NSA reforms fail in the senate

[Matt1970]

Remarkable. Any unsubstantiated assertion that affirms your belief system is instantly absorbed as "fact", then embellished further to suit your agenda.

More info-

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...otes-short-of-shutting-down-nsa-phone-spying/

Did you miss the question mark?

 

[Jhhnn]

And what about the 2 years when the dems ram both houses of congress? Obama, Palpatine, and the unblinking one could've dealt with it then, but they didn't. I have no love for the spineless lot of reps in DC, but the dems are a brood of malevolent sociopaths.

Dems only had a veto proof majority for a few months in 2009, before Ted Kennedy died. NSA excesses were not widely known at the time, either.

There was a similar fracas last time the Patriot Act came up for renewal, iirc, with Repubs taking an all or nothing position, thereby winning that fight.

Perhaps you might consider integrating facts into the formulation of your opinion. Try it- "I think Dems are a malevolent brood of sociopaths because... (state reasons)"

Or do you require no reasons for saying that?

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you miss the question mark?

Did you miss the rhetorical nature of your own question?

Or did Rand Paul vote for extending provisions of the Patriot Act because he's against it, as HR would have you believe?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Again, nothing but brain-dead rationalization on your part. But not surprising as you're regarded as only having a couple IQ points above McOwned. It's a filibuster proof majority, not a veto proof majority. And Obama was anti Patriot act and anti Gitmo. He had the political capital to push both of those straight off and he refused. It would've been the perfect time for the dems to drive another nail in the reps coffin, but they liked the power that the Patriot act gave them, so there's no way that they were gonna push its demise when they had the means to do so.

Dems only had a veto proof majority for a few months in 2009, before Ted Kennedy died. NSA excesses were not widely known at the time, either.

There was a similar fracas last time the Patriot Act came up for renewal, iirc, with Repubs taking an all or nothing position, thereby winning that fight.

Perhaps you might consider integrating facts into the formulation of your opinion. Try it- "I think Dems are a malevolent brood of sociopaths because... (state reasons)"

Or do you require no reasons for saying that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did you miss the rhetorical nature of your own question?

Or did Rand Paul vote for extending provisions of the Patriot Act because he's against it, as HR would have you believe?

Oh look, it seems Paul was against it more than your overlords Obama and Feinstein.

You also fail (not surprisingly) to note this automatically extends the Patriot Act, something you embrace. No? Well you conveniently ignored that fact.

 

[nageov3t]

hopefully the new Senate ends up being so dysfunctional that this provision of the Patriot Act is allowed to expire.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh look, it seems Paul was against it more than your overlords Obama and Feinstein.

You also fail (not surprisingly) to note this automatically extends the Patriot Act, something you embrace. No? Well you conveniently ignored that fact.

Considering the rhetoric used by Republicans in opposing this, it's pretty hard to conclude anything other than that they thought this didn't go far enough as opposed to going too far.

Also, as Rand Paul appears to move closer to running for president it is impressive to see how quickly he is jettisoning his more libertarian positions. Suddenly he has decided against scrapping medicare, wants to bomb foreign countries, etc.

 

[Atreus21]

Good'ol Mitch mcconnel doing the best he can for us Americans.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/...t-limits-on-the-nsa-fails-key-senate?s=mobile



Anyone know the details of the bill and who voted which way? And keep in mind, this was simply a vote to allow it to be debated. If it would have passed it really wouldn't have meant much other than a discussion is finally being had.

Wait, you guys should be against this too. For God's sake, Ted Cruz co-sponsored it. Mike Lee! My God.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, nothing but brain-dead rationalization on your part. But not surprising as you're regarded as only having a couple IQ points above McOwned. It's a filibuster proof majority, not a veto proof majority. And Obama was anti Patriot act and anti Gitmo. He had the political capital to push both of those straight off and he refused. It would've been the perfect time for the dems to drive another nail in the reps coffin, but they liked the power that the Patriot act gave them, so there's no way that they were gonna push its demise when they had the means to do so.

Wow! Speaking of having a low IQ!

Not only wasn't obama "ant patriot act", he voted to reauthorize it (all but three candidates supported the patriot act, mike gravel, kucinich, and Ron Paul).
And while he vowed to close gitmo, he was blocked by congress, both republicans and democrats.

Nice revisionist history though!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.homelandsecurity.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20detain.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Considering the rhetoric used by Republicans in opposing this, it's pretty hard to conclude anything other than that they thought this didn't go far enough as opposed to going too far.

Also, as Rand Paul appears to move closer to running for president it is impressive to see how quickly he is jettisoning his more libertarian positions. Suddenly he has decided against scrapping medicare, wants to bomb foreign countries, etc.

My point is that Paul's position on this has been consistent, so the other poster trying to make it seem that Paul just opposed this out of some sense of spite for whomever is patently false. This has also been a remarkably non-partisan issue, or cross partisan perhaps with people aligning on both sides and have had for some time.

I think it's time for the Patriot Act to fall, and has been. Putting this forward as a means of extending it is not worth while. If the Republicans and Democrats see fit to do so when the time comes let it be on the Acts merits and not on "let's offer something so we can put ourselves in the best light."

 

[fskimospy]

My point is that Paul's position on this has been consistent, so the other poster trying to make it seem that Paul just opposed this out of some sense of spite for whomever is patently false. This has also been a remarkably non-partisan issue, or cross partisan perhaps with people aligning on both sides of the issue and have had for some time.

I think it's time for the Patriot Act to fall, and has been. Putting this forward as a means of extending it is not worth while. If the Republicans and Democrats see fit to do so when the time comes let it be on the Acts merits and not on "let's offer something so we can put ourselves in the best light."

I find that the public's general understanding of the patriot act is problematic. The act has a number of provisions that a deeply, deeply, dislike, but the majority of it is actually quite a good idea. You don't hear about the good parts, though. I would like to amend the patriot act to remove the parts of it that are really an affront to civil liberties, but to let it expire as a whole? No thanks.

BTW, I don't actually prize consistency in politicians much. I don't care if you changed your mind so long as I think you're doing the right thing. In this case Rand Paul is certainly much closer to the right thing than say, Diane Feinstein.

If only he could crack open an economics textbook we might be onto something!

 

[ivwshane]

Oh look, it seems Paul was against it more than your overlords Obama and Feinstein.

You also fail (not surprisingly) to note this automatically extends the Patriot Act, something you embrace. No? Well you conveniently ignored that fact.

What does a 2011 bill/article pre snowden leaks have to do with this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow! Speaking of having a low IQ!

Not only wasn't obama "ant patriot act", he voted to reauthorize it (all but three candidates supported the patriot act, mike gravel, kucinich, and Ron Paul).
And while he vowed to close gitmo, he was blocked by congress, both republicans and democrats.

Nice revisionist history though!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.homelandsecurity.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20detain.html?pagewanted=all

Paul caved and he should not have. Unlike Feinstein and others in the other party he did not embrace it. See my link. He was the last hold out.

Now you mention this bill which extends the patriot act and by logical consequence you support that. All else mentioned pales in significance to that, yet that seems to be downplayed. That's why Feinstein supported it by her own admission. She doesn't want this, but hey if if saves the Greater Good of the Patriot Act she's all over it. Why would you likewise embrace it?

 

[ivwshane]

Wait, you guys should be against this too. For God's sake, Ted Cruz co-sponsored it. Mike Lee! My God.

Just because that's the mentality of republicans doesn't mean that's the mentality of dems.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dems only had a veto proof majority for a few months in 2009, before Ted Kennedy died. NSA excesses were not widely known at the time, either.

Waiting for the President to pardon Snowden. That'd give Democrats a good position to claim on this issue.

Anyone who opposed that action would be no friend of mine. If that falls on the Republicans, then so be it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What does a 2011 bill/article pre snowden leaks have to do with this?

Why should the post Snowden leaks encourage support of the Patriot Act now?

 

[fskimospy]

Waiting for the President to pardon Snowden. That'd give Democrats a good position to claim on this issue.

Ugh, he better not. Snowden belongs in prison for a very, very long time.

If he had only stuck to NSA and other surveillance abuses I would be his biggest fan.

He didn't. In fact, he didn't even try. He's a scumbag.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Waiting for the President to pardon Snowden. That'd give Democrats a good position to claim on this issue.

Anyone who opposed that action would be no friend of mine. If that falls on the Republicans, then so be it.

Obama virtually threatened the entire world to get at Snowden so I don't think a pardon is in the latter's future.

 

[ivwshane]

Paul caved and he should not have. Unlike Feinstein and others in the other party he did not embrace it. See my link. He was the last hold out.

Now you mention this bill which extends the patriot act and by logical consequence you support that. All else mentioned pales in significance to that, yet that seems to be downplayed. That's why Feinstein supported it by her own admission. She doesn't want this, but hey if if saves the Greater Good of the Patriot Act she's all over it. Why would you likewise embrace it?

I support fixing something when there are no other viable alternatives. Unlike you, I'm not an all or nothing kind of guy. Unlike you, I understand that government isn't capable of creating a perfect law and incremental steps have to be made to get to a good balance of security vs rights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I support fixing something when there are no other viable alternatives. Unlike you, I'm not an all or nothing kind of guy. Unlike you, I understand that government isn't capable of creating a perfect law and incremental steps have to be made to get to a good balance of security vs rights.

Then you support the Patriot Act. Fair enough. I'm for waiting until June (I believe) and have a chance to take the whole thing down.

 

[ivwshane]

Why should the post Snowden leaks encourage support of the Patriot Act now?

The whole point of this senate bill was to bring about changes to the patriot act, changes based off of information gained from snowdens leak. Prior to that most of congress didn't take much issue with the patriot act, clearly things have changed.

Showing how congress voted prior to that is pointless and unrelated to the vote they had the other night.

 

[ivwshane]

Then you support the Patriot Act. Fair enough. I'm for waiting until June (I believe) and have a chance to take the whole thing down.

Lol! There you go again, it's all or nothing with you. It's your biggest flaw

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol! There you go again, it's all or nothing with you. It's your biggest flaw

There are things I am all or nothing on. I am all for Constitutional rights. I do not believe, unlike some, that a police officer should be found guilty to appease a particular group, whether it was Wilson or Dreyfus. I don't believe you should be denied your Constitutional protection to unreasonable search and seizure. I don't believe you should be spirited away without recourse, or trial, or even charges, denied legal representation and vindication. If that's a flaw I'm quite proud of that fact.

Now if the Act is not renewed then that's all for the good as far as I'm concerned, but adding a couple years here, a couple there, when we are months away from a potential elimination is tacit support. If it gets renewed afterwards then maybe there will be enough fuss to put more teeth into this compromise you endorse. But why wait when you can compromise away your rights now?

No thanks. You are for, I'm against and we've dealt with this long enough that I can wait the several months to bring this to an outright vote and see just who supports what, be they Democrat or Republican.

 

[thraashman]

I know the libs are confused. but the democrats currently run the senate

Some idiots don't seem to understand that the shift change doesn't happen til January, but already blaming Repubs for current events. Liberals..... lol!

I love it when the both of you post and show your rampant stupidity. So in your minds democrats are to blame for 41 Republicans voting against ending the filibuster while only 1 Democrat voted against it. I'm honestly amazed neither of you has been forcefully institutionalized yet.

 

[fskimospy]

There are things I am all or nothing on. I am all for Constitutional rights. I do not believe, unlike some, that a police officer should be found guilty to appease a particular group, whether it was Wilson or Dreyfus. I don't believe you should be denied your Constitutional protection to unreasonable search and seizure. I don't believe you should be spirited away without recourse, or trial, or even charges, denied legal representation and vindication. If that's a flaw I'm quite proud of that fact.

Now if the Act is not renewed then that's all for the good as far as I'm concerned, but adding a couple years here, a couple there, when we are months away from a potential elimination is tacit support. If it gets renewed afterwards then maybe there will be enough fuss to put more teeth into this compromise you endorse. But why wait when you can compromise away your rights now?

No thanks. You are for, I'm against and we've dealt with this long enough that I can wait the several months to bring this to an outright vote and see just who supports what, be they Democrat or Republican.

But constitutional rights are basically by definition grey areas?