One Of The NSA's Biggest Critics In The Senate May Lose His Seat

from the don't-let-that-happen dept

In the past, we've noted how unfortunate it was that the Senator who fought strongest for our civil liberties in Congress, Russ Feingold, got voted out of office back in 2010 -- in favor of a "Tea Party" candidate who has consistently voted in favor of the intelligence community since replacing Feingold. Since then, plenty of attention has gone to Senator Ron Wyden for picking up where Feingold left off, but with him on issues of civil liberties as it relates to the intelligence community has always been Senator Mark Udall -- who has been perhaps even more vocal than Senator Wyden on these issues.

And, worryingly, it appears that Udall may be facing a Feingold moment, where he's facing a candidate that has positioned himself more on "Tea Party" type issues. Udall hasn't campaigned very much on his amazing support for civil liberties, since many observers don't think that's an "election issue" in Colorado. However, recently, Udall has been willing to point to his important work on the Senate Intelligence Committee as one of a very small number of Senators who actually worked hard to push back against unconstitutional surveillance, to push for transparency and accountability for the intelligence community, and who pushed, repeatedly, to defend our civil liberties. It would be a huge loss for civil liberties if Udall were to lose this election, and a clear victory for the NSA, the intelligence community and those who like to spread FUD to retain power and take away your rights.
“I do think it would be a significant loss for the movement,” said Laura Murphy, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

[...]

“Were Sen. Udall to lose, I think he would be sorely missed,” echoed Scott Roehm, a senior counsel at The Constitution Project. “He was one of the earliest voices for meaningful surveillance reform even before the Snowden leaks.”
The Denver Post recently endorsed Udall's opponent, complaining that Udall wasn't enough of a "leader" in the Senate (not an easy thing to do as a first-term Senator). And while the editorial at least does call out Udall's work on the Intelligence Committee, it suggests that his opponent, Cory Gardner, is fine there too because he voted for the USA Freedom Act in the House. Except, of course, voting for a bill is one thing. Leading the charge on these issues is another thing altogether. Besides, the version of the USA Freedom Act that was voted on wasn't a good thing. It was the bill that the White House undermined at the last minute, leading all civil liberties groups to pull their support, and most members of the House who are big on civil liberties voted against the bill due to the compromises shoved into it. Voting for it didn't show a similar viewpoint, but rather the opposite.

There are lots of other issues for voters, of course, but feel free to check out Udall's stance on things. If you're in Colorado, please consider voting for one of the very few principled voices for civil liberties in Congress.

Filed Under: civil liberties, colorado, cory gardner, mark udall, nsa, surveillance


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    just a reader, 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:00pm

    keith alexander / nsa

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/21/us-usa-intelligence-nsa-idUSKCN0IA2HV20141021

    Ex-spy chief's private firm ends deal with US official

    Former National Security Agency director Keith Alexander has ended a deal with a senior U.S. intelligence official allowing the official to work part-time for his firm, an arrangement current and former officials said risked a conflict of interest.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:12pm

    If his firm needs someone who actually knows what the NSA is doing, there's an obvious candidate for his replacement....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Binko Barnes (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:29pm

    At this point Americans, as a whole, are not really deserving of any civil liberties.

    I used to hope that guys like Feingold and Udall would the vanguard of a popular uprising against the security state.

    But it's obvious now that they are just fighting a desperate rear-guard defense with minimal support against an overwhelming force.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:11pm

      Re:

      Just because a few rich folks and a large percentage of the GOP are nutbags does not mean that over 50% of the population should have their rights removed as this would be beyond stupid. Do not give in to their outrageous double talk.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:50am

        Re: Re:

        Sadly it is not just the GOP nutbags... you will find plenty of dems doing it to... so this one transcends party liability.

        And this means that you may be surprised but at this rate the majority of Americans want their liberties removed for this thing they call security.

        This one is a human nature problem and started a long time ago with both sides sucking that one off in their lust for power!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 7:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          In agreement with the gest of your statement - however ....

          "majority of Americans want their liberties removed for this thing they call security."

          Not sure where this "factoid" originates. Is it the result of an accurate poll or is it supposition based upon how people have voted in the past assuming they support all resultant legislation?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 7:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "the majority of Americans want their liberties removed for this thing they call security."

          This doesn't seem true to me. Can you support the assertion?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 7:16pm

      Re:

      "At this point Americans, as a whole, are not really deserving of any civil liberties."

      So you're saying Tibet doesn't deserve its own sovereignty because it got conquered by an "overwhelming force?" Are you implying that everyone singled out in the mass-murders of history don't deserve life because an "overwhelming force" decided they don't want them around anymore? Are you telling me that slaves deserved their lifestyle because they were captured and traded by an "overwhelming force?"

      Either cut the defeatist attitude or stop stealth-shilling for the "overwhelming force."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 8:34pm

        Re: Re:

        "At this point Americans, as a whole, are not really deserving of any civil liberties."

        So you're saying Tibet doesn't deserve its own sovereignty because it got conquered by an "overwhelming force?"

        That doesn't make sense. Tibet didn't have much of a chance, and their spirituality pretty much demands non-violence. They virtually chose to lose because they are virulently anti-war. That's a value judgment on their part. I wouldn't go that way, but to them it was the better choice. Meh.

        I don't want to put words in his mouth (the person you're replying to), but remember that B. Franklin quote, "Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security, ...". Freedom is bought with the blood of heroes, and all that. Americans are abrogating their right to their freedoms by sheepishly allowing them to be bled away, drop by drop, by tyrannical forces. If you're not willing to stand up to tyrants, you do deserve what you get; tyranny. This is the nature of life. Your Founding Fathers taught you this, enshrining those thoughts in the Constitution.
        Are you implying that everyone singled out in the mass-murders of history don't deserve life because an "overwhelming force" decided they don't want them around anymore?

        It may be politically incorrect, but yeah. The Jews in Nazi Germany who sheepishly allowed themselves to be herded into cattle cars bound for the ovens did deserve it. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought back. The inmates of Sobibor fought back. The Poles who lost the invasion to the Nazis fought back. Wolves are going to make you their dinner if you can't be bothered to arm yourself and defend your right not to become their dinner.
        Are you telling me that slaves deserved their lifestyle because they were captured and traded by an "overwhelming force?"

        Frankly, yeah. CF. the slave rebellion vs. Imperial Rome. They could have escaped over the mountains into Gaul, but they chose to try to end the tyranny (they had overwhelming numbers, including trained gladiators), and lost. Tough luck. If all the black slaves in the US had risen up against their masters, they might have won. Liberia was founded by freed slaves. "Some days, you get the bear. Some days, the bear gets you." -- Riker.

        You've got to try, or submit and accept the tyranny. You might win, and you might lose. But if you really want it, you've got to step up and take it, or accept the alternative. Tyrants aren't going to nicely respect your freedoms or rights. They want to eat you, and they believe they have that right! It's up to you to teach them you won't let them get away with it without it costing them more than they're willing to pay.

        I preferred MLK's and Ghandi's way of doing things, but it's a little extraordinary when their way works. More often, Mandela's or Ho Chi Mihn's the way to go, even if it means aligning yourself with the USSR to do it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Aaron Wolf (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 9:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This post describes the basic moral essence of sociopathy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 3:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            More of a rationalization via pragmatism, but not to an objectivist extreme. Maybe like a statistical analysis of a poem?
            Crap, I think I'm starting to channel James Comey.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          lfroen (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 1:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Unfortunately, not many understand that this is how world works.
          Many thinks that they "deserve" freedom/rights/etc. Freedom and rights are earned, not necessary by blood, but never "deserved".
          After WWII Jews learned the lesson - independance is "bought with the blood of heroes". I would add that it's more rented that bought, and that "blood of heroes" is expected from time to time, or your rent is over.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They learned a lot indeed, and now they have become that which oppressed them.

            Unfortunately, this is a common human trait - or as some refer to it, a fault.

            If a society wants to claim they are civilized then they had better act like it, otherwise they are just a bunch of monkeys screaming at each other whilst tossing excrement.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      No, 22 Oct 2014 @ 11:02pm

      Re: Stuff about boots and human faces

      To assert that anyone does not deserve dignity and freedom is to assert that you do not believe that anyone deserves freedom or dignity.

      That said; people that on there own autonomous action should end these people forever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:33pm

    Without Edward Snowden, Mark Udall would have accomplished exactly nothing on intelligence and civil liberties. He may be vocal at times, but he's been dramatically ineffective.

    He's a senator because he's Mo Udall's kid. The only thing he's ever done other than be a tax sponge is to work for Outward Bound. In the Senate, he's specialized in polarized politics and avoiding getting things done.

    He's run a relentlessly negative campaign, focused so exclusively on abortion and contraception that he's been nicknamed "Mark Uterus" in the local papers. Even the reliably liberal Denver Post has endorsed his opponent. Cory Gardner is conservative, but he's not crazy.

    If Mark Udall is no longer in the Senate, we will have lost a voice that at least sometimes seemed to oppose the surveillance culture and abuses of the NSA. I will regret the loss of the voice. As a resident of the State of Colorado, however, I can't honestly say we'll miss him all that much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:34pm

    The Dems have done enough damage

    Event though I greatly support our liberties and freedoms, the Dems have done enough damage to the country in the last 6 years so it is time for them to go.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:48pm

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      If civil liberties and freedom is an issue that is important to you, you should stop thinking in such partisan terms. No party that has had any power has the high road on those issues, and when you decide who to vote or not vote for based solely on party affiliation, you are hurting the cause of liberty and freedom.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 4:55pm

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      Things can get worse , and they will, losing a voice that has at least made some noise about the topic is bad for all of us.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:08pm

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      Congrats, by laying all the blame on one party, you've fallen for the greatest trick in politics, 'My team vs. Your team', which allows both sides to screw you over, because you're so focused on blaming just one of them that you fail to see that the issue isn't a partisan one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:15pm

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      If you think Gardner will on your side, doing all sorts of good for you and your fellow citizens - think again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:36pm

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      6 years? That's just the recent history. You should enlarge your scope as to find out that both parties are in this up to their eyeballs and have been since the days of Nixon or if you wanna dig much further back.

      If you wanna cure for the damage to our liberties and freedoms don't vote for either party as you won't get what you think you will. Find an independent that fits closer to what you believe.

      If you haven't noticed, no one in government is paying any mind to what the citizens want. We don't pay enough through lobbying to be heard. Throw a bunch of the insiders out, get money out of politics, start making personal accountability a requirement from local all the way up the the POTUS, and you might start seeing a return to those liberties and freedoms you are missing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 6:59pm

        Re: Re: The Dems have done enough damage

        ... start making personal accountability a requirement from local all the way up the the POTUS, and you might start seeing a return to those liberties and freedoms you are missing.

        You're deluded. Your "heart" is in the right place, but I don't expect to see respect for constitutionality again in my lifetime. The "sheeple" are far more interested in terrists and paedos, parotting talking points from MSM talking heads, supporting Imperial USA, and freaking out about gay marriage. After all, the ACLU are commies! I've been hearing that since I was young last century (and not just from John Birchers).

        I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much push back on the part of the rank and file citizenry. They're too busy trying to make sure "those guys" don't get in this time, not bothering to even think about what "those guys" even means.

        The republic's been co-opted/bought by the special interests, and the few voices of reason who manage to fight their way in are on their way out the door as soon as they speak up.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 4:10am

      Re: The Dems have done enough damage

      All of you guys have missed the point. Rome is burning so there is no way to keep the guys carrying the matches in power. The liberties are but one of many issues and keeping an O supporter in office is just not an option right now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:02pm

    According to the editorial, it's Udall's own fault for focusing his campaign on lying about the opponent's stance on birth control.

    I was one of those who voted against Feingold. Perhaps he was good on this issue, but he was no friend of the Constitution - he actually once said, in my presence, that he knew that parts of his campaign finance bill were unconstitutional. That's a disqualifier.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:17pm

      Re:

      Lets see now, don't like something about one candidate?
      Well, the obvious choice to vote for the other guy,
      amirite?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 6:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Lets see now, don't like something about one candidate?


        There were plenty of "somethings" to like or dislike about the guy. But knowingly co-sponsoring unconstitutional legislation is not just "something". It goes to the heart of everything.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          See, now you are attempting to discuss an issue and that is not allowed as everyone knows, you have to attack the person, those are the rules of politics club. Opps, I was not supposed to talk about that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rudyard Holmbast, 22 Oct 2014 @ 8:28pm

    Yeah, Feingold was so big on our "civil liberties" that he made it his life's mission to pass laws that made it as difficult as humanly possible to criticize incumbent politicians. How anyone can claim that a principal author of a bill that made it illegal, FUCKING ILLEGAL, in the home of the First Amendment of all places, for groups to air ads that criticize a politician by name 60 days before an election is some kind of civil liberties hero is almost incomprehensible for its sheer ludicrousness. Thank goodness the decent people of WI had the sense to show his free speech-quashing ass the door. It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court smacked him down on numerous occasions by overturning the blatantly un-Constitutional laws that carried his name. But that hasn't stopped the supposedly civil liberties-loving Udall from rabidly pushing those laws again, because, as we all know, the greatest threat facing this nation is individuals banding together and pooling resources, in a democracy, to affect electoral change. This menace can only by fixed by Congress granting itself the authority to act as sole arbiter regarding exactly what citizens in a free society can say about politicians during election season, and when they can say it. Seriously, anyone who thinks it should be illegal, for example, to air a documentary critical of a politician(in the case of Citizens United, it was Hillary Clinton) prior to an election only makes an ass of himself when he claims he is such a strong supporter of "civil liberties". The same can be said of blatantly partisan websites making the same claims. You have absolutely no business harping about the trampling of civil liberties when you actively support such bullshit laws.

    Why don't the bloggers who run this site do us all a favor and quit pretending they wouldn't endorse the Democrat in CO no matter his record on "civil liberties". You aren't fooling anyone.

    Udall is toast, and all I have to say is "Good fucking riddance".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rudyard Holmbast, 22 Oct 2014 @ 8:50pm

    Absolutely amazing. Udall has essentially spent the entire campaign droning on and on and on and on about birth control(and it's going to result in a trip to the unemployment line for his demagogic ass) and the author of the above laugh-fest is claiming that Gardner is the one discussing issues of little consequence? Is this piece meant to be some sort of parody of Salon? I guess such nonsense is to be expected from the same people who tried to convince us Zephyr Teachout is firmly in the political mainstream in the US, rather than being the batshit crazy person she is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 10:27pm

    Pathetic

    Isn't it pathetic that we can count Senate critics of the NSA on one hand?

    (Maybe there are more than that, but as little criticism as we hear, it sure seems like less than two hands.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Edward Teach, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:17am

    Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?

    Geez, that's a lot of anti-Udall sentiment, mostly parroting the Republican party line. "O Supporter needs to go". Spent his campaign on a single issue. Blah blah. Where were you guys the last 6 years? Working against some other non-tea-party candidate in the pay of the Kochtopus probably.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:37am

      Re: Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?

      All heil the mighty Tea Bag agenda - lol.

      I wonder how much these cheerleaders know about the platform which they are so adamant about.

      I find it humorous when a politician gets their panties in a twist because the lamestream media repeats things they said. Apparently the politician does not want to be seen talking out both sides of their mouth.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rudyard Holmbast, 27 Oct 2014 @ 11:49am

      Re: Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?

      Wow, a Democrat who can't go two seconds without mentioning the Koch's. Hey genius, why don't you try coming up with an original thought.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:23am

    Thanks for this story. As a Colorado voter and regular techdirt reader I appreciate Udall for being one of the few in congress to make civil liberties an issue. Like everywhere with tight congressional races, we've been inundated with campaign ads this fall. Sadly Udall's campaigners have only recently started to run an ad talking about his vocal opposition to the NSA, which I think is one of the best things he's done in office. One of the reasons we need campaign finance reform so badly is so real issues like this aren't drowned out by all the election noise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rudyard Holmbast, 27 Oct 2014 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      Yes, we need campaign finance reform so badly because it's just so horrible when individuals run ads regarding issues that concern them. Incumbents should be able to dictate the tenor and content of campaign ads, because that isn't even remotely anti-democratic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    michael, 23 Oct 2014 @ 11:37am

    Small government

    Remember when there was a political party in America who wanted smaller government? I don't either, because it's never happened.

    Parties want to stay in power, and shrinking the size of government is the antithesis of that. Every administration in my lifetime has grown the Federal government. Republicans have grown it more (Bush 2 & Reagan, particularly), but there's really very little difference.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 4:04pm

      Re: Small government

      Remember when there was a political party in America who wanted smaller government? I don't either, because it's never happened.

      I suppose I need to dial back the dosage on my halucinogens then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul :
      "Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and former Republican congressman, two-time Republican presidential candidate, and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. Presidential Election."

      Of course, US voters are conditioned from birth to believe that a vote for anything other than Demopublican or Republicrat is a wasted vote - you may as well just not bother to vote. Since the Demopublicans and Republicrats have a death lock grip around the throat of districting and voter eligibility (not to mention one hell of a lot of other related matters), that's pretty much true. Your elections are manipulated by them to the point that it would take an act of god for any alternative to unseat the two of them. Allied with their corrupt toadies in the mainstream media, dissenters aren't even accepted into televised debates until it gets forced on them by the Supreme Court.

      You don't live in a democracy, and don't try to pull that republic BS either. Just increase your daily dose of Soma, and keep on reporting those dissenters and whistleblowers to the authorities. They're likely paedos or terrists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 5:27pm

        Re: Re: Small government

        In all fairness, the Ron Paul is not the Libertarian party. Also, we don't really know if the Libertarian party is truly in favor of a "smaller government" because they've never been in power so they have no track record to gauge it by. We know what their rhetoric is -- but if you go by rhetoric, then we would expect the Republican party to be about smaller government as well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 5:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: Small government

          There is s shining example of what small government is capable of doing.

          Look at Kansas under the tea bag control with Brownback at the helm. What a disaster, and he wants to stay the course because it certainly will work.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/16/gop-governor-implements-gop-economi cs-disaster-ensues/

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 9:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government

            There is s shining example of what small government is capable of doing.

            Hardly. Kansas has been a hotbed of Dumth for at least a decade.
            There’s a larger context to this revolt of moderate Republicans, which is that the Kansas Republican Party has been in a state of unending civil war between its social conservatives and its more moderate business conservatives for the last couple of decades.

            More party politics, much sound and fury, signifying nothing. I wish they'd just pull out the guns and start shooting each other, hopefully avoiding hitting innocent bystanders.

            Idiots.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rudyard Holmbast, 27 Oct 2014 @ 11:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government

            Yeah, we need the Democratic party in power, because Detroit is a model for the rest of the United States.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 8:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Small government

          In all fairness, Ron Paul is not the Libertarian party.

          Granted. They can be a fairly amorphous bunch, and I can't say I'm much of a fan of Paul myself (did I mention we are an amorphous bunch? :-)

          How about we go at the question from a different angle? Isn't it pretty much a given that Jefferson et al were very worried about government power running amok, and did everything they thought they could to constrain that potential? "The government that governs least, governs best." That'd make your Founding Fathers that, "... party in America who wanted smaller government." I'd guess my point stands sans my dredging up Ron Paul and libertarians.

          That's a fairly miniscule nit compared to Demopublicans and Republicrats having kidnapped your Democratically elected Republic. As in, you are not a democracy, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can be free from your tyrants and oppressors.

          I've got to say, it seems strange that I'm out here in the wilds of Canada trying to teach you guys this stuff. I justify it by thinking I'm doing it in self-defence. I do not want whatever disease is infecting your nation to spread to here. I used to revere the USA for the things it was founded upon (and man, did I take a lot of flack from my fellow Canucks for it). Now, your country appears quite loathsome, or at least its political institutions do.

          No offence meant. I'd love to see the USA I grew up with exist again.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 9:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government

            I'd love to see the USA I grew up with exist again.

            By that I mean the nation that stopped the VietNam War, the nation that stopped Nixon, Haldeman, Oliver North, the CIA's overreach in Latin America etc., that put a guy on the Moon, the nation that raised a John Dean and a Deep Throat, that pulled off the sosus network and invented the Internet.

            Come back USA. We miss you out here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2014 @ 6:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government

            "Isn't it pretty much a given that Jefferson et al were very worried about government power running amok, and did everything they thought they could to constrain that potential?"

            Absolutely, yes.

            You know what else that many of the founders were very concerned about? Political parties. They thought there should be any at all -- that the existence of political parties would be a real threat to the union.

            "As in, you are not a democracy, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can be free from your tyrants and oppressors."

            I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we just give up on the notion of democracy, we'll be free? I disagree.

            "I've got to say, it seems strange that I'm out here in the wilds of Canada trying to teach you guys this stuff."

            That's a fair bit of hubris right there, particularly since you aren't saying anything that isn't a common topic of political discussion in the first place. You aren't exactly bringing revelations here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 3:57pm

    time

    I figure its only a matter of time before all of the "rebel" congress critters and senators get removed - one way or the other - and replaced with good old boys who know which side of their bread the butter goes on.

    I am actually amazed that none of these people have had CIA airplane accidents yet.

    However, as the perps in power get more and more eager to reap the benefits of all their hard work over the last decade or two, their urgency should get the job done pretty soon, if bribery, blackmail and coercion fail to work.

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.