NSA reforms fail in the senate

[nageov3t]

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.

well no, but blaming Mitch McConnell specifically seems a little silly, unless he was out there telling his Senators to vote against the bill or else.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

We already know who supports it and who doesn't, do you think politicians are going to magically change their position? Have you heard anyone publicly running on repealing the patriot act?

You are hoping for something that has zero chance of happening. How long do you plan on waiting for this mythical bill of repeal? How many times does a vote to amend/protect US citizens need to come up before you realize it's the best option we have given the circumstances?

Listen, if there was a large group of politicians who wanted to repeal the patriot act but were just a little shy of having the necessary votes and there was a campaign to repeal it then I'd be right there with you saying, let's wait till we get the support we need and do this this right. But we aren't even close to that scenario, so when it comes to fixing a bad law or waiting for an unknown amount of time to repeal a bad law, I guess I'm just a sucker for giving people back their rights little by little and you aren't.

 

[ivwshane]

well no, but blaming Mitch McConnell specifically seems a little silly, unless he was out there telling his Senators to vote against the bill or else.

Did you read the article?

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was also whipping against the bill, saying early Tuesday on the Senate floor that in the middle of the fight against ISIS was not the time to reform the NSA. The Obama administration had come out in support of Leahy's bill.

So yes, he was out telling people how to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, if Rand Paul approved of curtailing the NSA but not of extending the patriot act, why didn't he just submit an amendment that would do just that? Would have been easy to do.

 

[ivwshane]

By the way, if Rand Paul approved of curtailing the NSA but not of extending the patriot act, why didn't he just submit an amendment that would do just that? Would have been easy to do.

Well, this was simply a vote to bring this bill to debate. Had it passed he then could have added amendments. The fact that he voted against even bringing the bill up for debate is quite puzzling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We already know who supports it and who doesn't, do you think politicians are going to magically change their position? Have you heard anyone publicly running on repealing the patriot act?

You are hoping for something that has zero chance of happening. How long do you plan on waiting for this mythical bill of repeal? How many times does a vote to amend/protect US citizens need to come up before you realize it's the best option we have given the circumstances?

Listen, if there was a large group of politicians who wanted to repeal the patriot act but were just a little shy of having the necessary votes and there was a campaign to repeal it then I'd be right there with you saying, let's wait till we get the support we need and do this this right. But we aren't even close to that scenario, so when it comes to fixing a bad law or waiting for an unknown amount of time to repeal a bad law, I guess I'm just a sucker for giving people back their rights little by little and you aren't.

You seem to think the Patriot Act is just about the NSA. Well it's not, but if you feel that you can support it and make certain there is absolutely no comprehensive alternative then that is your right. If in 6 months or so there's no pressure and no support to eliminate or sharply curtail it's many excesses then you have the pleasure of saying "I told you so". In that case you'll have the act you support, no matter how you justify doing so. As for me I'm for being patient a little while longer and yes a bit more optimistic that I won't sell out when there is a chance (no matter how remote you believe it to be) to do something significant and permanent. By all means feel free to compromise now and lock in the Act, but that's moot now. Maybe Feinstein can push something through that she likes which you'll sign onto, but chances are we're going to see necks squarely in the noose. Perhaps that famous Republican obstructionism against Obama will win the day. We'll see who are the opponents and how they do.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, this was simply a vote to bring this bill to debate. Had it passed he then could have added amendments. The fact that he voted against even bringing the bill up for debate is quite puzzling.

Oh duh. Good point.

 

[ivwshane]

You seem to think the Patriot Act is just about the NSA. Well it's not, but if you feel that you can support it and make certain there is absolutely no comprehensive alternative then that is your right. If in 6 months or so there's no pressure and no support to eliminate or sharply curtail it's many excesses then you have the pleasure of saying "I told you so". In that case you'll have the act you support, no matter how you justify doing so. As for me I'm for being patient a little while longer and yes a bit more optimistic that I won't sell out when there is a chance (no matter how remote you believe it to be) to do something significant and permanent. By all means feel free to compromise now and lock in the Act, but that's moot now. Maybe Feinstein can push something through that she likes which you'll sign onto, but chances are we're going to see necks squarely in the noose. Perhaps that famous Republican obstructionism against Obama will win the day. We'll see who are the opponents and how they do.

You know you have a weak argument when you keep mischaracterizing my position. Let me reciprocate: by you not agreeing with changes to the patriot act you unilaterally agree with it's current form and current over stepping because it will now continue.

Wasn't that fun?

Btw, congress can update/change any law that it wants, there is no magical window of time. Just because they make changes now or reauthorize it for another 100 years doesn't mean they can't repeal the law 10 minutes later. In fact the only thing stopping that from happening is the amount of votes to do that. Yet some how you think next year the repealing of the patriot act will have a much better chance under a republican controlled house and senate...lol, sure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh duh. Good point.

Which could easily have gone the other way with the Pro-Act people putting pressure on like Obama and Feinstein and sympathetic Republicans as well, unless you think they would say "hey, we really need to reign all that stuff in with the Patriot Act." No, they'll do as you've noted elsewhere and do or say whatever it takes. Underhandedness is expected and excused so there's no basis for trust.

No, get rid of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know you have a weak argument when you keep mischaracterizing my position. Let me reciprocate: by you not agreeing with changes to the patriot act you unilaterally agree with it's current form and current over stepping because it will now continue.

Wasn't that fun?

Btw, congress can update/change any law that it wants, there is no magical window of time. Just because they make changes now or reauthorize it for another 100 years doesn't mean they can't repeal the law 10 minutes later. In fact the only thing stopping that from happening is the amount of votes to do that. Yet some how you think next year the repealing of the patriot act will have a much better chance under a republican controlled house and senate...lol, sure.

Well your first point would be valid except there's no voting out of the Act needed. Since it's a sunset situation it has to be positively endorsed and voted upon, and that's happening not in 10 minutes or a hundred years. There's a fixed date. No escape unless you follow Roman philosophy as commented upon long ago

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

My chance to eliminate the Patriot Act will come, unlike what you wanted to have happen. I'm interested in your newfound feelings for Republican cooperation and embrace of Obama policies though.

 

[Cozarkian]

Well, this was simply a vote to bring this bill to debate. Had it passed he then could have added amendments. The fact that he voted against even bringing the bill up for debate is quite puzzling.

Unless, of course, he felt the odds of the bill passing in a bad form were much higher than the odds of passing an amendment. In that case, the safer choice would be to vote against debating the bill.

In addition to or in instead of the above, he could also be picking and choosing when to play his political capital and when to toe-the-line to accumulate more capital. Until we start using our vote to force a change in the system, our representatives have to follow the rules of that system if they want to have any influence.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless, of course, he felt the odds of the bill passing in a bad form were much higher than the odds of passing an amendment. In that case, the safer choice would be to vote against debating the bill.

In addition to or in instead of the above, he could also be picking and choosing when to play his political capital and when to toe-the-line to accumulate more capital. Until we start using our vote to force a change in the system, our representatives have to follow the rules of that system if they want to have any influence.

This is pretty unlikely. Reauthorization of the patriot act is going to happen either way, it simply enjoys too much bipartisan support. (no matter what your opinion is on the matter)

So in this case you can either have the same patriot act outcome as before along with a less intrusive NSA or you can not. He chose not to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is pretty unlikely. Reauthorization of the patriot act is going to happen either way, it simply enjoys too much bipartisan support. (no matter what your opinion is on the matter)

So in this case you can either have the same patriot act outcome as before along with a less intrusive NSA or you can not. He chose not to.

That's a false choice. You can have it as you say or one can take a chance on repeal. At least the possibility remains and the "well I'm just saying this to look good" crowd will either have to not look good or go against it. If it fails then there is always another chance for "compromise" but there is none, absolutely none, once it's locked in again.

 

[ivwshane]

Unless, of course, he felt the odds of the bill passing in a bad form were much higher than the odds of passing an amendment. In that case, the safer choice would be to vote against debating the bill.

In addition to or in instead of the above, he could also be picking and choosing when to play his political capital and when to toe-the-line to accumulate more capital. Until we start using our vote to force a change in the system, our representatives have to follow the rules of that system if they want to have any influence.

What? He's either for reigning in the patriot act or he isn't. He either supports it or he doesn't. Voting to not bring up a bill for debate is the same as supporting the existing form of the bill.

If he didn't like the changes to the bill he could have voted to bring up the bill for debate where he could have brought up amendments to it and if the bill some how made things worse than what the current law is he could have simply filibustered it.

There is zero excuse to not vote for debate if you don't like the patriot act.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is zero excuse to not vote for debate if you don't like the patriot act.

By all means let's have a debate on the Patriot Act.

 

[Cozarkian]

What? He's either for reigning in the patriot act or he isn't. He either supports it or he doesn't. Voting to not bring up a bill for debate is the same as supporting the existing form of the bill.

We all know the world of politics isn't that black and white. Let's pretend a family orders Papa John's pizza every Saturday. One day, the call for a vote to decide whether they should consider a new pizza place. You are sick of Papa John's and would like to propose Pizza Hut, but you know your spouse and kids will pick Dominoes, which you hate. Thus, the smart choice is for you to vote that you should not debate on a new pizza place.

Alternatively, let's say you know your spouse wants to keep Papa John's much more than you want to switch to Pizza Hut. You could remind your spouse about the time you gave him/her a back massage and mention how sick you are of Papa John's. Instead of cashing in your good will, however, you decide to build more by mentioning you aren't a fan of Papa John's, but you know how much your spouse likes it, so you will vote against changing.

 

[BoberFett]

Another Rand Paul fail, that guy is nothing like his father, but just another "conservative" idiot.

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.

I campaigned for Ron, but I don't want Rand anywhere near the White House.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a false choice. You can have it as you say or one can take a chance on repeal. At least the possibility remains and the "well I'm just saying this to look good" crowd will either have to not look good or go against it. If it fails then there is always another chance for "compromise" but there is none, absolutely none, once it's locked in again.

It's not a false choice at all. Do you genuinely believe the patriot act won't be reauthorized? Seriously? Taking bets now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Another Rand Paul fail, that guy is nothing like his father, but just another "conservative" idiot.

You think so?

Have a read

By tossing us a loaf of bread and putting on a show Feinstein et al get to keep their hearts desire. I don't know about you but I'm not too keen on that.

 

[ivwshane]

By all means let's have a debate on the Patriot Act.

Lol! That's what this vote was about! The senate voted to not have a debate!




I know that I don't always make my points clear but am I really not explaining this clearly?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not a false choice at all. Do you genuinely believe the patriot act won't be reauthorized? Seriously? Taking bets now.

You can take all the bets you like, I don't care to play. There is a chance even if small. There will have to be names which directly support it, no weaksauce excuse for an inadequate bill. If as you suppose it passes then there is always another chance for a similar (and hopefully better bill). Considering your perspective on the Republicans being utterly obstructive of Obama you should be hopeful at least a bit. In short there is a chance now however unlikely you see it to be. Otherwise there is none. You offered two choices and I picked the third.

 

[ivwshane]

We all know the world of politics isn't that black and white. Let's pretend a family orders Papa John's pizza every Saturday. One day, the call for a vote to decide whether they should consider a new pizza place. You are sick of Papa John's and would like to propose Pizza Hut, but you know your spouse and kids will pick Dominoes, which you hate. Thus, the smart choice is for you to vote that you should not debate on a new pizza place.

Alternatively, let's say you know your spouse wants to keep Papa John's much more than you want to switch to Pizza Hut. You could remind your spouse about the time you gave him/her a back massage and mention how sick you are of Papa John's. Instead of cashing in your good will, however, you decide to build more by mentioning you aren't a fan of Papa John's, but you know how much your spouse likes it, so you will vote against changing.

Uh what?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol! That's what this vote was about! The senate voted to not have a debate!




I know that I don't always make my points clear but am I really not explaining this clearly?

OK, Provisions of the Patriot Act sunset this year. It takes a positive vote to renew them, a possibility.

Instead you seem to think that the Patriot Act is up for debate. No, that can be stalled or manipulated, but a deadline is a deadline. There is no putting it off. Now given the penchant for shenanagans from the Patriot Act supporters just what makes you think they won't try trickery and deceit to shoot down the positives? I'm supposed to forfeit a guaranteed chance for some elusive possibility that could be gutted AND WILL make the Patriot Act effectively invulnerable for at least 2 more years until the next carrot of hope is dangled as a diversion?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh what?

Pelosi knows that she risks the Patriot Act as she said as much. Instead why not get in something then resort to skulduggery and attempt to subvert it as is commonly done? Worst case she has her treasure guaranteed. Replace with the Republican of your choice if you are offended. Embrace then destroy while in the process. That happens so often I'm surprised that people don't realize it.

 

[Jaskalas]

I stand for the "No" vote against the continuation of the Patriot Act. Bush's crimes against us have continued for far too long.