The "naysayers" that voted against the Amash Amendment give me the impression they are just back pedaling because they didn't think the overall vote would be so close.
NOW, because of the close vote, they're saying "Oops, well, changes still need to be made, we just didn't like this one."
Bullshit... big steaming piles of it.
Voting FOR the Amash Amendment instead of playing a negotiating game with our civil liberties was the correct course of action. Now, in my eyes, any politician who didn't vote for Amash is just talking out both sides of their face.
A salary cap of say, $150,000 on all contributions to a single politician... and no "corporations as people" can donate.
In short, contributions must come from a real person.
Political campaigns would have to go "grassroots" and come from a politician's pocket, but a cap on "ad spend" would also be placed, to even the playing field for all candidates.
I like this idea-fest, but "how to" actually implement it would be another thing entirely.
I really, truly hope this gets through. We need to start over on this "what the Government can and can't do in the name of security" stuff.
Repeal the whole thing, sounds good to me.
Rush Holt running for President?
If Obama were to veto though, it might add fuel to the fire on a more mainstream scale... meaning people who weren't challenging the NSA's "power grab" before, might just start doing so.
Sad, I'm a WA State citizen... and four reps that I can count voted NO.
It's a sad day in the Northwest. Time to make some phone calls.
"It's legal."
Uh, huh... so? Does that make it moral, ethical, or responsible?
And legal because you say so in secret? If it's so legal, let it be challenged in public court.
Couldn't we lobby Congress to put legislation that makes it illegal to have "top-secret, members only" meetings about public matters like the funding (not the funds themselves, the funding) of the NSA?
It seems to me they shouldn't be able to meet in secret about those things that aren't secret.
"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn."
Might not be exactly accurate, but something like that.
Other patent and copyright trolls might want to pay heed to the Prenda developments.
The U.S. Government is starting down the same slope as Prenda I think.
Shooting themselves in the foot.
Reading this information, and how our Government is trying to silence a critic (a critic with evidence), does NOT make me proud to be an American.
Dear NSA,
We don't need you to "protect" our Internet (keyword: our). We're afraid how badly you'll screw it up.
------------
Why does it seem like these folks don't understand (at all) what they are trying to "protect"?
Wow, I feel so honored to be part of a live rendition of "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley... thanks NSA /sarcasm
Seriously though, as the years go by, it's seeming more and more like Huxley might be right on some of his points.
The equation...
In whatever argument you're having...
1. You make your argument = 100
2. They immediately resort to name-calling while making their counter-argument = 100, - 25 for using name-calling in place of a rational argument
3. You respond with valid points supporting your case = +25
4. They respond by "going off the deep end" with baseless counter-arguments and more name calling = -75
5. You 125 Them 0 = Argument over
This is how a good percentage of political arguments transpire.