Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Scoops Novel]

I enjoyed that.

(Read the captions before feeding him magma)

[XXSockXX]

Oh no, XKCD is watching us! Surveillance everywhere...

[SalmonGod]

A friend just shared that with me, and I rushed in here to see if anyone else had posted it yet

[Scoops Novel]

 

Salmongod, how's this going over with occupy/other protesting groups with which your familiar? Anything happening in the Hong Kong branch?

[SalmonGod]

I don't know anything about protest activity in Hong Kong.  There's a lot of preparation going on for the Occupy National Gathering in Kalamazoo, Michigan from Aug 21-25.  Other than that, I don't see much news these days about Occupy activist stuff happening.  All the feeds I'm subscribed to just post news lately.  There was supposed to be an event with Occupy re-taking Liberty Park the day after the protests in Turkey began, but never heard anything else about it.  I think the scale of events in Turkey drowned everything else out.

[palsch]

I strongly doubt this is going to pass, but this could be huge.

A bill to sunset the AUMF in December 2014. (.pdf)

The AUMF is the law from which pretty much all current 'war on terror' powers flow. All military detention, all operations in Afghanistan, all drone strikes, everything. Obama made noises about repeal/reform of this a while ago, and it seems like at least a few congresscritters are ready to make the jump.

The timeframe would allow for new legislation to be passed to grant whatever powers the government want to retain, but would do so in the light of day and hopefully by making more sense.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Good. I support it any all earmarks required to force it through.

[misko27]

Question on the light of day.


Assuming the best situation developed possible in terms of that. Totally open proceedings, all Politicians exposed to the Raw Media Coverage and Twitter-based wave of Opinion. What, in your opinion, would be the result of that?

Good. I support it any all earmarks required to force it through.

Earmarks? Those are almost totally unrelated. Perhaps you are referring to legislative tactics?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Earmarks? Those are almost totally unrelated. Perhaps you are referring to legislative tactics?

I suggest looking into how you get representatives to actually pass anything nowadays. Earmarks will be required to get anything of any magnitude through the House. The Senate, less likely, but the House is full of members with no accountability and therefore the only way to get legislation done is to allow them to insert self-serving amendments along the way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Good to hear the Tea Party Caucus has your support on the National Security Exception earmark, then.

There's just no way to get legislation like that passed without something that makes it useless. Everyone cheers because they think they solved something and nothing changes.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Good to hear the Tea Party Caucus has your support on the National Security Exception earmark, then.

Sure hope that was sarcasm, bud. Because I support privacy more than anything and I take exception to you insinuating I'm A 'Tea Party Caucus' / 'National Security Earmark' supporter.

Remember, the Senate didn't even vote on the Gun Control measure. 90%-support issue. You've got to leverage your bills to do anything in congress.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm pointing out that trying to get bills like this passed by giving out earmarks is functionally the same as preventing them from being passed, other than reducing public interest.

[misko27]

Leverage isn't Earmarks though, it's Amendments.

Regardless, how about dat Immigration Bill inching through the senate? For people who follow it (which does not include most people who are supposedly interesting in politics), it seems to be getting along fine. Bumpy roads ahead, but it's arguably got the best chance for passing in something true to it original design of all the legislation passed for a while. I mean hell, people are talking about it passing the house. The House. The House. Is my point not clear?


Oh, and dude, Earmarks were banned from all legislation. They still slip by through a few bureaucrats, but no one is exactly negotiating bills on it.

[Sheb]

When were they? I remember footage on the Daily Show of John Kerry threatening to block  disaster relief bill if an unrelated help for Massachusetts fishermen wasn't put in.

How else do you explain that little states like Vermont get so much more federal money per capita than larger ones like New York?

[Loud Whispers]

It [PRISM] does require a great deal of trust in the government holding such a database both for them not to abuse it and to keep it secure (although in this case only as secure as the teleco that originally held it). In this case all three branches have oversight (although FISA courts rather than general courts), so plenty of theoretical checks and balances working to keep them honest. But I doubt that's enough for many people.

Could this data be used to blackmail members of congress?