Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the pretty-words-all-in-a-row dept.

Republicans 523

Bob9113 writes "According to an article on Ars Technica, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has passed a resolution that "encourages Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA's data collection programs." The resolution, according to Time, was approved by an overwhelming majority voice vote at the Republican National Committee's Winter Meeting General Session, going on this week in Washington, DC."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

even a broken clock... (5, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 8 months ago | (#46067925)

Hey, when you oppose everything the president does, it's gotta work in our favor sometimes!

Re:even a broken clock... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46067999)

And of course when a Republican gets back in the White House, they'll be repealing this and get back to passing oppressive laws like nobody's business. It astounds me how people keep voting for Kang or Kodos.

Re:even a broken clock... (5, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46068167)

What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the GOP is in the middle of a transformation. I will not get into whether or not it is good or bad for the country or the party but the establishment republicans, those like romney or mccain are being pushed aside by more libertarian bent candidates. The These new republicans, at least from what I can see, are the ones who are against the NSA and big government, something bush 2 and mccain are for.

In another 10 years as more of the traditional GOP retires or is voted out, hopefully they get repaced by more libertarian leaning candidates, or even better the libertarian party will become one of the big 2.... (i can dream)

Re:even a broken clock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068279)

It's not going to happen. There was a recent study done that says any generation that's grown up during a serious recession or depression tends to vote left. That means a good chunk of gen X (early 90s recession), and most gen Y and millenials will vote left.

The baby boomers, many of whom are conservative, are an anomaly and they are starting to die off now.

You may now move to Somalia.

Re:even a broken clock... (4, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46068375)

I fit squarely in the middle as a 28 year old, college educated person. I would say that while i was in college (bush years) EVERYONE hated bush and thought they were democrats because they hated bush. As we got older and saw that the obama democrats were no better than the bush republicans my unscientific poll of 3 colleges in NY/NJ show the majority of people our age dont align with any of the main parties. Quite a few of us are 1 issue voters (gay marriage, marijuana , etc.) but the thing that is resounding is that we all want a smaller government by a large margin. Over 75% of the people I spoke with out of over 3000 said the number one thing they want is to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce the reach of the federal government. I would say we are leaning libertarian more than we are progressive. But again, it was an unscientific study, and I have a libertarian bias as such my results may be biased as well.

Re:even a broken clock... (3, Interesting)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 8 months ago | (#46068473)

Over 75% of the people I spoke with out of over 3000 said the number one thing they want is to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce the reach of the federal government.

Unless it involves cutting our absurdly bloated defense department and DHS. Anything to keep us safe.

Re:even a broken clock... (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068505)

But again, it was an unscientific study, and I have a libertarian bias as such my results may be biased as well.

That you have the self-awareness to know this and the integrity to admit it lends credibility to your poll, unscientific though it may be.

I too want most experience of government to come from the state and local levels, like the Founders intended. It was never intended that the average person would be affected very much by anything the federal government does, except in times of an actual, Congress-declared war (heh remember back when we did that?). The States are about the only entities able to stand up to the feds, and to do that, they first have to stop being addicted to the federal money that so many of their budgets have come to depend on. The Free State Project is, in fact, an effort to do exactly that.

Re:even a broken clock... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068449)

The baby boomers, many of whom are conservative, are an anomaly and they are starting to die off now.

Hallejulah! That can't possibly happen soon enough. I've never seen, heard of, or read about such a broken, self-centered, childish, short-term thinking generation in my life. If you ever do business with them, you will see it yourself. Most of them are like big two-year-olds who absolutely must get their way at all times.

Every single previous generation poured their blood, sweat, and tears into trying to let their descendents inherit a better nation than what they had. But not the baby boomers.

If their passing away is the only remedy because they refuse to change, that's a decision they made. Collectively, they will not be missed.

Re:even a broken clock... (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068293)

Cue the highly emotional, belligerent, ignorant people who think anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are exactly the same thing.

On the other hand, if you have to make shit up in order to find fault with something, anyone with sense will recognize that you're paying a high compliment to it.

The other problem with libertarian thought is that small-minded people are terrified of that degree of freedom, because it means others might do things they disapprove of, and the small-minded just love using government to tell people how to live.

Re:even a broken clock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068511)

It also means that they actually have to live with being free, which carries with it some risks. Unacceptable! I demand the government violate everyone's rights and privacy to stop the terrorists!

Re:even a broken clock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068549)

>Cue the highly emotional, belligerent, ignorant people who think anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are exactly the same thing.

"No true Scotsman...."

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) | about 8 months ago | (#46068573)

"1 != 2"
"No true Scotsman!"

Not every statement claiming that one thing is not equivalent to another is a no true Scotsman fallacy; not even close.

That's not what I see. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068407)

Every Republican primary and local elections we've had in the last couple of decades has the candidates battling about whose the most "conservative" - conservative being is the most socially conservative.

The Christian Right still has a HUGE stranglehold on the party and that's why unless the Liberian leaning candidate is also for government control of sex, marriage, and reproduction (especially abortion), they will have no chance.

There are many many Republicans who vote on social issues and limiting government (Old School Republicanism) doesn't even cross their mind.

Many Republicans are on the same side as the Statist Democrats: they want to legislate morality as they see it.

So, in 2016, we WILL see the same old shit because there are too many people out there who care more about preventing two same sex people getting married than our Government ignoring everything that this country used to stand for.

Many Many (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46068501)

There are many many Republicans who vote on social issues

There are Many Many MORE that vote on fiscal issues, support abortion, gay marriage, and limiting the NSA.

If you look at both sides the Republicans can adapt to gay marriage and abortion rights lots easier than Democrats can restrain spending and taxing and generally controlling your life. Democrats exist to make sure you are told what you can and cannot do.

Re:That's not what I see. (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068581)

The Christian Right still has a HUGE stranglehold on the party and that's why unless the Liberian leaning candidate is also for government control of sex, marriage, and reproduction (especially abortion), they will have no chance.

Which is really hilarious considering that I've read the Bible, and I couldn't find "tell thy neighbors how they shall live" anywhere in it. I did, however, find a great deal about not judging.

The religious right's only real interest seems to be using force and threat of force (police power of gov't) to demand that others live only in ways they approve of. They obviously have no real belief in the power of their Biblical message to convince, nor in their own ability to set a good example which works so well that others want to follow it voluntarily. It's just the name of Christ used as an excuse to control people. If they were true to their belief and had the love and forgiveness it demands, and attained the joy it promises, I believe the urge to control others is one of the first character flaws they'd overcome.

The modern political arm of "Christianity" reminds me of what Gandhi (a Hindu) said. He said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are nothing like your Christ."

Re:even a broken clock... (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#46068215)

And of course when a Republican gets back in the White House, they'll be repealing this and get back to passing oppressive laws like nobody's business. It astounds me how people keep voting for Kang or Kodos.

By extension, Democrats are only for wholesale violation of constitutional rights as long as it can be used to keep them in office.

Re:even a broken clock... (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46068265)

Except that is really both parties. The parties come out against things like this, but they dont ever do anything about it.

Re:even a broken clock... (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068395)

Except that is really both parties. The parties come out against things like this, but they dont ever do anything about it.

Yes, they have an amazing talent for speaking out against something, saying what they know you want to hear, but never actually doing anything about it. This is enabled by the short memory of the public combined with the media's desire to remain cozy with government officials so they can get those exclusive interviews.

Meanwhile, no matter what is said, whatever the monied interests and the military-industrial-complex want is what will happen anyway.

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

anagama (611277) | about 8 months ago | (#46068507)

I think there are a few radicals in the GOP, at least more so than in the DNC. Amash for example. And perhaps the poster above is correct that the GOP is in the midst of a transformation. Basically at present, we have two neo-con parties, one which is tolerant of abortion and gay marriage, the other which is not. If the GOP conceded those social issues, there would be absolutely zero difference between the parties, and we have already seen some GOP members becoming supportive of gay marriage. So, in order to distinguish itself from the DNC, latching onto freedom and privacy is a good move.

Anyway, I see this as a hopeful sign, though I'm still not willing to vote for either party just yet. If the GOP as whole really does decide to become interested in freedom, I might change my tune -- till then I'll be voting 3d party.

Re:even a broken clock... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068419)

Considering as it was the Republicans who started this (something they'd rather we forget) that sounds just about right.

Note to the right wing: Obama is not guilty of starting up unconstitutional "anti terrorism" practices. He is, however, mightily guilty of not stopping them and is rightly deserving of the flack he gets over this. That said, if the RNC wants to hold responsible parties accountable, at some point they're going to have to look in the mirror. Introspection and objective self evaluation is just not something Republicans are historically very good at unfortunately.

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46068547)

they aren't calling for the law to be changed, just for a halt to all this data gathering by a Democrat.

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46068561)

...only a Republican is able to do it properly.

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46068577)

"It astounds me how people keep voting for Kang or Kodos."

Klingons aren't eligible to run for President of the USA, but if they were I would vote for Kahless

Re:even a broken clock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068021)

They are against it only until a Republican is in the White House I'm sure.

Re:even a broken clock... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068055)

No different than Democrats. See also Obama.

Re:even a broken clock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068045)

Hey, when you oppose everything the president does, it's gotta work in our favor sometimes!

I'm sure it'll be highly effective, answer every pertinent question, base everything on solid evidence, and leave nothing unexplained. Just like the Warren Commission and the 911 Commission.

They now have proof that it can be abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068145)

It's all about the targets.

Republicans never thought the targets would be other American citizens.

Obama has proven them wrong.

Re:They now have proof that it can be abused (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068273)

It's all about the targets.

Republicans never thought the targets would be other American citizens.

Obama has proven them wrong.

Yes, for some reason there are still large numbers of people who need proof that something which happened every single other time (power being abused) is, in fact, going to happen again this time if you start with the same conditions.

I generally call these people "idiots", but you may prefer such terms as "numbnuts", "morons", "imbeciles", etc.

Re:They now have proof that it can be abused (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 8 months ago | (#46068563)

That, and there's a democrat in the white house they can try to blame the whole thing on.

Re:They now have proof that it can be abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068331)

umm... yeah... because when the Patriot Act was passed under President Bush, the republicans never targeted American citizens... right

Considering they're fighting so hard against Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46067933)

who is working very hard to end this, we know this is a lie. They hate him so they are for it because he is against it. That is how those people think.

Re:Considering they're fighting so hard against Ob (2)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#46068053)

Who is working to end this?

not Obama, that is for sure

The only change thus far has been that the the NSA has been ordered to use the Rubberstamp FISA court.

the appearance of change. not actual change.

Re:Considering they're fighting so hard against Ob (4, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 8 months ago | (#46068057)

Obama who is working very hard to end this

[citation needed]

Re:Considering they're fighting so hard against Ob (1)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068159)

who is working very hard to end this, we know this is a lie. They hate him so they are for it because he is against it. That is how those people think.

If he is working hard to end this, it's because its existence was leaked and the Joe Sixpacks of the nation who need to have these things explicitly explained to them became outraged. The rest already assumed they were doing something like this while listening to the sheep cry about tin-foil hats anytime someone tried to suggest that massive surveillance powers were going to be abused like any other power. You really can't help people who won't lift a finger to help themselves and are hostile to the suggestion that they should.

Consider that the US President would almost certainly be informed about such a significant program implemented by the executive branch. How hard did he try to stop it before so many people became outraged about it? I'm guessing not at all, but I would like to be contradicted on that.

Oh, the irony (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46067941)

From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.

Re:Oh, the irony (4, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46068077)

Actually, The vote passed the senate 98-1-1 and only 64 members of the house voted no. The patriot act was bipartisian.

Re:Oh, the irony (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#46068347)

Voting against the PATRIOT act would have been unpatriotic!

Re:Oh, the irony (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068481)

Sort of. The Patriot Act is simply too large to have been drafted in the timeframe allotted, so we can start with the obvious truth that whoever really wrote it had it on the shelf awaiting an opportunity. That is chilling, and under-reported, enough.

It's also worth noting that the two people in Congress who were capable of stopping it were exactly the ones targeted by the anthrax attacks--attacks which have never been solved. Isn't that convenient? Well, it certainly was if you were the Bush Administration anyway...

Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of this unconstitutional law because the far right corporate media drumbeat was going to brand them as unpatriotic or worse if they even wanted to figure out what they were voting on. But hey, it was OK, because they were only going to violate the Constitution for a little while, right? Except that it keeps getting renewed, and renewed, and renewed even though it is very highly obvious that terrorism as an actual threat to the US is completely overblown.

Time to end this idiotic war on the American people, end the TSA, end the wholesale harassment of absolutely everybody at the borders, and stop spying on everybody's Internet and banking activities.

Re:Oh, the irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068607)

But hey, it was OK, because they were only going to violate the Constitution for a little while, right?

Not saying you think otherwise, but no. It's unacceptable no matter how temporary it is.

Re:Oh, the irony (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46068417)

FWIW a good number of the people who voted for the Patriot act were voted out, especially Republicans, who got washed out with Bush. So a lot of Republicans who are opposing it never voted for the Patriot act.

There was an analysis linked to on DailyKos that showed the congresspeople who favor surveillance tend to be the once who've been there longer; the newer congresspeople tend to oppose it (with many exceptions on both sides).

In any case, you can never over-estimate the capability of politicians to be hypocrites. If you think your party is better than the other guys, you need to do a self-check and clean out some cognitive biases.

Re: Oh, the irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068079)

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Because no Democrats voted for it, or something.

Re:Oh, the irony (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068107)

From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.

You actually think there are two parties? They are two factions of the same party. It's your basic duopoly. If it were a marketplace, the average person would understand why that's bad. This is power, something even worse than money in terms of the damage it can do.

The best analogy is the way all US wireless phone carriers overcharged for text messaging. None of their prices were related to the actual cost of delivering the service (zero for GSM-based phones). None of them wanted to try undercutting the competition because they all made more money that way. They each recognized it was in their interests not to rock the boat.

That's what a two-party system is like. That's why the Founders warned against allowing one to develop. At the state level, it's the same two parties who write the election rules and neither has any incentive to make it easy for third parties to get on the ballot. Effectively, the two parties serve the same function as the trade guilds of old: to lock out competition.

It's to be expected that they take turns being the bad guy. It's called good cop, bad cop, and it's a method of manipulating the voters by playing them in the middle.

There are two parties, just not the ones you think (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46068569)

You actually think there are two parties?

There are absolutely two parties - statists and non-statists. Those who want your life controlled by the government, those who want you to be free to choose.

That's not a Republican / Democratic breakdown though. McCain is absolutely a statists, as are a number of other prominent Republicans. The real issue that a VAST majority of Democrats now are primarily statists, to the point where there is very thin resistance against government intrusion in all aspects of life.

That's why instead of voting for PARTIES, you need to understand where the candidates you can choose between lie on the statist/non-statists continuum (because in real life real people are not simply angels or mustache-twirlers) and vote in the direction of the person who wants most to leave you the hell alone...

And if you REALLY want to change things, you should promote and support such people in primaries before they ever even reach the stage you can vote for them.

Re:Oh, the data! (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 8 months ago | (#46068115)

Oh, the irony: From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.

Oh, the data!

Here's [educate-yourself.org] the roll-call vote for the Patriot act.

tl;dr: Democrats: 145 yea, 62 Nay (with 4 abstentions).

I've been thinking of changing my party affiliation recently (and no, not making this up).

Which party do you recommend? I'd like to see if your party votes in the interests of the republic. Do you know any accomplishments that you think are noteworthy? Excluding health care, since everyone already knows about that.

Even attempted accomplishments would be a good indicator of intent, even if they came to naught. I want to throw my weight and online debating skills behind an organization I can believe in.

Who can you recommend?

Re:Oh, the data! (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068203)

Who can you recommend?

If you are mature enough to understand that most are not anarcho-capitalists, I'd recommend the Libertarian Party. They're the only ones I know of who are serious about reducing the size and power of government, which is badly needed right now. If that ever happens (ha ha!) I'd be open to other ideas myself.

I could not in good conscience recommend either major party. I'd personally rather back the underdog that's not going to win, than be Satan's Little Helper, but that's me.

Re:Oh, the data! (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46068335)

Oh please. The government isn't run by the people you elect. It's run by the people who finance their appearance on the TV. And if all you people didn't play along, the velvet glove would come off. Power and privilege is never given up peacefully. The 'underdogs' are allowed to mouth off because nobody's listening.

Re:Oh, the data! (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about 8 months ago | (#46068575)

Greens are interesting too ... essentially libertarians with a greater willingness to ensure a social safety net and protect the commons (environment) from being abused by a few who profit at everyone else's expense.

Honestly though, I'd vote for either. The DNC and GOP are so corrupted by and enslaved to their donors, I'd be happy to see anyone kick their collective elephantine asses.

Re:Oh, the irony (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 8 months ago | (#46068471)

the PATRIOT act.

The Patriot Act was like the Doolittle Raid of World War II. The Doolittle Raid made no military sense, but was done to show the American public that the government could do at least something against the Japanese. The Patriot Act was the same sort of reaction to 9/11. The American public were frightened, and needed a reassuring government response.

Unfortunately, while the Doolittle Raid was a one-off deal, the Patriot Act has overstayed its welcome.

See! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46067949)

Unconditional opposition can be beneficial.

Nobody.... (0)

jimpop (27817) | about 8 months ago | (#46067953)

Nobody believes them anymore.... they just seem to do knee-jerk reactions to any and everything. Next thing you know the RNC will favor marijuana and homosexuality.

Re:Nobody.... (1, Troll)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 months ago | (#46067979)

Next thing you know the RNC will favor marijuana and homosexuality.

Only for themselves, everyone else who engages in that is a sinner.

Re:Nobody.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068397)

When corporations screw people up the ass, the Republicans consider it a moral virtue that needs to be preserved.

You know it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068413)

Ryan Loskarn [nydailynews.com] , former chief of staff to Tennessee's Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, was into little boys.

Re:Nobody.... (5, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#46068067)

Governor Perry of Texas was in the news this week backing the State's Rights side of Colorado's marijuana legalization,

but I suspect the homosexual angle will be solely Democrat for some time to come because of the religious objections.

The anti-surveillance stance reminds me of the rally against deficit spending by whichever Party is presently out of power.

The roles in our two-trick pony show are amusingly interchangeable.

Re:Nobody.... (1)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068377)

It would be amusing if it weren't so detestably obvious, friend. It almost seems to me like they kicked off the year 2000 with a list of targets known as the bill of rights. The following no longer offer any legitimate protection I, II, IV, and VI. That only leaves 23 and we're only 14 years into the century. We were probably silly to count on a legal document in the first place. We should have heeded the words of our forefathers and hung these bastards as far back as 1913.

Re:Nobody.... (1)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068389)

Well, okay, 11-27 aren't considered the bill of rights, but within them is the right of women to vote and a revision of the racist counting of black people and the end of slavery, so I feel they are every bit as important.

Re:Nobody.... (1)

causality (777677) | about 8 months ago | (#46068117)

Nobody believes them anymore.... they just seem to do knee-jerk reactions to any and everything. Next thing you know the RNC will favor marijuana and homosexuality.

I reject the entire notion that consenting behavior among adult people is ever the concern of government. The sooner the average person figures this out, the sooner we can stop having these silly, phony, issue-by-design debates about such things.

Re:Nobody.... (3, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 8 months ago | (#46068209)

If the democratic party doesn't have abortion, same sex marriage, welfare, and racism, what do they have left? Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.

Re:Nobody.... (4, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 8 months ago | (#46068299)

Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.

Good point. Probably why the GOP won't be seeing the inside of the White House anytime during the next 6 years.

Re:Nobody.... (0, Flamebait)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068431)

# sudo killall professional-politicians
# sudo killall political-parties
# reboot

Re:Nobody.... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46068219)

Inconveniently, it's not confusion so much as disagreement that you are encountering on that one. People just can't get enough of the intoxicating feeling of having society and the power of the state united behind their personal tastes. Worse, some of them think that this feeling is objectively good, as well as pleasurable.

Re:Nobody.... (1)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068405)

The most respectable conservative I ever met in person was a cross-dressing bisexual. He was a conservative republican because 1) he believed the government had no place in our personal lives (if you can't agree with that, you are not an American, you are something else, and you are a motherfucker) and 2) he believed that government had no incentive to save him money as long as they could decide how much of his money they would take and not the inverse.

Re:Nobody.... (1)

dbraden (214956) | about 8 months ago | (#46068351)

I know it's just anecdotal, but almost all of the Republicans I know have more of a laissez faire attitude towards marijuana and homosexuality.

RNC should finally shut up and (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46067973)

go back to eating his toenails.
Oh, wait.

Don't Forget (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 months ago | (#46067997)

The NSA is also spying on the internet under Section 702 of FISA.
No one is talking about discontinuing that program or protecting our 4th amendment rights online.

LoL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068019)

Pot & kettle... glass houses & stones... you get the idea.

Realization Dawns (4, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | about 8 months ago | (#46068061)

Back in 2002 or so, when people were really starting to rally against the PATRIOT act, the usual faces were all over the media, calling detractors "terrorist sympathizers" and worse. More than a few openly called for such people to be labeled traitors.

Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors? (source) [blogspot.com]

And here's Paul Krugman with regards to Rush Limbaugh back in 2002...

As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism." (source.) [nytimes.com]

I can't remember where it happened, or who exactly said it, but someone confronted Rush Limbaugh about his words and said, "Imagine if Hillary Clinton were to become president, and she has the power that you want to give President Bush."

Well.

It would appear that has a very good chance of happening. And what was laughed off back in 2002, is now staining underwear in 2014.

Re:Realization Dawns (0)

Kohath (38547) | about 8 months ago | (#46068353)

Back in 2001 and 2002 we'd just been the victims of a terrorist attack. In the years since then, most of the dangerous terrorists were lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and killed.

Now it's 2014 and the President is using the IRS, EPA, and ATF to harass and attack his political opponents. Government threats are real and present. Terrorist threats are becoming faded memories. Why shouldn't people change their policy positions to fit changing situations?

Re:Realization Dawns (3, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | about 8 months ago | (#46068499)

most of the dangerous terrorists were lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and killed.

Were they? Sounds more like a rationalization or ex post facto justification for those wars. I would argue that they didn't exist at the proclaimed threat level that was presented, given the lack of any real attacks in the mentioned time frame.

Now it's 2014 and the President is using the IRS

We'll just ignore, like the GOP did, that the IRS went after "Occupy" groups as well, and that every group investigated did get its non-profit status eventually.

EPA, and ATF to harass and attack his political opponents.

I know that people who hate Obama love to make baseless claims, so I'm going to have to ask you for some examples of this.

Government threats are real and present.

And they were ignored wholly from 2001 to 2008, then suddenly they became the biggest threat ever.

Re:Realization Dawns (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 8 months ago | (#46068503)

I tend to think they have more brainpower than they do; however, I continue:
I would assume this is the usual GOP tactic (but not unique to them it's just one of their favorites) of causing a disaster and counting on the voters to be too ignorant about whom to blame. They can then campaign against the results of their own plans (or intentional incompetence.) An endless cycle of profit.

They put all this in place (2006 too not just 2002) and Obama got caught with the mess; which he used, extended and supported once he had the powers himself... (now maybe he changed his mind when he ran for pres, or maybe the fact the NSA spied on him when he was a nobody and "changed his mind"...either way, crook or coward, it's the same result.)

The technique proved itself for generations now, fuck up government then run on the hate of government that you fostered. They just try to extend that plan into everything and it seems to work well enough that they'll not stop unless there is a huge backfire or the press starts to do it's job... Even then people don't tend to vote with their heads, so actual performance isn't a big deal unless something big happens. Sadly many times when that is a factor, it's something idiotic like an unrelated scandal that has nothing to do with their competence. High school student elections seem no less mature. Instead of picking an official like one would choose an expensive product (ok bad example?) ah, like choosing a doctor-- we choose them for same emotional reasons kids do.

The law of unintended consequences (5, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 8 months ago | (#46068071)

These guys never take into consideration that you should never grant yourself any powers you wouldn't want your enemies to have...

Republican Bullshittery - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068123)

They overwhelmingly supported PATRIOT and all the other abuses of the Bush era. Now they're suddenly concerned about constitutional rights?

Suck a dick and choke, you fucking traitors.

Re:Republican Bullshittery - (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46068325)

Quite a few republicans who have been elected in the previous 10 years are not the same republicans that helped put bush in power. Rand paul and the rest of the young guns are more libertarian. The real traitors IMO are the ones who were against it while bush was in office, but then expanded the power once they took over

Good (1)

mbone (558574) | about 8 months ago | (#46068129)

Opposition parties should oppose stupid things (even if they would do the exact same thing if they were in power).

The problem with the GOP not that they oppose, it's that they seem to have lost the element of selection.

Re:Good (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#46068495)

The problem with the GOP not that they oppose, it's that they seem to have lost the element of selection.

Well, some of them are good arguments for having lost out in some element of natural selection.

Opposition parties should oppose stupid things (even if they would do the exact same thing if they were in power).

Thank goodness they do, otherwise there'd be not even the appearance of two parties.

This will pull undecided votes (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 8 months ago | (#46068135)

no doubt about it. If you voted for obama, and are now in the middle because you pay attention to what's really going on behind big media, you're probably going to be really ready for what the other party has to offer. Especially when you hear on all news sites about how we're turning into a police state silently but surely.

Re:This will pull undecided votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068247)

If you voted for obama, and are now in the middle because you pay attention to what's really going on behind big media, you're probably going to be really ready for what the other party has to offer.

If you voted for Obama and after seeing how that turned out you still fall for political promises then you're a lost cause.

Dragnet goes out.... (1)

rawtatoor (560209) | about 8 months ago | (#46068183)

and the perp-u-lation says what? Welcome to Corp 101

Put your money where your mouth is (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about 8 months ago | (#46068205)

Pass a resolution calling for the prosecution of all federal agents who engaged in the practice of "parallel constructions" and in particular try the entire clandestine side of the DEA as a criminal conspiracy operating under color of authority for its major role in that.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is (1)

dbraden (214956) | about 8 months ago | (#46068477)

I would so support that. It's too bad that the government has neither the will nor the desire to police itself.

Where Will They Find the Courage? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 8 months ago | (#46068259)

So the RNC is encouraging their members to come out against things which are unconstitutional? Where will they find the courage to make such a principled stand? I haven't heard of such a thing since the "No punching babies" resolution of 1978! I also applaud their timely response to the issue, seeing as how we've only known about it for the better part of a year.

Re:Where Will They Find the Courage? (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 8 months ago | (#46068291)

It's an election year.

Re:Where Will They Find the Courage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068535)

They will have no problem coming out against it because they don't have their guy in the White House. They are very good at getting a message out through their channels of talking points and dedicated news network. Remember when they decided to make illegal immigration the big issue? Suddenly almost every Republican governor and legislative body started putting forward bills for voter ID laws and such. Same with breaking up unions. Suddenly it was the biggest issue that all the governors felt strongly about at the same time. Ditto Obamacare. They'll do the same with this issue as well. One of the reasons I enjoy The Daily Show is that they are very alert to picking up on the obvious party talking points that get released. They'll play sound bites from half a dozen national figures, both politicians and talking heads, and show them using the exact same phrase, on the exact same day, such as "We need to have an adult conversation about this." It is SO coordinated, that it should make rank-and-file Republicans wonder just who is calling the shots for the party.

About Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068315)

Apparently having a cogent healthcare system is a moral hazard, but it took them six years to care about the massive, unconstitutional surveillance programmes.

PATRIOTs (0)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068321)

Where were these turds when Bush rammed through the PATRIOT Act? My eyes are gonna roll out of my head on this one.

Re:PATRIOTs (1)

phmadore (1391487) | about 8 months ago | (#46068327)

The USA PATRIOT Act, that is, sorry.

Re:PATRIOTs (0)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#46068369)

Where were these turds when Bush rammed through the PATRIOT Act?

'Rammed through?'

This isn't Obamacare we're talking about. Almost everyone on both sides voted for the PATRIOT Act.

Ramming: ACA vs USA PATRIOT Act (2)

Matt Kuhns (2918029) | about 8 months ago | (#46068515)

Then again, Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in a staggeringly atypical rush for such sweeping legislation, amid what was for much of the country a state of still-raw shock and terror.

By comparison the Affordable Care Act -- "Obamacare" if you insist -- passed both chambers with significant majorities after lengthy and intense debate. Debate, moreover, on issues and policy responses that were both familiar for some considerable time beforehand.

I'm not aware of any standard, detailed definition for "ramming" legislation through, so presumably this must remain a matter of personal opinion. But for my part, I really don't see a persuasive case for suggesting that the ACA was "rammed through" but the USA PATRIOT Act was not.

Can't man a ram, without a lot of hands (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46068587)

Where were these turds when Bush rammed through the PATRIOT Act?

Right with all the Democrats ramming just as hard.

As has been stated though, there are a lot of Republicans in office now that never voted for Patriot and do not like it.

Now the Presidential shoe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068333)

Now, the Presidential Shoe is on the other foot, eh???

That Palin Thing says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068385)

"How's that 'hopey-changey' stuff workin' out for ya?"

:: winks ::

:: snaps gum ::

Re:That Palin Thing says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068453)

A lot better still than if Mr. 1% were elected. Or maybe not; maybe we'd all have automobile elevators in our garages....

Re:That Palin Thing says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068509)

I have a friend who worked for NASA. Big liberal.

He agreed with you. Until Obama put a black guy in as NASA head, who said in an interview:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

Now he's fucked.

Do you think "Mr. 1%" would put a guy into head NASA who said, literally, that their "foremost" goal was not science, but to make Muslims "feel good" about themselves?

Damn, now I have to switch to supporting the NSA! (1)

Theovon (109752) | about 8 months ago | (#46068493)

The Republicans do something I agree with? Woah. I’m going to have to switch to being pro-surveilance! I’m in a conundrum!

Isn’t it the republicans who are usually in favor of this sort of stuff? They’re usually the morallity police who think it’s okay to spy into your house to make sure you’re not doing something gay or smoking pot.

Oh, wait. I get it. The republicans, who support big businesses rich people taking over the world, are afraid that surveilance will uncover their dirty dealings.

Watergate? (2, Interesting)

acidradio (659704) | about 8 months ago | (#46068533)

Wait a minute. Weren't these the same people who broke into the Democratic Natl. Committee's headquarters seeking to pilfer with documents and information?

Ending mass surveillance (1)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 8 months ago | (#46068559)

on our own people is a great first step. Next, we need to respect our allies in the same way.

Superbowl FALSE FLAG terrorist event (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46068601)

If you believe this web page, the SuperBowl will be hit with a terrorist attack planned by the NSA:
http://americandictators.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/breaking-news-superbowl-false-flag.html

It's a mixed bag (1)

dacullen (1666965) | about 8 months ago | (#46068611)

Lots of posturing about restoring 4th amendment rights w/o any specifics. I'd really like to know what ACTION they will take. The only specific plans seem to be to haul as much of the current administration before congress for some goo ole public chastisement and to see if they can throw some charges at them that will stick. Not any mention chastising the GOP leaders that created the legislation that deprived the citizenry of their constitutional rights. Let focus on addressing the reform. If they really feel the need for outing people in public, be sure to bring along the leaders of both parties during bush that created the PATRIOT act and empowered the secret laws and courts.

FTFY: GOP notices that NSA spies on them too (3, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 8 months ago | (#46068613)

Yup. Even the most dimwitted Republicans have figured out that America's secret police do not discriminate. They spy on *everybody* who might need to be arrested or blackmailed (i.e. everybody), congress included.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?