iconic figure in foreign policy. (This Syria thing will probably be remember like Nixon's handling of China)

Ouch, almost has me thinking you will vote GOP next election.

I think Kissinger is one of the most evil men to wield power in U.S. history. Maybe you don't know as much about me as you think.

It is possible for people to disagree with you and still have an honest opinion.

[molson]

Ouch, almost has me thinking you will vote GOP next election.

You are FAR more a blind supporter of Ron Paul than JPhillips is of Obama. It's a little different situation because one is in power and actually doing stuff, but ideologically, it's not even close.

[panerd]

Are you convinced there's 0 al-Qaeda supporters in the Syrian government?

That's besides my point though, which is that you can't persuasively support an opinion if your opinion is the name no matter the facts. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but if this group was filled with disciples of Chuck Norris, you and Ron Paul would still be against it, so what difference does it make?

Maybe because outside of major conflicts like WWII most of these wars are facades for similar reasons. The Chuck Norris rebels would probably be no more our friends than any other rebel group and would eventually either turn on us or sell our weapons to one of our enemies. And you might be right that Paul wouldn't have supported WWII, he probably would have had some problems with the nukes in Japan and carpet bombing Berlin civilians, but he did support Afghanistan so I am guessing Pearl Harbor probably would have convinced him to join WWII)

[panerd]

You are FAR more a blind supporter of Ron Paul than JPhillips is of Obama. It's a little different situation because one is in power and actually doing stuff, but ideologically, it's not even close.

Not really. I am a pretty big (99%) supporter on non-interventionism which Paul is also and articulates better than I do but I don't toe the line on most of Paul's religious crap.

And I have spoke out against the endless war consistently. If Paul got elected and then started bombing shit I wouldn't excuse it I would call him a sell out. Phillips was all over Bush but now Obama probably isnt right but here's why he is so much smarter than Bush.

[JPhillips]

Not really. I am a pretty big (99%) supporter on non-interventionism which Paul is also and articulates better than I do but I don't toe the line on most of Paul's religious crap.

And I have spoke out against the endless war consistently. If Paul got elected and then started bombing shit I wouldn't excuse it I would call him a sell out. Phillips was all over Bush but now Obama probably isnt right but here's why he is so much smarter than Bush.

Did you find that when you played it backwards? Since I didn't say that, I'm curious how you know it to be true.

[Edward64]

Interesting how the Syria proxy war is evolving ... Russia, Iran, Hezbollah vs US, Saudi, Jordan vs AQ and its variants

Saw Rubio on ABC today. I'm sure its from the GOP talking points but think he has a valid point/question ... would it have been better if we had intervened earlier and not given AQ a foothold or Assad an opp to recover?

Saudi Arabia wants missiles for Syrian rebels: report - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20130616-saudi-arabia-wants-missiles-syrian-rebels-report)
AFP - Saudi Arabia plans to supply the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles to counter President Bashar al-Assad's air force, German news weekly Der Spiegel reported Sunday.

The article, citing a classified report received by the German foreign intelligence service and the German government last week, said Riyadh was looking at sending European-made Mistral-class MANPADS, or man-portable air-defence systems.

Der Spiegel noted the shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles can target low-flying aircraft including helicopters and had given mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan a decisive edge against Soviet troops in the 1980s.

Saudi Arabia is a key supporter of the Syrian rebels and has long advocated providing them with better weaponry.

[panerd]

On your coke bet... Would an Iraqlike war be a big enough clusterfuck or does it have to be 50000 dead?

[JPhillips]

Interesting how the Syria proxy war is evolving ... Russia, Iran, Hezbollah vs US, Saudi, Jordan vs AQ and its variants

Saw Rubio on ABC today. I'm sure its from the GOP talking points but think he has a valid point/question ... would it have been better if we had intervened earlier and not given AQ a foothold or Assad an opp to recover?

Saudi Arabia wants missiles for Syrian rebels: report - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20130616-saudi-arabia-wants-missiles-syrian-rebels-report)

I'd love for him to pinpoint when exactly that was. When did the noble, democratic rebels become AQ supporters?

[panerd]

Interesting how the Syria proxy war is evolving ... Russia, Iran, Hezbollah vs US, Saudi, Jordan vs AQ and its variants

Saw Rubio on ABC today. I'm sure its from the GOP talking points but think he has a valid point/question ... would it have been better if we had intervened earlier and not given AQ a foothold or Assad an opp to recover?

Saudi Arabia wants missiles for Syrian rebels: report - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20130616-saudi-arabia-wants-missiles-syrian-rebels-report)

When the surface to air missile takes down a Western civilian filled airline can we at least act like we knew it could be a possibility with an asinine idea like this?

[Edward64]

When the surface to air missile takes down a Western civilian filled airline can we at least act like we knew it could be a possibility with an asinine idea like this?

Valid concern. You would think we would have developed weapons/missiles that would only be good for x time, some sort of planned obsolescence feature etc.

[cartman]

When the surface to air missile takes down a Western civilian filled airline can we at least act like we knew it could be a possibility with an asinine idea like this?

The rebels have already used SAMs to take down a few of Assad's warplanes and helicopters. So they have already had them prior to this latest announcement. In any event, most (if not all) Western airlines have stopped flying into Damascus.

[panerd]

The rebels have already used SAMs to take down a few of Assad's warplanes and helicopters. So they have already had them prior to this latest announcement. In any event, most (if not all) Western airlines have stopped flying into Damascus.

Agree that is isn't going to happen during a war, I was thinking more of an Osama Bin Laden-like event (friend becomes foe not magnitude of 9-11) ten/twenty years down the road. Either in the Middle East or god forbid smuggled into the United States. One would think Saudi (American) weapons might be better than what they have though I will admit I was unaware the rebels had this technology.

[SirFozzie]

So, we're about two scandals back, but looks like Issa was fabricating quotes that said the IRS targeting thing was linked to the White House.

Breaking: Full House committee transcripts shed new light on genesis of IRS targeting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/18/breaking-full-house-committee-transcripts-shed-new-light-on-genesis-of-irs-targeting/)

[panerd]

Biden warns Congress on gun reform: ‘You will pay a price’ | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-tout-progress-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-114010300.html)

So Biden says lawmakers will "pay a price" for standing against large percentage of Americans that want these gun control measures? What would be a large percentage? Maybe 70?

Support for gun control slips below 50 percent after Senate vote - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295519-support-for-gun-control-slips-below-50-percent-after-senate-vote)

Oh, ok less than 50? Well lets visit another issue...

Poll: 70 percent say no arms to Syria - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/poll-syria-arms-92910.html)

Obama steps up military aid to Syrian rebels - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-steps-military-aid-syrian-rebels-071542046.html)


When the administration wants to give military grade weapons to groups with ties to terrorists then the will of the American people is an afterthought. LOL. The sad part is people actually believe and actively support these clowns?

Well at least gun control works!

Chicago sees deadliest weekend of 2013, with 6 dead, at least 40 hurt - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-sees-deadliest-weekend-2013-6-dead-least-161330599.html)

New York's Summer of Gun Violence Is Off to a Chicago-Style Start - Alexander Abad-Santos - The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/new-york-gun-statistics-2013/65807/)

[panerd]

Before all the liberals get their panties in a wad... Here is the supposed opposition's next great thing. Even bigger clowns...

Marco Rubio Admits That He Hasn't Read the Gun Control Bill That He Opposes (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04/14/marco-rubio-admits-read-gun-control-bill-opposes.html)

Rubio: If I were in charge, we would have armed the Syrian rebels much sooner « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/17/rubio-if-i-were-in-charge-we-would-have-armed-the-syrian-rebels-much-sooner/)

Rubio Suggests Secret Spying 'Just The Reality' | News with Tags (http://newswithtags.com/Florida/huffingtonpost-rubio-suggests-secret-spying-just-the-reality#.UcDHKNAo7mI)

Rubio, Nelson support Patriot Act extension | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/rubio-nelson-support-patriot-act-extension)

[sterlingice]

No doubt. Bush, Obama, future presidents don't want a 9-11 type body count on their hands with questions about what they didn't do to stop it. I completely understand the political motivation and the people for the most part don't seem to care either so it really isn't a losing proposition for them.

I just fear when enough is enough. Every new person employed by the NSA, FBI, CIA, TSA, DEA, ATF, DOD is currently adding to our debt. There is no doubt some of the great empires in the history of the world were not undone by military losses but by economic collapse. Who knows maybe Al-Queda is smarter than we think and realize that putting a scapegoat on an airplane with a bomb in his shoe or with a truck full of explosives in Times Square costs the United States billions of dollars a year and at some point we're going to go broke. I think paying someone to keep track of panerd's calls to his wife and friends is a waste of my tax money no matter how small a cost it really is. It's like searching the 90 year old white grandma getting on a plane, waste of resources that could be spent actually keeping us safe or paying down the debt.

I just did a lot of catching up and I could spend the afternoon making rebuttals to a lot of what you have posted as we don't usually see eye to eye in this thread.

But this post I love. :thumbsup:

SI

[sterlingice]

I wouldn't dispute that (nor am I in any position to qualify that kind of bulk analysis) but would point out that I don't think you would need to analyze every call anyway.

Just a small algorithm to find calls made/received by people that match a database of people they want to keep an eye (or an ear as it were) on.

I have no idea whether there is anything like this going on behind the scenes, and even if it were, thats not evidence of a concerted effort of "government" trying to spy on its people for the purpose of controlling them. But the unintended consequences of such a thing is a bit scary. Where do video calls fall in this? Why not video chat then? I dont need the session hosted on a US server to capture this....just need to be ordered by a government entity to capture & provide the capture.

Just saying that technology is moving faster than our politicians can even comprehend. Not that they can't get the basic idea, but they have no intuitive grasp of the very real potential repercussions of it (and the repercussions of poorly thought out legislation as well).

Instead, they would rather talk about a-la-carte which is a waste of time to pursue for consumers as it will either happen organically or not at all. Side track item but just saying...they really don't know what they don't know.

Yeah, the bold is what gets me about this. No, they aren't listening in on every phone call we make and everything we do- that's too manpower intensive and, frankly, too stupid.

In fact, right now, I'll give pretty good odds: not like even but like 3:1 that 99% of searches are done above board. Basically, I suspect what they are doing is collecting the metadata in one database and collecting the content in another. And then you look in the content database for "terrorism" and "bomb" and a few other choice words and backtrack to the metadata to find out who did that.

However, I really don't want anyone to have that power in their hands, no matter how well intentioned. It's really easy to put that in the wrong hands so they can change those search terms to "Tea Party" or "Occupy Wall Street" or all of the above to squelch whatever brand of dissent you don't like.

SI

[molson]

However, I really don't want anyone to have that power in their hands, no matter how well intentioned. It's really easy to put that in the wrong hands so they can change those search terms to "Tea Party" or "Occupy Wall Street" or all of the above to squelch whatever brand of dissent you don't like.



Isn't that just an unavoidable risk if you're going to have any kind of government at all? If we give police the power to arrest people who have committed crimes, what's to stop them from arresting them for having an opinion they don't like? If we give the IRS the power to make determinations about an organization's status, what's to stop them from inappropriately targeting certain political viewpoints? Heck, if we give our military the power to maintain a nuclear aresenal, what's to stop them on dropping the bombs on a state filled with voters from the wrong party? Any power can be misused. Just like individual rights can be misused.

[Coffee Warlord]

Isn't that just an unavoidable risk if you're going to have any kind of government at all? If we give police the power to arrest people who have committed crimes, what's to stop them from arresting them for having an opinion they don't like? If we give the IRS the power to make determinations about an organization's status, what's to stop them from inappropriately targeting certain political viewpoints? Heck, if we give our military the power to maintain a nuclear aresenal, what's to stop them on dropping the bombs on a state filled with voters from the wrong party? Any power can be misused. Just like individual rights can be misused.

It has nothing to do with 'what if they abuse this power', this is power the Constitution clearly says 'you are not allowed to have without reasonable suspicion of a crime'.

There's no what-if scenario here. The abuse stems from them claiming the right to have this information in the first place - while asserting that privilege is legal thanks to 'secret' court rulings (which in itself leads to a violation of the 6th amendment).

[molson]

, this is power the Constitution clearly says 'you are not allowed to have without reasonable suspicion of a crime'.



No appellate court has held that yet, and recent opinions support the the government's position that this does not violate the 4th amendment, and that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone numbers they call not being placed in a database that can be accessed later upon further justification. (and we have one court opinion that says that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your location, as identified by your phone's GPS function.)

The 4th amendment doesn't clearly preclude this, either on its face or as interpreted by recent appellate opinions. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, with just begs for court-made tests and case-by-case determinations, and none of those tests or determinations preclude this. You might think it's unreasonable, or that it constitutes a "search", but that doesn't make it unconstitutional at this moment. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this presupposes that this is illegal, that the government knows it's illegal, and they just decided to break the law in secret, but that's all just opinion, and it hasn't been determined by any authority that actually matters. And certainly, the government isn't justifying this solely based on security, they do contend its constitutional.

How is the 6th amendment implicated in the absence of a actual criminal prosecution?

Whether it's legal is an open question subject to debate, but at this moment it's not clearly illegal. Whether the government should do it is a different question, and almost all of the arguments against it involve slippery slope arguments, which can be tricky to make when they involve government power. Pretty much anything the government does can slippery slope into abuse of power and disaster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pretty much anything the government does can slippery slope into abuse of power and disaster.

Including when they do nothing.

[Coffee Warlord]

No appellate court has held that yet, and recent opinions support the the government's position that this does not violate the 4th amendment, and that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone numbers they call not being placed in a database that can be accessed later upon further justification. (and we have one court opinion that says that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your location, as identified by your phone's GPS function.)

The 4th amendment doesn't clearly preclude this, either on its face or as interpreted by recent appellate opinions. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, with just begs for court-made tests and case-by-case determinations, and none of those tests or determinations preclude this. You might think it's unreasonable, but that doesn't make it constitutional at this moment.

How is the 6th amendment implicated in the absence of a actual criminal prosecution?

I should have added 'in my opinion' to that, I guess. I find it yet another example of the watering down of the 4th amendment, and a black and white situation. My experience, unfortunately has led me to believe our lords and masters will say otherwise.

As to part two, it would be as part of a criminal prosecution. With secret laws backed by secrets courts (which is where they are largely claiming they have the authority for most of those), you are denied your rights to see the evidence against you, and to face your accusers - rights guaranteed to you by the 6th.

Article from just yesterday -

Justice Department Fought to Conceal NSA's Role in Terror Case From Defense Lawyers | Threat Level | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-defense-lawyers/)

Most interesting/terrifying part:


After Moalin’s arrest, Dratel challenged the legality of the spying in 2011, and asked a federal judge to order the government to produce the wiretap application the FBI gave the secretive FISC to justify the surveillance. In a conventional wiretap, defense lawyers are permitted to see the affidavit used to justify the surveillance to a judge, and ask a judge to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap issued on false information.

“Disclosure of the FISA applications to defense counsel – who possess the requisite security clearance – is also necessary to an accurate determination of the legality of the FISA surveillance, as otherwise the defense will be completely in the dark with respect to the basis for the FISA surveillance,” wrote Dratel (.pdf)

The government fought the request in a 60-page reply brief, much of it redacted as classified in the public docket. The Justice Department argued that the defendants had no right to see any of the filings from the secret court, and instead the judge could review the filings alone in chambers. “Confidentiality is critical to national security,” the government wrote (.pdf)

[molson]

Oh, in terror cases, I could see the 6th amendment arguments coming up, gotcha. I was thinking more like how people (at least on my facebook wall) seem to think the government is going to read an email about them smoking weed and then break down their doors and take them in. The way the government deals with terror suspects, especially if they try to charge them domestically, is a whole different thing. It can be a mess.

[Coffee Warlord]

Oh, in terror cases, I could see the 6th amendment arguments coming up, gotcha. I was thinking more like how people (at least on my facebook wall) seem to think the government is going to read an email about them smoking weed and then break down their doors and take them in. The way the government deals with terror suspects, especially if they try to charge them domestically, is a whole different thing. It can be a mess.

Today it's terror suspects (and pedophiles - the two trump cards for any rights infringements). Though yes, people will take things to horrible illogical extremes, but the sentiment is close. There IS an element of truth to it - we've witnessed a constant erosion of rights and expansion of government authority in the past 200 years. Powers granted and powers taken don't go away - they go from 'only rarely in the most dire circumstances' to 'this is a vital everyday tool in protecting the people!'

The most horrid, vile, disgusting criminal who ever walked the earth should still have the same rights in this country as Jesus himself. We can't selectively apply the Constitution to people & crimes we don't like because they're "worse". It simply can't work like that.

It does, in increasing frequency.

It needs to end in short order.

It probably won't.

[molson]

we've witnessed a constant erosion of rights and expansion of government authority in the past 200 years.

The terrorism thing has created an entirely different playing field and scope of debate, but otherwise, I think criminal rights of defendants have enhanced greatly in the last 50-100 years. There's hundreds of examples of that. Prosecutions and jury trials 75 years ago wouldn't even be recognizable today. It's amazing what they got away with by modern societal and legal standards about what defendants are entitled to.

Terrorism stuff isn't different because those guys are "really bad", it's different because of the military and national security and international components. And it's not different just because those things are "really important", there's actually practical considerations to whether it's even possible to apply domestic rules of evidence and U.S. constitutional rights to every person on the planet that we think is a terrorist. An obviously, our government and military wants to act in instances even where no U.S. law has been violated, or where there's no chance of conviction because of some procedural roadblock. Can the government and military still act in any of those instances? The idea that what our military does should be restrained by domestic criminal rules of evidence and criminal procedure is a very new idea that's still being sorted out.

I know your example is an actual domestic criminal charge, and the when the government pursues that route, of course, all the normal criminal procedures and rules of evidence have to apply. And that's what's happening. As in many criminal prosecutions, the parties have different opinions about what's constitutional, and what's admissible. As do the government agencies who aren't themselves parties in the case. I'm sure that 60-page government brief justifying their conduct didn't say, "this is illegal, sure, but terrorism is really bad and national security is really important." I'm sure it actually contains cognizable legal arguments.

[panerd]

I just did a lot of catching up and I could spend the afternoon making rebuttals to a lot of what you have posted as we don't usually see eye to eye in this thread.

But this post I love. :thumbsup:

SI

Thanks, as JiMGa would say even a broken clock is right twice a day. Seriously though because of how poorly the finances of this country are handled people don't really ever consider the economic fallout of some of these decisions.

My wife and I are pretty good with our money, but she actually did get me to buy an alarm system for my house (IMO the sign is as much a deterrent as the $50 a month service but that's a whole other thread). Could I set up a more complex camera system? Sure. Could we hire a security guard? Yes but this would really cause us to go into debt. Would buying all of the surrounding property and building a giant wall make us even safer? Maybe but now we are just wasting money to feel safe and probably pissing off the neighbors. (Sound like the United States at all? :) ).

[molson]

My wife and I are pretty good with our money, but she actually did get me to buy an alarm system for my house (IMO the sign is as much a deterrent as the $50 a month service but that's a whole other thread). Could I set up a more complex camera system? Sure. Could we hire a security guard? Yes but this would really cause us to go into debt. Would buying all of the surrounding property and building a giant wall make us even safer? Maybe but now we are just wasting money to feel safe and probably pissing off the neighbors. (Sound like the United States at all? :) ).

Have you caught anybody trying to kill you before or after you installed the alarm? If not, ya, probably a waste of money.

[panerd]

Have you caught anybody trying to kill you before or after you installed the alarm? If not, ya, probably a waste of money.

Wasnt really the angle i was going for but i guess i will play. No we didn't kill a bunch of our poorer neighbors and their children before upgrading the alarm system. And we also haven't recruited people to try and kill us to justify the large amounts of wasted money on our alarm system.

[DaddyTorgo]

So are you saying the Republican Party is the naggy wife??

Can we file for divorce?

[DaddyTorgo]

wrong thread

[DaddyTorgo]

wrong thread

[DaddyTorgo]

wrong thread

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

wrong thread

wrong thread

wrong thread

You can say that again.

[molson]

And we also haven't recruited people to try and kill us to justify the large amounts of wasted money on our alarm system.

Are you a truther?

[panerd]

Are you a truther?

No. I was talking about the number of terror attacks they have stopped. Seems like an awful lot of them are guys recruited by the FBI who are encouraged to set off a bomb and then the FBI takes credit for stopping the attack that never had anyone in danger but makes for a sensational headline. (Like the one in Portland, OR but from what I remember this makes up a large number of the thwarted plots)

[molson]

This has to be one of the more fiscally efficient anti-terror tools that the U.S. government has employed. Rather than physically invading countries or maintaining massive physical presences, we're relying more of intelligence and information. And with regard to this program, the data doesn't even have to be analyzed, it only has to be logged and saved. When you get a phone number connected to a terror suspect, you can more cheaply acquire a lot of information about his activities. You don't necessarily need to bomb his entire village. It's all in the execution, which we don't know a ton about yet, but there's great potential there for a much smarter and more fiscally efficient national security policy. It's a fascinating balance though - more brute strength/use of force approaches will implicate privacy interests much less - I bet Obama didn't fully grasp that when he wanted to push a smarter/learner approach to terror, or at least, I'm sure he didn't think it would blow up on him like this. I'm sure he kicks back with a beer in weaker moments and yells to himself, "what the fuck to these people want?"

And that's what I was getting at with the ron paul/panerd lack of real analysis - it doesn't matter what the approach is, it doesn't matter if more efficient solutions are explored - if it's the government, its bad, and that's the end of it. You can't have a reasonable debate/discussion or analysis of issues where that's the initial position. The Boston Marathon thing was something of a turning point of how I think about this stuff - where the government was criticized for not knowing about these guys beforehand, not catching them fast enough after it happened, AND for sending too many people to go find them. It's so easy to go strongly on one side when you have no power and responsibility for the outcome, but if you're going to all extreme in one direction, at least recognize the cons and limitations of that approach.

[DaddyTorgo]

No. I was talking about the number of terror attacks they have stopped. Seems like an awful lot of them are guys recruited by the FBI who are encouraged to set off a bomb and then the FBI takes credit for stopping the attack that never had anyone in danger but makes for a sensational headline. (Like the one in Portland, OR but from what I remember this makes up a large number of the thwarted plots)

:confused:

I think your use of "guys recruited by the FBI" is disingenuous at best. What you should be saying is "double agents turned (maybe - we hope?) by the FBI."

[panerd]

So you get some low-level non terror cell connected doofus who is not capable of pulling any sort of terror attack off himself and isn't a member of any terrorist organization. You convince him that he has a truck full of explosives and then celebrate when you stop him. Seems like a lesson in fear mongering and not policing to me.

The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/)

EDIT: And if it is just a policing technique Molson why the fanfare and reporting to major news agencies? Sorry if I call bullshit on the purpose of these operations.

[panerd]

:confused:

I think your use of "guys recruited by the FBI" is disingenuous at best. What you should be saying is "double agents turned (maybe - we hope?) by the FBI."

No I am talking about the FBI actually going to mosques and recruiting potential terrors suspects who hate America. Listen I have no love loss for somebody who thinks they are going to blow up a bomb and kill people but the level of danger they represent is not equal to the amount of news coverage and/or money spent. Here's another where occupy people thought they were blowing stuff up...

Ohio Terrorists Were Recruited And Supplied With Bombs By FBI (http://www.policymic.com/articles/7839/ohio-terrorists-were-recruited-and-supplied-with-bombs-by-fbi)

At some point it becomes a thought crime doesn't it?

[molson]

EDIT: And if it is just a policing technique Molson why the fanfare and reporting to major news agencies? Sorry if I call bullshit on the purpose of these operations.

Data and information based intelligence seems a lot more fiscally responsible that the leg-work that goes along with chasing guys around the world, feigning terror plots, etc, even if that is a valid police technique. But you oppose all of the above on spending grounds, so I'm not sure what difference it makes.

[panerd]

Data and information based intelligence seems a lot more fiscally responsible that the leg-work that goes along with chasing guys around the world, feigning terror plots, etc, even if that is a valid police technique. But you oppose all of the above on spending grounds, so I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Oh come on. I love how thinking trillions of dollars of debt and a huge bloated military budget that is larger than the rest of the world by ions all of a sudden makes me anti road and anti spending any money on foiling terrorism. My point was they use these terror plots to justify the huge amounts of money they spend and I am guessing an operation like the one in the links I provided aint cheap.

[molson]

Oh come on. I love how thinking trillions of dollars of debt and a huge bloated military budget that is larger than the rest of the world by ions all of a sudden makes me anti road and anti spending any money on foiling terrorism. My point was they use these terror plots to justify the huge amounts of money they spend and I am guessing an operation like the one in the links I provided aint cheap.

What types of national security programs would you support then? What should the government spend money on? I actually haven't heard you make a case for anything.

Your rhetoric goes way beyond being against bloated military budgets. I'm probably the #3 or #4 libertarian/small government type guy on this board and I wonder sometimes if you are the guy in town who protests the building of every new road as a waste of money (we actually do have a lot of those people in Idaho, that does exist. last month we had people pissed off about the boise police department putting breast cancer awareness decals on police cars. ) I think you have some good points but I think you'd be more persuasive if you could identify something, anything, you think the government does well, or a positive direction they should continue to go in, or some actions that you think they should undertake. Instead it's just opposition to everything that ever happens always. Which makes it seem like the policy and the execution doesn't really matter to you and Ron Paul, it's just the concept of government itself that's offensive. That's why extreme viewpoints aren't very persuasive. Because they're fueled more by raw ideology and anger at systems instead of practical problem solving.

[panerd]

What types of national security programs would you support then? What should the government spend money on? I actually haven't heard you make a case for anything.

Your rhetoric goes way beyond being against bloated military budgets. I'm probably the #3 or #4 libertarian/small government type guy on this board and I wonder sometimes if you are the guy in town who protests the building of every new road as a waste of money (we actually do have a lot of those people in Idaho, that does exist. last month we had people pissed off about the boise police department putting breast cancer awareness decals on police cars. ) I think you have some good points but I think you'd be more persuasive if you could identify something, anything, you think the government does well, or a positive direction they should continue to go in, or some actions that you think they should undertake. Instead it's just opposition to everything that ever happens always. Which makes it seem like the policy and the execution doesn't really matter to you and Ron Paul, it's just the concept of government itself that's offensive. That's why extreme viewpoints aren't very persuasive. Because they're fueled more by raw ideology and anger at systems instead of practical problem solving.

I liken it to a MLB thread. We all agree Miggy is good, Carlos Marmol sucks, and Hamilton is having a shitty year by his standards. Do I have any clue on the specifics of training to be a baseball player or what Marmol could do to right the ship? Absolutely not. Do I know all the specifics of a good GM or bad one? No. I can tell you however who is good, who is in over their heads, and who sucks. I think our country's mindset on civil liberties and policing the world suck. Only in the political thread do any of us think that we are actually qualified to offer up a good solution. We spend a lot of money, a lot more than the rest of the world, and it is leading to all sorts of unforeseen economic issues. Am i qualified to fix it? No. But in my opinion neither is this current congress or current administration.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Really hope that this is a sign of heavy reform of the farm subsidies. I saw a lot of things while working at the USDA that irritated me to no end, mostly related to subsidies. Would love to see some changes, but I'm not holding my breath.

House defeats farm bill amid bipartisan opposition | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/20/house-to-vote-on-cuts-to-crop-insurance/)

[JPhillips]

Nope. This was all about gutting food stamps.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nope. This was all about gutting food stamps.

Which I'm fine with that as well. No reason food stamps should be in a farm bill. Very little reason to have them at all IMO.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, fuck people that can't afford food.

Grow a garden, losers.

[SirFozzie]

It was in a farm bill because for a while that was the quid pro quo, the R's get farm subsidies, the D's get food stamps

[RainMaker]

That's why extreme viewpoints aren't very persuasive. Because they're fueled more by raw ideology and anger at systems instead of practical problem solving.

This is exactly why they aren't taken seriously. They want a world that is black and white, when reality is shades of gray.

[JPhillips]

It was in a farm bill because for a while that was the quid pro quo, the R's get farm subsidies, the D's get food stamps

It's in the farm bill because the USDA handles food stamps. The ag bill is the perfect place for food stamps.

[RainMaker]

Which I'm fine with that as well. No reason food stamps should be in a farm bill. Very little reason to have them at all IMO.

So you worked at the USDA and didn't know that the "farm bill" isn't really about farms? It's just a catch-all for the country's food policy.

[AENeuman]

Yeah, fuck people that can't afford food.

Grow a garden, losers.

Working at Safeway through college I was amazed at the actual foods bought on stamps and wic.

I would say in order of who benefits the most from food stamp prgrams it would be:
Corporate farmers
Retail stores
Medical industry
Politicians


The hungry

[panerd]

This is exactly why they aren't taken seriously. They want a world that is black and white, when reality is shades of gray.

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party :rolleyes: you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

[panerd]

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting :) )

[RainMaker]

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party :rolleyes: you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

You don't actually hold positions. Being against government isn't a plan, it's just a vague statement that means nothing. Just like saying I'm against war and I'm for helping children. Well great, but holding a vague position doesn't actually translate into real world action.

When someone actually holds your feet to the fire and asks for a realistic plan that will work, you bloviate and strawman like you just did. You bring up Rubio or Obama supporters or Occupy which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. You don't actually have an idea that you think will work, you just think discrediting everyone else somehow makes you the de facto choice.

And it angers you that I don't have a party because it means you can't throw out a blanket strawman to cover that. You actually have to argue a real position which you're incapable of doing.

[RainMaker]

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting :) )

On cue, a strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

[panerd]

On cue, a strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

A challenge for you: (The person that understands the "shades of grey" and pragmatism involved in American politics) Go ahead and go through this entire 10,000+ post thread and find one post you have made that is pragmatic. Not a snippet of a post either, the entire thing. You live in this world where I am a ideologue but you are not. I understand if you think its a waste of your time and don't do it but more likely is you will find every post you make is some liberal line that is no different than me posting my viewpoints.

EDIT: Or even easier just have one fellow board member say they don't think you have any party allegiance.

[panerd]

And it angers you that I don't have a party because it means you can't throw out a blanket strawman to cover that. You actually have to argue a real position which you're incapable of doing.

This line makes me laugh. You honestly don't think you are a liberal/democrat. You must not read any of your posts after you submit them. At least DT, JPhillips, Molson, JiMGa realize they are presenting a viewpoint of a major political party you seem to think you are somehow somewhere in the middle.

[RainMaker]

This line makes me laugh. You honestly don't think you are a liberal/democrat. You must not read any of your posts after you submit them. At least DT, JPhillips, Molson, JiMGa realize they are presenting a viewpoint of a major political party you seem to think you are somehow somewhere in the middle.

I support the death penalty, 2nd amendment (to an extent), and I think the corporate tax rate should be lowered to 15%. I don't think we should be fighting wars in shithole countries in the Middle East or spending the kind of money we do on a gigantic military. I also think we should be beefing up our borders and not allowing anyone who wants in to come across. I think we should have a national health care system. But I also think we should be much more stringent on welfare benefits. I'm fine with small cuts to food stamps. I think we should be asking those who participate in welfare benefits for long periods of time to get on birth control. I think local governments should not give into union demands and have no problem with them refusing to negotiate. I think certain drugs should be legal and that I should be allowed to purchase my prescriptions overseas in a true open market. I think the Tea Party are a bunch of hypocritical, racist idiots and Occupy a bunch of self-entitled loser slacktivists.

So what party supports all that stuff? Obviously I have to be presenting the viewpoints of a major political party as you claim. Help me out here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party :rolleyes: you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

Bolded for emphasis.

"Thinking outside the box" alone isn't enough to make you a superior thinker. Plenty of people have thought "outside of the box" and have had stupid ideas. In fact, lumping everybody else who doesn't think "outside the box" with you into one other box and calling yourself superior to that is (a) intellectually lazy (because you're not evaluating individuals or their ideas individually), and (b) a pretty douchebag thing to do.

[DaddyTorgo]

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting :) )

Howso?

I'm an Atheist by the way.

Just because A holds true, doesn't mean that B holds true. That's a massive straw man argument there panerd. You're better than that.

[lungs]

re: Farm Bill

There was a little sideshow (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/306839-boehner-wins-dairy-fight-in-house-farm-bill#disqus_thread) that doesn't amount to a hill of beans to most but does to me.

The article I linked to is a little off the mark in saying who supports what. As a dairy farmer, I'm glad Boehner torpedoed the Dairy Market Stabilization Act that was attached to this farm bill, despite the support of the National Milk Producers Federation. This is more of a regional fight than a political fight.

Basically, that language would have limited growth and expansion for farmers like myself in the name of market stabilization. Or from my own perspective, it would protect the unchecked expansion of production in the West that has already occurred against the new wave of expansion in the Midwest that is happening right now. The Western states expanded production during times of low commodity prices and low fuel prices and now that the tables have turned they are screaming like stuck hogs because they can't make any money trucking all their feed in from the Midwest. Obviously, those of us in the Midwest are at an advantage as we grow our crops and don't have to transport them far in order to feed cows..

So all in all, they defeated the market stabilization act, then the bill as a whole was defeated. It doesn't bother me either way.

[larrymcg421]

I support the death penalty, 2nd amendment (to an extent), and I think the corporate tax rate should be lowered to 15%. I don't think we should be fighting wars in shithole countries in the Middle East or spending the kind of money we do on a gigantic military. I also think we should be beefing up our borders and not allowing anyone who wants in to come across. I think we should have a national health care system. But I also think we should be much more stringent on welfare benefits. I'm fine with small cuts to food stamps. I think we should be asking those who participate in welfare benefits for long periods of time to get on birth control. I think local governments should not give into union demands and have no problem with them refusing to negotiate. I think certain drugs should be legal and that I should be allowed to purchase my prescriptions overseas in a true open market. I think the Tea Party are a bunch of hypocritical, racist idiots and Occupy a bunch of self-entitled loser slacktivists.

So what party supports all that stuff? Obviously I have to be presenting the viewpoints of a major political party as you claim. Help me out here.

Hi Bill Clinton! How are you doing today?

[panerd]

Howso?

I'm an Atheist by the way.

Just because A holds true, doesn't mean that B holds true. That's a massive straw man argument there panerd. You're better than that.

I know you are an atheist, as am I. I feel like my viewpoint on religion is marginalized by almost every other viewpoint. So even though a Jew and a Christian can't both be right they are more apt to agree with and respect each other than an atheist. (IMO) The reason being somehow the burden of proof is on me to show I am right and not reasons why they are wrong. (Though this is as impossible to do)

Take us to politics. Why must there be a solution when my main claim is both the Republican and Democratic parties are wrong (i.e. on the take)? I do tend to agree often with the Libertarians but more in their views that the system is fucked up and corrupt and not necessarily with a lot of their proposed solutions. (I don't think I have ever been on here saying free market this, free market that. I just think a huge, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy is not the correct solution either) I guess I don't understand why I can't just point out the flaws without having to have a solution. (The most recent case in this thread being the utter waste of money we spend on defense)

I don't think its a complete strawman to compare the two situations and never intended to win a court case with it or anything. And as far as being arrogant or a "typical" atheist or Libertarian I pretty much only discuss religion or politics on places like this and unless specifically asked keep to myself on both topics in "real life". So I am only arrogant in so far as choosing to offend members of this board who I would think are aware of what is going to happen when they click on an internet message board topic titled "The Obama Presidency"

[panerd]

Bolded for emphasis.

"Thinking outside the box" alone isn't enough to make you a superior thinker. Plenty of people have thought "outside of the box" and have had stupid ideas. In fact, lumping everybody else who doesn't think "outside the box" with you into one other box and calling yourself superior to that is (a) intellectually lazy (because you're not evaluating individuals or their ideas individually), and (b) a pretty douchebag thing to do.

That's why I put superior in quotes. I feel like it is a charge leveled at me for saying how ridiculous the political system is in this country. I never claimed to be superior in any way.

[DaddyTorgo]

I know you are an atheist, as am I. I feel like my viewpoint on religion is marginalized by almost every other viewpoint. So even though a Jew and a Christian can't both be right they are more apt to agree with and respect each other than an atheist. (IMO) The reason being somehow the burden of proof is on me to show I am right and not reasons why they are wrong. (Though this is as impossible to do)

Take us to politics. Why must there be a solution when my main claim is both the Republican and Democratic parties are wrong (i.e. on the take)? I do tend to agree often with the Libertarians but more in their views that the system is fucked up and corrupt and not necessarily with a lot of their proposed solutions. (I don't think I have ever been on here saying free market this, free market that. I just think a huge, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy is not the correct solution either) I guess I don't understand why I can't just point out the flaws without having to have a solution. (The most recent case in this thread being the utter waste of money we spend on defense)

I don't think its a complete strawman to compare the two situations and never intended to win a court case with it or anything. And as far as being arrogant or a "typical" atheist or Libertarian I pretty much only discuss religion or politics on places like this and unless specifically asked keep to myself on both topics in "real life". So I am only arrogant in so far as choosing to offend members of this board who I would think are aware of what is going to happen when they click on an internet message board topic titled "The Obama Presidency"

I don't think "Democrats are always right." I mean it's not some blind, knee-jerk type reaction with me. When I'm looking at something (or choosing who to vote for) I look at each problem/policy and evaluate all of the proposed solutions, and decide which one I think will work best.

It just so happens that most of the time that's the Democratic solution. This isn't helped by the sheer asshattery of a lot of the people that the Republican party puts out there as candidates for office, or what they view as solutions to problems. And yes, in some cases it is a "lesser of two evils" type thing. I freely admit that.

I'm not sitting here with blinders on saying there are no corrupt politicians and Obama shits gold bricks and his farts smell like rainbows. But unless/until there's another VIABLE option (if I lived in Vermont it'd be saying voting for Bernie Sanders) then it becomes a "lesser of two evils" type situation.

And I freely recognize that by choosing that way I'm not like...helping to create that other viable option, but there are enough problems and serious issues that I think need addressing that I can't afford to cast a vote that will in essence be a "protest vote" or a "symbolic vote" or a "vote for change." Because if enough people think like I do and do that, then the "greater of two evils" might come into power and mess things up even more.

There's a tremendous amount of money and entrenched self-interest behind the two major parties. I firmly believe (and wish) we had more parties, but I don't know how we ever get there unless/until we get big-money out of politics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So you worked at the USDA and didn't know that the "farm bill" isn't really about farms? It's just a catch-all for the country's food policy.

Which is the whole point. It shouldn't be a catch all. They need to stop lumping funding together in a way that forces people to vote against 5% of the bill when the rest of it is just fine. But it's the way they do things so they can make comments like the post that JPhillips made in response to my original post. That's the American way, at least in political circles.

[JPhillips]

Which is the whole point. It shouldn't be a catch all. They need to stop lumping funding together in a way that forces people to vote against 5% of the bill when the rest of it is just fine. But it's the way they do things so they can make comments like the post that JPhillips made in response to my original post. That's the American way, at least in political circles.

I made my comment because you said food stamps should be eliminated.

As to lumping things together, at least things in the same department, that's a necessity. You can't create separate legislation for every item in the government. We don't vote on every individual spending in the Defense bill, because there isn't time to do that.

As for the 5%, the farm bill is loaded with crap subsidies well outside of food stamps. That "95%" should be a big problem for small government types, but the House GOP is more than willing to throw money at agri-business as long as they get to kick the poor a little, too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I made my comment because you said food stamps should be eliminated.

The food stamp system is an unmitigated disaster at this point. You can say it needs to be dumped. That doesn't mean there isn't a need, but the current system is not even remotely close to the right solution.

[JPhillips]

The food stamp system is an unmitigated disaster at this point. You can say it needs to be dumped. That doesn't mean there isn't a need, but the current system is not even remotely close to the right solution.

So what is your plan to feed people that can't afford food? The addition of SNAP benefits among beneficiaries reduces that group's poverty percentage by about half. That $1200 average monthly benefit helps a lot of people.

So what do you do after you dump it, expand access to dumpsters?

[JPhillips]

A new IRS report says that 501(c)4 groups with names including progressive and occupy were also targeted. If the IRS was targeting all manner of political groups, the story changes rather dramatically. They should be denying a lot more political groups tax free status IMO.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides “tea party,” lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms “Israel,” ”Progressive” and “Occupy.” The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

[DaddyTorgo]

A new IRS report says that 501(c)4 groups with names including progressive and occupy were also targeted. If the IRS was targeting all manner of political groups, the story changes rather dramatically. They should be denying a lot more political groups tax free status IMO.

As I suspected all along, and yes...I too have zero problems with this. These primarily-political groups shouldn't be tax-free.

[Buccaneer]

Does Ginsburg ever argue on the basis of constitutionality? Not saying positions are wrong (they're not sometimes) but I perceive she is much less interested in what it says and its basis for law than on need and desires.

[larrymcg421]

Does Ginsburg ever argue on the basis of constitutionality? Not saying positions are wrong (they're not sometimes) but I perceive she is much less interested in what it says and its basis for law than on need and desires.

Where do you perceive that? In the opening paragraph of her dissent, she mentions the enacting clause of the post-civil war amendments. Pretty sure those are in the Constitution. That's the whole basis for her opinion and she revisits it several times, ultimately concluding that the VRA is a proper exercise of Congressional power under the 15th Amendment.

[DaddyTorgo]

*Sigh*

What country do I live in again? Cuz it sure as shit ain't the beacon of liberty & democracy, the shining city on a hill of Winthrop.

[ISiddiqui]

You mean due to the Supreme Court ruling that it isn't 1972 any more and therefore Congress should realize that when violating state sovereign equality (which was only allowed due to "exceptional conditions" - South Carolina v. Katzenbach) it should take into account voter turnout and voting tests done a bit closer to the present (as the renewals in 1970 and 1975 did indeed undertake)?

[DaddyTorgo]

You mean due to the Supreme Court ruling that it isn't 1972 any more and therefore Congress should realize that when violating state sovereign equality (which was only allowed due to "exceptional conditions" - South Carolina v. Katzenbach) it should take into account voter turnout and voting tests done a bit closer to the present (as the renewals in 1970 and 1975 did indeed undertake)?

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

Then again I think we should have a Constitutional Amendment and impartial, apolitical federal oversight. How that's done I'm not sure...but hell...I'm open to inviting in UN monitors, or Canadian monitors or whatever (cue the "black helicopter conspiracy" crowd).

[molson]

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

That's true, but should the Supreme Court consider the ineptitude of Congress in determining what should be legal rulings? Though I'm sure both the majority and dissent were well aware of the practical results. I don't know the law in this area well enough to even try to parse out the legal analysis from the desired-results voting in this case though. Though I'm sure there's plenty of the latter on both sides.

Edit: I mean, just as a different-universe kind of hypothetical if it was the opposite side bringing the action, what if the government was relying on data from 40 years ago that showed zero racism, whereas modern data would have showed rampant racism? Should the government get to be bound by the old data and not react to the new data just because they suck?

[larrymcg421]

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

So the SCOTUS should allow an unconstitutional law because Congress can't get its shit together?! What kind of bullshit is that?

[ISiddiqui]

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

The VRA was originally intended to be a temporary measure, because it was due to extraordinary circumstances that it was allowed to pass muster to begin with (due to its trampling on federalism and sovereign equality). It was not supposed to be something to be with us forever. If it has worked, then it has worked. If there is still work to be done, then come up with better reasoning to decide discrimination today.

If there isn't evidence of discrimination today, then the preclearance is not required, the VRA did its job and good. However, relying on 1972 data to keep putting the screws on is ridiculous. You can't tell me that Atlanta, with African Americans going back the last three mayoral administrations, as well as Congressional districts, one being occupied by John Lewis, still is in danger of discriminating against African-Americans and thus needs preclearance by the Justice Department. That's just absurd on its face.

[molson]

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

What we'd be without the VRA today isn't necessarily the same as what we'd be without the VRA in 1970.

Couldn't there be a modern analysis, with modern data, that attempted to make that distinction? Or are we just forever stuck with 1970 data, on the theory that we'd go right back to 1970 society immediately if the VRA isn't around? Even though demographics and other laws have changed in the meantime.

[Shkspr]

Rule of thumb: any legal decision that rules in favor of Alabama is flawed.

[larrymcg421]

The VRA was originally intended to be a temporary measure, because it was due to extraordinary circumstances that it was allowed to pass muster to begin with (due to its trampling on federalism and sovereign equality). It was not supposed to be something to be with us forever. If it has worked, then it has worked. If there is still work to be done, then come up with better reasoning to decide discrimination today.

If there isn't evidence of discrimination today, then the preclearance is not required, the VRA did its job and good. However, relying on 1972 data to keep putting the screws on is ridiculous. You can't tell me that Atlanta, with African Americans going back the last three mayoral administrations, as well as Congressional districts, one being occupied by John Lewis, still is in danger of discriminating against African-Americans and thus needs preclearance by the Justice Department. That's just absurd on its face.

And as Ginsburg said, that line of logic is like putting your umbrella away in the rain because you were no longer getting wet. Just because it worked doesn't mean we no longer need it.

And Atlanta isn't one of the loaclities complaining about this. In fact, Mayor Kasim Reed and John Lewis both support the voting rights act and still want the preclearance in place.

[molson]

Part of me wants to say, well, if Congress wants to rely on 40-year old data in carrying out modern social policy, they have the authority to do that, and we elected them, so whatever. It's not the Supreme Court's role to second-guess Congress' utilization of its 14th amendment authority to do stuff like this.

[ISiddiqui]

And as Ginsburg said, that line of logic is like putting your umbrella away in the rain because you were no longer getting wet. Just because it worked doesn't mean we no longer need it.

And when is it determined that VRA is not required? 200 years from now are we still going to be renewing it based on 1972 statistics because "we may still need it"? If you are going to allow a law that violates the Constitution due to extraordinary circumstances, it needs to be narrowly tailored. This is not that.

And Atlanta isn't one of the loaclities complaining about this. In fact, Mayor Kasim Reed and John Lewis both support the voting rights act and still want the preclearance in place.

They support it, but do you really think that the city needs it? Just because they are willing to take on the burden so that people they don't like have to take it on, doesn't mean it should be required upon them.

[larrymcg421]

Where are people getting this idea that only evidence from 40 years ago was considered? Ginsburg's opinion lists evidence as recent as 2006 (the year before the renewal), noting the number of discriminatory policies that were blocked as reason for the continuing need of the VRA. She lists several examples of them that were put in the Congressional record during the consideration of the renewal.

[ISiddiqui]

Where are people getting this idea that only evidence from 40 years ago was considered? Ginsburg's opinion lists evidence as recent as 2006 (the year before the renewal), noting the number of discriminatory policies that were blocked as reason for the continuing need of the VRA. She lists several examples of them that were put in the Congressional record during the consideration of the renewal.

The criteria that determines whether or not states are on the preclearance list take into account voter turnout and registration from 1972. In the 2006 renewal they looked at instances of discriminatory policies to continue the VRA, but kept the criteria for who would covered as of 1972 numbers (disregarding that likely the main minority voting concern these days is likely to be Hispanics rather than the African Americans).

That was mostly done (using 1972 voter turnout and registration numbers) due to stuff like this:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/us/politics/26race-gap/26race-gap-blog480.png

[JPhillips]

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

[Dutch]

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

Why are voter ID laws worrisome again?

[JPhillips]

Because they disproportionately effect the poor and elderly while doing almost nothing to combat the kinds of voter fraud that actually happen. The number of people who are stopped from voting is much, much higher than the number of fraud cases stopped.

edit: Ohio just released a study of fraud in the 2012 election. They found a total of 135 cases to forward to prosecutors and of that number only a fraction would have been stopped by voter ID. The "cure" is far worse than the disease, unless the whole point is to make it harder for traditional Democratic voting blocks to vote.

[DaddyTorgo]

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

Shit - not even 2 HOURS passed before Texas said they were putting the Voter ID and gerrymandered-maps back into effect.

And people think we didn't need preclearance??

But as I said - I'm probably in the minority in that I'm in favor of national preclearance, for all states/areas.

[Buccaneer]

I would not understand the legal opinions, just reacting what was said in the CNN article. One side seemed to have provided examples of how the two Sections were outdated, while the other said "overwhelming bipartisan support," saying the representatives legitimately exercised their constitutional powers in doing so." A lot of Congress has done was not (and is not) constitutional so just because it was passed with "bipartisan support" means nothing under the law, I don't think. The solution, as it appears, is for Congress to tighten/change the law so it would be clearly constitutional.

[Dutch]

Because they disproportionately effect the poor and elderly while doing almost nothing to combat the kinds of voter fraud that actually happen. The number of people who are stopped from voting is much, much higher than the number of fraud cases stopped.

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

[SirFozzie]

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

Because they are the most likely not to have the items demanded for proof of citizenship.

Because they are the most likely to have such items challenged.

[JPhillips]

Because in most cases it costs to get to the office and it costs to provide the documentation required to get the "free" ID. Now it's possible to design a voter ID bill that overcomes these obstacles, but when the goal is keeping people from voting the procedures need to be as difficult as you can get away with.

[RainMaker]

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

Because some people think that being poor, black, or elderly means you are incompetent and can't do anything for yourself.

I don't really care to get into the voter ID stuff, but I wonder if people get sick of those on the left treating them like children.

[Dutch]

Doesn't it cost to get to the voting station and wait in line for 4 hours to vote?

Could the DNC and the RNC not use all of their resources to get all of their constituents "free" voter ID cards? And in those rare cases where people have NO PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, help those people get the required documentation provided that they are in fact citizens?

Wouldn't a Voter ID card system eliminate much of the suspicion of people being blocked to vote?

I mean, if we have 250 million driver's licenses and only 50 million voter ID cards....I'd say we have a national crisis on our hands. If we marry the two together, that covers over 90% of people aged 18 or older.

The benefit of moving to a voter id solution is that we can implement PKI certs and allow people to vote from home or from work one day....thus allowing the poor, the elderly, and the oft-forgot about employed-and-unable-to-leave-work citizens from voting.

Technology, maybe we should embrace it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

the oft-forgot about employed-and-unable-to-leave-work citizens from voting.

I wonder how many people were like me & thought the laws requiring employers to allow workers a reasonable amount of time to vote were federal, rather than state by state?

And I say that as someone who not only could be described as more political than the average person but who also spent roughly 20 years covering elections as part of the media.

I don't know that it ever once crossed my mind that there were states where that wasn't the case.

Here's a table with the state-by-state requirements (http://www.findlaw.com/voting-rights-law.html), in case anybody else is now wondering.

[JPhillips]

Doesn't it cost to get to the voting station and wait in line for 4 hours to vote?

Could the DNC and the RNC not use all of their resources to get all of their constituents "free" voter ID cards? And in those rare cases where people have NO PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, help those people get the required documentation provided that they are in fact citizens?

Wouldn't a Voter ID card system eliminate much of the suspicion of people being blocked to vote?

I mean, if we have 250 million driver's licenses and only 50 million voter ID cards....I'd say we have a national crisis on our hands. If we marry the two together, that covers over 90% of people aged 18 or older.

The benefit of moving to a voter id solution is that we can implement PKI certs and allow people to vote from home or from work one day....thus allowing the poor, the elderly, and the oft-forgot about employed-and-unable-to-leave-work citizens from voting.

Technology, maybe we should embrace it.

As I said, you could design a good voter ID system, although the costs would far outweigh the benefits. However, the purpose is to make it harder to vote, that's why most voter ID bills are accompanied by reducing early voting hours, eliminating same day registration and moving/reducing polling places in poor areas.

[molson]

Could the DNC and the RNC not use all of their resources to get all of their constituents "free" voter ID cards?

You'd think helping everyone get ID would also facilitate their participation in government programs they presumably would benefit from, being poor and elderly.

As long as we're assigning underhanded motives for everything though, it probably helps Dems to keep people as disenfranchised as possible, because those voters will always be on their side. Gotta be careful these people don't get back on their feet - they might vote Republican if they enter the middle class. I'm being a little facetious here, but the reverse of that idea (edit: or really, the same idea to attack motives as purely political/racial), is thrown out there pretty regularly against those who are on the "wrong side" of this policy, or this supreme court opinion.

[Buccaneer]

Esp. in a blue state like Alabama.

[Dutch]

You'd think helping everyone get ID would also facilitate their participation in government programs they presumably would benefit from, being poor and elderly.

As long as we're assigning underhanded motives for everything though, it probably helps Dems to keep people as disenfranchised as possible, because those voters will always be on their side. Gotta be careful these people don't get back on their feet - they might vote Republican if they enter the middle class. I'm being a little facetious here, but the reverse of that idea (edit: or really, the same idea to attack motives as purely political/racial), is thrown out there pretty regularly against those who are on the "wrong side" of this policy, or this supreme court opinion.

I always like to say that if the majority of people making less than $55K are Democrats and a majority of people making more than $55K are Republicans, which would Republicans rather see more of? :)

[Dutch]

As I said, you could design a good voter ID system, although the costs would far outweigh the benefits. However, the purpose is to make it harder to vote, that's why most voter ID bills are accompanied by reducing early voting hours, eliminating same day registration and moving/reducing polling places in poor areas.

Okay, so let's you and me make it easier to vote by demanding a better system that includes on-line voting with PKI certs. It's not that hard and really it's not that expensive either. And what is the cost that should outweight a person's right to vote? If people can't vote, the costs are inconsequential (and if the funds are coming out of donated DNC and RNC pools...man, I'm game! ...maybe, just maybe that money could be used for good instead of another really fucking stupid $50M mud-slinging commercial.)

[JPhillips]

I'm all in favor of expanding access to voting, and I'm not opposed to verifying ID. My problem is that the way it's done is designed to reduce voting. I don't know what the hell a PKI cert is, but on-line voting isn't a problem for me in general.

[Dutch]

I'm all in favor of expanding access to voting, and I'm not opposed to verifying ID. My problem is that the way it's done is designed to reduce voting. I don't know what the hell a PKI cert is, but on-line voting isn't a problem for me in general.

Sorry, PKI is mostly used in the DOD. It's just a way of verifying that you are who you say you are and it can be imbedded in a small tag on the driver's license card or alternate ID card.

Military personnel have used it for quite a while now to verify who goes on military and federal installations (and log in to our workstations).

Again, there's no way it reduces voting if the RNC and DNC use their massive resources to leave no stone unturned to "get the voters registered". Once we get that in place, implementing an on-line voting solution will be possible and at that point, voting will be trusted and turnout will INCREASE.

[SirFozzie]

Straight out of "Mr Smith Goes to Washington"

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is in the final stages of a 13 hour filibuster on restricting abortions that's some of the strictest in the nation. She can't talk or drink, or even lean against something or sit.

Texas senator Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion bill - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590966/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-against-abortion-bill/)

edit: If she can make it to midnight, the special session of the Texas legislature ends and they'll have to take up the bill fresh next session.

[JonInMiddleGA]

maybe, just maybe that money could be used for good

I can't think of much in life that has less "good" associated with it than increased voter participation.

[SirFozzie]

I can't think of much in life that has less "good" associated with it than increased voter participation.

Yeah, who needs that pesky republic/democracy, yaknow?

[RainMaker]

Yeah, who needs that pesky republic/democracy, yaknow?

Your vote counts for more the less people vote. Might be shitty to say, but if you want a government under your vision, you're better off letting apathetic people stay home.

[SirFozzie]

Your vote counts for more the less people vote. Might be shitty to say, but if you want a government under your vision, you're better off letting apathetic people stay home.

Congrats, you've hit upon the GOP strategy. The poor and elderly are more likely to vote D. Folks who wait four + hours to vote are more likely to vote D. So? You make it harder for the poor and elderly to vote. You reduce the hours in some areas so the folks waiting four hours to vote get shut out.

(note for the record, you=gop not RainMaker)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, who needs that pesky republic/democracy, yaknow?

The highest the participation, the lower the common denominator.

[SirFozzie]

The highest the participation, the lower the common denominator.

Funny, sounds like you're arguing you want a Politburo. You know, 12 men deciding the future of a nation...

Have you ever said "Workers of the World, Unite!', Comrade JoninMiddleGa?

[SirFozzie]

Edit: Looks like the Republicans are using a parlimentary trick to try to declare the filibuster over to rush through the votes.

[Scoobz0202]

Edit: Looks like the Republicans are using a parlimentary trick to try to declare the filibuster over to rush through the votes.

Former Austin mayor Kirk Watson is trying to John Wayne it