Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the get-while-the-gettin's-good dept.

Government 138

Daniel_Stuckey writes: "You might remember House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, from his lovely, universally-hated CISPA cybersecurity bill that would have allowed nearly seamless information sharing between companies and the federal government. You might also remember him from his c'est la vie attitude towards civil liberties in general. Well, we've got some good news and some bad news: Rogers announced today that he won't seek re-election and is instead retiring from politics to start a conservative talk radio show on Cumulus. The bad news? He's got at least one terrible, civil liberties-killing bill to try to push through Congress before he goes. Like CISPA, the newly introduced 'FISA Transparency and Modernization Act,' seeks to make it easier for the federal government to get your information from companies."

cancel ×

138 comments

motive = results guaranteed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605383)

the bleeding must stop before the healing can begin.. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=disarmament&sm=3

Good Riddance... (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 months ago | (#46605431)

â¦I'll be SOOO happy to see this privacy hating fuck-tard off of the sunday morning shows.

I just hope the voters in his Dist. see fit to vote for someone that believes more in the constitution.

Re:Good Riddance... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605447)

he is proof that just because you are republican doesn't mean you aren't a shitty liberal.

Re:Good Riddance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605919)

he is proof that just because you are republican doesn't mean you aren't a shitty liberal.

He's conservative, not liberal.

In the US you have 2 choices: Authoritarian 'Conservatives' or Authoritarian 'Liberals'. They're all fucktards.

Re:Good Riddance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607541)

Without bullets there will always be another to take his place.

Republican (3, Insightful)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 3 months ago | (#46605435)

A Republican, you say? So we're back to posting party affiliations prominently in the summaries?

Republican / Talk show host (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 3 months ago | (#46605489)

Might as well - you know half the comments will be about party affiliation anyway, and then a bunch of comments will be about whether it's really this government's fault, or the one before it, etc.

Also, while politicians are annoying, talk show hosts can be much worse. If successful, he could pollute, I mean sway, the mind of quite a few people and get his way in the end without needing to be a politician.

Re:Republican (2)

JDAustin (468180) | about 3 months ago | (#46605491)

Only if their a Republican...

Seriously though, as a Republican (by convenience), I say good riddance. It's a chance to replace a establishment republican with someone who cares more then just about the control of the committees...

Re:Republican (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605583)

If Republicans are well represented by your terrible grammar ... that would explain a lot.

"they're a Republican" ... "an establishment" ... "than just" ... seriously, learn the fucking language.

Thank you for demonstrating that Republicans truly are illiterate morons.

Re:Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607537)

... seriously, learn the fucking language.

That's what I keep telling the wetbacks down at the convenience store when they ask me something in spanish.

You fucking elitist.

Re:Republican (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#46605591)

Perhaps, but how would such a person get on the ballot?

Re:Republican (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46605941)

The tea party successfully primaried-out some long-standing incumbents. While I fear they're being fully absorbed by the establishment, it shows it's possible.

Really, democracy works great for things the voters care about. The modern obstacle to democracy is the modern governments full focus over keeping the voters complacent at all costs. This is why I fear we'll have an entitlement bubble - we could have begun a soft landing a few years back, but hey, there's no crisis, right? Only a big greedy meanie would suggest reducing spending when the world won't end tomorrow if you don't! It will be a hard landing now, I fear.

Re:Republican (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607545)

If by "hard landing" you mean "civil war", I agree with you.

It's time to start stockpiling the essentials.

Re:Republican (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46606083)

Easy. Simply have enough people sign the petition. Nobody can legally stop you.

Re:Republican (1)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about 4 months ago | (#46607563)

Love your sig. line.

Re:Republican (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605493)

You're right, he's a conservative, Republican and former FBI employee. That should complete the description of his politics enough to let anyone understand that his motivations should be questionable if you want to see your civil liberties protected.

Re:Republican (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605585)

Worked for the FBI and now a politician...has this dude ever worked in the private sector in his life? Gotta love these loser Republicans who spend their whole life sucking the tax payer titty and then wanna talk about small government and shit. fuck. off.

Re:Republican (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607625)

Why is this a troll? I've been a registered republican since I was 18 (14 years total now), and I can't help but agree with this.

The only thing keeping me republican is 2nd amendment rights. If the democrats would stop being the party of gun grabber dipshits, they would o-fucking-bliterate the republicans except for the "abortion is a political issue more important than the pissing away of trillions on war" folks.

Re:Republican (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46605511)

Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.

Re:Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605629)

"Troll"

Whoops! A republican was offended by that. Easy to understand why...

Re:Republican (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605833)

Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government.

They only want 'limited' on things that sound like socialism -- you know, you how maintain a society.

For things like the army, or surveillance, or ensuring that their buddies at the golf course get the monopolies entrenched and copyright extended indefinitely ... then Republicans basically spend like drunken monkeys.

If it benefits big business, they'll roll over for it. If it benefits the poor or the working class, it is therefore 'evil'.

The fact their claims about trickle down economics haven't had any of the benefits they claim it will means that Republicans are either delusional, or know damned well they're taking the rest of the country for a ride.

Because they damned sure don't have a clue about what actually does help improve the economy.

Re:Republican (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607587)

So you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You guys are so predictable. You keep saying you want 'principled Republicans' and 'loyal opposition', but you can't stand anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint. You only want Republicans who are yes-men to your wildest ramblings. And you think others don't notice it.

We just usually ignore your idiocy, because it's not worth the hassle of pointing out the hypocrisy and deceit.

Re:Republican (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46607715)

:-) Your nick is very appropriate

Re:Republican (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607955)

Well, thank you. However, I have no idea what you mean by that.

Re:Republican (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46608055)

Well the most polite, family safe word I can toss out is your naiveté. It matches. I suppose innocence might work also. Either way, you previous post was a laugh riot. You seem to have quite a grasp of all the internet memes and cliches. And you really know how to misread. And to be truthful you didn't make any sense. You just sound like a grumpy, senile old man on a rant because he can't find his dentures. Hint: look in the fridge, right next to your reading glasses.

Re:Republican (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46608237)

Well, let's see if I can figure out what you mean. Your post I responded to was this:

Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.

This is usually the rallying cry for liberals/leftists/Democrats/whatever-label-you-choose-to-use.

There are many similar posts across all the blogs and message boards I read. The general sense one gets from reading similar posts is that the person (I will use the label "liberal" hereafter, but see the list above) wishes the Republicans would act according to their stated interest in small government. However that liberal also realizes that in the real world, the Republicans are pushing for a larger and stronger government, both at the federal and state levels. So, the interpretation is that the liberal would support a bona fide conservative-small-government Republican, at least in the sense of honestly debating him and recognizing his right to his own beliefs even though they are different than the liberal's beliefs.

Therefore, I posted the rhetorical question:

So you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?

I then assumed you response would be in the negative, and give my response to that:

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Now, why (you may ask yourself) am I so sure of your answer, having only seen a few of your posts here on Slashdot? How can I presume to know what is in your heart? That is explained in the next sentence of my initial post.

You guys are so predictable.

Again, I have seen your rhetoric in many forums from many users, and have analyzed what it actually means. The analysis is based on actually drawing out further statements from the liberal posters, and also using statements liberal posters made in other threads within a forum.

From reading several posts of yours, to ascertain if I happened to overlook something in your initial post above, I have confirmed you fall in line with the common liberal ranter who bemoan the lack of 'genuine conservatives' in the Republican party. You can't stand the fact that 'genuine conservatives' exist. Actually, you don't accept the fact that genuine conservatives exist. You feel they are all fakes who want to use the government to discriminate against your recognized protected classes.

Now, you may be assuming that I place all liberals into the same category, but that isn't the case. I have conversed with many liberals who do not use this false sincerity gambit. Some of them do genuinely wish there were more 'loyal opposition' in the Republican party, as opposed to power-grubbing weasels. They actually want people who don't share their views to be represented. Other liberals don't want any genuine conservative at all in elected office, and state it clearly. They hate the fact that people who have power to make law don't think exactly like they do. Of those two groups, my view of government is in line with the first one, and you have shown in many posts that your view is line with the second one.

This is the root of why I said I have no idea why my nickname, I'm New Around Here, is appropriate. Despite the sound of it, I have been having these discussions with people from all political and social backgrounds for a couple decades. I can tell when someone is being sincere, which most people are. I certainly have your angle figured out. It's the same as the last half dozen people I've told basically the same thing to over the years. Both online, and in real life.

Really, I'm not even telling it to you, since you know all this. I'm actually telling everyone who reads your posts what you will act like in your discussions. Some of them actually believe you are sincere in your desire to have genuine conservative, small-government Republicans elected to office. They will spend a lot of time debating you, only to have you throw their arguments away and call them racists and bigots. They will then waste time either defending themselves from baseless charges, or trying to convince you (despite your attack) they have the right politics if you would only listen. Maybe they can make you see why politician X is different, and right in line with what you clamor for.

So, with that in mind, you have simply shown that I have spotted you for your true colors, and that my warning to others about your false sincerity is well founded.

So, anyway, thanks for the mental exercise. It was fun. Let's do it again someday.

And, by the way, my reading glasses are on my face, a few inches from my entirely natural teeth. So you were at least in the ballpark in your prognostication. But as I look around the room, I don't see a fridge, just a bunch of gym equipment that's meant to keep me in shape. So don't quit your day job.

Re:Republican (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46608231)

you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?

I support the libertarians, at least they haven't spent the past few decades lying to me. I'd probably support the tea party if I could get them to stop spazzing and tell me what the hell they're trying to do. Last I heard, they were trying to eliminate gays because homosexuality causes deficits.

Re:Republican (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#46605697)

It seems merely informative to me.

Re:Republican (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606151)

Exactly, but some people don't want you to be informed. It puts the entire system at risk. Posting party affiliation is very useful. It makes it easier to spot the bullshitters.

I decided to post anonymously because too many moderators (republican apparently) are abusing their privileges and are mod bombing me. So fuck them

Re:Republican (0)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about 4 months ago | (#46607573)

I am a conservative but would have voted to put you as informative should you have posted under your own name. but as you are AC I will put a response.

Re:Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606749)

Because someone who is anti gun is hardly ever a republican, while someone who is supporting a big government regulation on freedoms needs clarification or else this section would be filled with baseless claims on his representation.

Nice Summary (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605449)

Wow that's not a biased summary or anything. I had to check and make sure I wasn't over on MSNBC when I read this.

Re:Nice Summary (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605529)

Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!

Re:Nice Summary (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#46605647)

Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!

It is, because it ignores the fact that members of the "leftwing party" also propose (and vote for) fascist laws all.

The.

Time.

Intellectual dishonesty at best, outright propaganda at worst.

Re:Nice Summary (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 months ago | (#46605917)

Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.

Re:Nice Summary (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#46606127)

Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.

Ha; best summation of American politics.

Ever.

Of all time.

Re:Nice Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606285)

Fly? Turkeys don't even land very softly. But you can use either hand to help them reproduce. Call it "sexual preference"

Posting anonymously to keep the mod bombers away...

Since Turkeys are fat, and not very good at flying (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 3 months ago | (#46606543)

That would explain the incompetence.

Re:Nice Summary (2)

blackest_k (761565) | about 3 months ago | (#46607137)

As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly! :)

keywords turkey helicopter and thanks giving if you don't get the reference.

Re:Nice Summary (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607593)

Thank you Les, for your on the spot coverage of today's horrendous catastrophe.

(I loved that scene, and have quoted it a few times in other forums as well. ;^) )

Re:Nice Summary (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46608119)

"Left wing party"? Since when does America have one of those?

We've got the right-wing party, and the even-more-right-wing party.

Re:Nice Summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605649)

As opposed to the left forcing a socialist "health" law down our throats? " Don't worry WE know how to spend YOUR money better than YOU do...we promise....really....we promise.....oh....ignore CA and all the corruption charges...you can trust us....really"

Re: Nice Summary (4, Insightful)

TehZorroness (1104427) | about 3 months ago | (#46606443)

There is nothing socialist at all about a law making it mandatory to give our money to private insurance companies.

Re: Nice Summary (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 3 months ago | (#46606673)

Or providing emergency medical services even when you haven't.

Re: Nice Summary (1)

Holi (250190) | about 4 months ago | (#46607313)

Well that is socialist, but wasn't that the way it used to be.

Re:Nice Summary (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 4 months ago | (#46607357)

As opposed to the left forcing a socialist "health" law down our throats?

If only it actually were a socialist law. The big problem with the bill in question is that it's pretty much the exact same, essentially fascist, law originally proposed by the Republicans. If it were actually socialist it wouldn't shy away from the concept of a public option.

The liberal gun blinders (0, Troll)

Quila (201335) | about 3 months ago | (#46605679)

I noticed in the article,

That would seem like a step in the right direction (though I am personally not opposed to the government knowing who is purchasing guns in bulk),

There we go again, the common theme. We fight for your rights, we fight for your privacy, we fight the tiniest encroachment that could potentially dissuade you from exercising a right, or even make it inconvenient to exercise a right! Unless the subject is guns, then fuck your rights.

Re:The liberal gun blinders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606319)

Yea, good thing it was never said by anyone talking sanely that we are here to take your guns.

Knowing who owns what guns is important, and keeping it of people who cannot be responsible. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege and those people freaking out about any attempt to regulate guns do not understand that.

Re:The liberal gun blinders (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607623)

I'm not the one freaking out about guns, you apparently are.

Look at the text of the Amendment. The operative part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you are saying I'm not allowed to buy a gun unless you know about that, you are infringing on my right to keep it and bear it. Therefore your law does not follow the Constitution. If you can't accept that, get a new Amendment passed that invalidates the Second Amendment. Then you have the authority to whatever the hell you want.

Until then, kindly go fuck yourself.

Re:The liberal gun blinders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46608255)

If you are saying I'm not allowed to buy a gun unless you know about that, you are infringing on my right to keep it and bear it.

That ship done sailed, ran aground, got scuttled, knocked over by a wave, crushed by a kraken and sank. The government tracks everything else, and now they came for your guns and you're wondering why there's no one left to stand up for you.

Re:The liberal gun blinders (1)

Holi (250190) | about 4 months ago | (#46607323)

How do you fight for anything. I haven't seen you gun toters out there protecting anything, I see you out there saying having a discussion about gun control being unconstitutional.

Stop acting like you have done ANYTHING heroic in the fights for civil rights of an kind. All our wins have been from NON VIOLENCE.

Time to stomp FISA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605457)

Let's find every paper copy of this piece of shit and shove it back where it came from, up Mike Rogers' ass.

I don't care about sharing information (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46605497)

It should flow freely. How people react and how they use it is a very different story.

Re:I don't care about sharing information (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605627)

So you don't mind posting your CC numbers here, right? Because it's illegal for anyone else to use them it shouldn't matter to you.

Re:I don't care about sharing information (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46605653)

That ruse doesn't work on me. Go find another corner to evangelize that nonsense.

Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.

Re:I don't care about sharing information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606079)

You don't care if the government violates your rights and the constitution? You only care about the real-world effects it has on you if they abuse these powers? Some priorities you have.

FISA...transparency.... (2)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 3 months ago | (#46605519)

....makes me giggle.

Re:FISA...transparency.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605829)

No, it's completely reasonable; if it's perfectly transparent, when you try to examine it, the light passes straight through as if there were nothing there, and so you see nothing. Perfect concealment.

Re:FISA...transparency.... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 months ago | (#46606159)

....makes me giggle.

Why? The bill is all about transparency.

Just not transparency for the government.

Conservative?? (4, Informative)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 3 months ago | (#46605541)

to start a conservative talk radio show

It amazes me how, in this day and age, a demonstrably-fascist douchebag like this asshole can disguise his obvious big-government, Hamiltonian (i.e. classic textbook "liberal") nature by calling himself "conservative." Then again, considering how dumbed-down and ignorant the populace has become, I guess it should come as no surprise that the electorate (particularly the senile, white-haired contingent) has absolutely no idea what "conservative" is supposed to mean. Hint: it's correct usage (at least in America English; it has an altogether different meaning in the UK/Europe) implies that one is in favor of Jeffersonian ideals, which run completely counter to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist (i.e. "liberal") beliefs...

Re:Conservative?? (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 3 months ago | (#46605551)

at least in America English

That would be a typo (in case anyone was wondering). :p

Re:Conservative?? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46607643)

It could be like saying "at least in Spain Spanish" as opposed to phrasing it as "at least in Spanish Spanish".

In a certain light, it makes more sense.

Re:Conservative?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605555)

Please explain to me what "i.e." means, i.e. what "i.e." means.

Re:Conservative?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605599)

"I.e." stands for "id est," that is, "that is."

Re:Conservative?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605623)

From the latin "id est" or back into English "that/it is".

Re:Conservative?? (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 3 months ago | (#46606281)

Hi!

Can you explain what you said some more? When I think of Jefferson, frankly, he seemed like a giant lib (in the sense that it is used now) to me. I looked up Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian ideals, and ok, it seems Jefferson wanted more agrarian roots for the country and Hamilton wanted more manufacturing for the country. Jefferson wanted strong foreign policy but hands off domestic policy. Hamilton wanted a more English system, a stronger domestic government.

Can you really pull these attitudes into today's conservative/liberal divides? The main question seems to be one of "do we want a strong central government?"

Liberals hate big government when it's taking their taxes and dropping bombs on innocent brown people. Conservatives hate Big Government when it takes their taxes and uses them to ... give money to poor people? Both Conservatives and Liberals hate big government when it shields obviously crooked banks who fucked over our entire economy. Conservatives hate big government when it's engaged in crony capitalism, but their representatives do it anyway. :D Liberals hate big government when it's engaged in crony capitalism, and get pissed when their representatives do it anyway...

Liberals love big government when it protects our health from baby food filled with lead or leaded gasoline driving us all slowly stupid, conservatives love big government when it's telling their neighbors not to do Icky Things in the bedroom.

Ok, I'm stereotyping a bit, but my points are: 1) Both conservatives and liberals in this country hate big government. 2)Liberals just hate it for real reasons and know that it's essential to keep companies from poisoning us. 3) Cramming today's liberals and conservatives into straight Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian ideals doesn't work, and seems like just another labeling of Liberals as lovers of big government. Clearly, they are not.... Fuck Obama for the weak willed deal making empty promiser that he is. I'm pissed that my country is engaged in crony capitalism of the highest order. I want this shit reigned in. I'm pissed about the erosion of our civil rights by the TLAs (And I seem more pissed about it than my conservative friends). Etc etc etc..... All that being said, we NEED the EPA, OSHA, the FDA, etc. This doesn't make me a lover of big government. It makes me a realist on the underlying motivation of large corporations and the power needed to reign them in.

Anyway... I think I just blathered a lot. I don't like you labelling Liberals as Hamiltonians. It's entirely possible that I misread you though. It's also entirely possible you misread every Liberal in the country. :D Please follow up.

Re:Conservative?? (3, Insightful)

shizzle (686334) | about 3 months ago | (#46607101)

That was pretty blathery, not to mention one-sided. There's a lot I could disagree with, but the thing that sticks out the most is that you've provided no evidence that liberals hate big government. It's true that liberals hate some things that government does, like being the aggressor in a foreign war, or acting corruptly, but the general response from liberals is simply to make noise to try and get the government to stop doing things. But in general liberals see the government as a force for good, so more of it tends to be better, as long as the "right people" (i.e., other liberals) are in charge to prevent it from doing the things they don't like.

In contrast, conservatives have a principled opposition to big government, in that they recognize that government will never completely stop doing bad things, and is in a uniquely coercive position to maximize the impact of those bad things (like putting you in jail if it doesn't like you), and thus the best way to limit the damage it does is to limit its size.

Of course, the actions of politicians who claim the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily correlate with these positions, and the attitudes of individuals who label themselves as such (like yourself) may also differ. However, I believe these philosophical attitudes toward the size of government are much more in line with most people's views, as well as the common understanding of the terms, than the ones you put forth.

Re:Conservative?? (2)

sadboyzz (1190877) | about 3 months ago | (#46606683)

Jefferson was much more Hamiltonian when he himself was in the presidential office. Just sayin'.

"Ideals" and "beliefs" are mostly useful in getting the sheeples in line, because sadly for most people "ideals" and "beliefs" are much easier pills to swallow than facts and evidence. How many "ideals" and "beliefs" have we had throughout the centuries, and how much good has ever come out of those? Those great men who actually got things done and moved our society in a positive direction almost always compromised.

Well, erm, so I guess my point is, it may be more constructive to critise a politician based on the actual issues, rather than painting him with a brush and attacking his "ideal".

Re:Conservative?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46608287)

Jeffersonian ideals

But Jefferson wasn't a Christian! My tea party mouthpiece tells me that gays and atheists are the cause of all our countries deficits so we've officially removed him from our founding fathers! [nytimes.com] Our great country has nothing to do with him anymore!

Rebublican Conservative?? (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 months ago | (#46605595)

Why does every one of these people campaign on a platform of "government is the problem, reduce the size of the government!", and then once in office, immediately create bills that INCREASE the size of government, pry into your personal life such as who you sleep with, and if you're a woman, even when you can have sex, and generally make it so that government *is* indeed the problem because *they* made it so?

Re:Rebublican Conservative?? (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46605865)

For three reasons:

1) Each party is actually in favor of reducing government but in different areas. So Party A decries Party B's expansion of government into area X while themselves increasing government in area Y. And vice versa.

2) When someone is trying to get into government, they rail about how government is the problem. Once they get into the government, though, they don't want to give up that power. So they instead try to use that power to "solve problems." Thus more government intrusion in our lives. (Which they will continue to campaign against. See #3.)

3) What a politician campaigns for/against and what they are actually going to do when the vote rolls around are two very different things. Sometimes they might align, but all too often they will be highly different.

Re:Rebublican Conservative?? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#46606557)

Congratulations on your patience.

Re:Rebublican Conservative?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607891)

While I agree with most of your points, especially 2 and 3, I dont think most Democrats say they are for small government and keep saying government is the problem.

So to me, it is true that both sides want to increase government to benefit themselves or their beliefs, but only one side is hypocritical.

Re:Rebublican Conservative?? (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 3 months ago | (#46605877)

Because it works. Check the incumbent election rates.

next question?

TFA: bill is a list of things govt must stop doing (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 3 months ago | (#46606135)

TFA acknowledges that the bill is pretty much a big list of things the government will not be allowed to do, aka smaller government.

The summary is largely a lie (shocking, I know). The article takes issue with the fact that among all of the restrictions it puts on the government, it also repeats one phrase in existing law as it adds more restrictions to that phrase.

Current law is that the intelligence agency can get [spy on foreign persons] if they have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion". This bill says that even with "reasonable and articulable suspicion", it still must follow fourth amendment guidelines, must not be triggered by aything protected by the first amendment, must not include the contents of any communication (only metadata), etc. The author of TFA is making a big deal about the fact that the bill mentions "reasonable and articulable suspicion", but that's ALREADY current law. This bill adds restrictions to such inquiries.

I suggest when he gets his radio show (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 3 months ago | (#46605615)

We welcome him with a lot of calls. Remember to be nice to the prescreeners.

Come on.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605621)

"Like CISPA, the newly introduced 'FISA Transparency and Modernization Act,' seeks to make it easier for the federal government to get your information from companies."

Newsflash! The govt and companies already 'share' your information without any CISPA / FISA law. And, what difference does republican / democrat make? Nothing - they both want this type of action to continue.

Re:Come on.. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46606383)

They need to be able to use it against you in court. It's just a formality.

Throw that word "transparency" in there (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 months ago | (#46605625)

Make it sound good to the people.

Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.

Can you spot the Democrat? (4, Informative)

the_skywise (189793) | about 3 months ago | (#46605661)

This Slashdot article...

""You might remember House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, from his lovely, universally-hated CISPA cybersecurity bill that would have allowed nearly seamless information sharing between companies and the federal government."

Or this one...

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
"Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Can you spot the Democrat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606515)

One's part of the state legislature, the other part of the national legislature. The Congressperson is just a tad more prominent, I'd say.

Re:Can you spot the Democrat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607997)

The Congressperson's Party is a tad more prominent, I'd say.. Can you spot your own bias? That should be the question.

So...wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605691)

The bill stops bulk collection but allows for enforced request of data after the fact without any judicial oversight. Sounds to me like a good way to privatize what the NSA is already doing anyway. All this legal talk is moot because no-one up there gives two shits or one fuck about the law anyway. Fuck it - we should just give root access of every computer to the government. Let's see how that goes.

Re:So...wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605755)

we should just give root access of every computer to the government. Let's see how that goes.

as long as they sign the form indemnifying me of fault when the servers crash in exchange for root access. I'll have the easiest job ever!

I always find it interesting. . . (3)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 3 months ago | (#46605719)

when people who claim to be conservatives are front and center in efforts to invade people's privacy or their lives in general.

Whether this situation, the banning of books at libraries, abortion or anything other matter involving one's personal freedoms, conservatives seem to go out of their way to be hypocrites when talking about freedom.

I guess it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.

Sort of like when businesses decry government regulation or intrusion into their practices then turn around and come to the taxpayer asking for money.

Re:I always find it interesting. . . (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46605895)

There are actual conservatives out there who still are conservative in values. Sadly, the Republican party seems to have pushed all of them out in favor of the bible thumping, anti-science, stuck-in-the-1950's type of candidate. If the Republican party went away and a Really Truly Conservative party took their place, this country would be much better off. (This is coming from someone who usually votes Democrat.)

Re:I always find it interesting. . . (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 3 months ago | (#46606413)

There have always been strong-on-defense conservatives. Anti-communist zealots who were happy to sacrifice a lot of liberty for a little temporary safety had their biggest prominence during exactly the time that today's conservatives hold up as the ideal time of American values.

What I find interesting is the way it's costing them an opportunity to go against Obama. Obama's own party is largely unhappy about continued NSA spying. Even Dianne Feinstein, who is from very liberal San Francisco but has been a defender of the American intelligence community from her position on the Select Committee on Intelligence, finally got fed up with it last week.

Politically, it would be a good time for libertarians to try to pry liberals away from the Democrats. But the libertarians have made their primary political home with the Republicans for some time; there is a separate Libertarian party but it never fares well due to vote-splitting. Republicans won't easily be able to switch away from a position that put national security over liberty, even when they've got a golden opportunity to use it to embarrass Obama.

Since Obama himself is making proposals to limit (but hardly stop) NSA spying on Americans, in an ideal world you'd love to see everybody come together to try to reach a point where at least a majority can say, "Yeah, I feel OK about changing the situation, even if I'd rather have more security or more defense from intrusiveness." But sadly for the state of American politics, it seems mostly like an opportunity for both extremes to oppose the center.

Re:I always find it interesting. . . (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 months ago | (#46606685)

We call em RINOs for a reason!

Re:I always find it interesting. . . (1)

Holi (250190) | about 4 months ago | (#46607627)

I find it funny that it seems that most Republicans fall under that title. Maybe because the Far Right aren't the ones that actually get to define what a republican is.

Re:I always find it interesting. . . (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#46608225)

That depends on how you define "Far Right". I'm a Barry Goldwater / Ronald Reagan kind of conservative. Now take John McCain. The same guy that stood up to ex-KGB Putin and all anti-Russian pomp. Yup, he's the epitome of a RINO; believe it or not! Trying to make a pull on conservative value when it suits you best does not make one a genuine conservative. It's self-serving asshats like McCain that I can't stand. A true Conservative is one that has a historical voting record you can count on.

http://www.rinolist.org/rinos/ [rinolist.org]

2 party system (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 3 months ago | (#46605761)

So we have the Republicans how act like Daddy and tells you what is morally correct and tries to force it with laws. Then we have Mommy Democrats who tells you how to behave with others and spend your money. How about we get a 3rd party (maybe a few) that agree to stay out of or personal and finacial lives.

I cant see any reason we need to make it easier for companies to turn metadata or straight up personal data to the government. And both parties fall over themselves when it comes to self serving federal laws.

And for those people complain that a libertarian party are the ones who would allow EPA disasters, schools to go unfunded, no fire/police departments are just using scare tactics to keep the status quo. So damn simple... Keep the gov outta our personal, private and capitalist transactions. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:2 party system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606133)

And for those people complain that a libertarian party are the ones who would allow EPA disasters, schools to go unfunded, no fire/police departments are just using scare tactics to keep the status quo. So damn simple... Keep the gov outta our personal, private and capitalist transactions. Why is this so hard to understand?

Thank you for that Chewbacca Defense. You noted the position exists then brushed it aside without addressing the criticism.

Partisan Problems (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 3 months ago | (#46606621)

The whole notion of battling factions in government is a terrible idea. How can you have a "Union" when the people in government are so divided? Though the political party in itself isn't inherently bad, we do have ultra-left/right morons and no-compromise party loyalists in the government that can't just seem to look past their reelection opportunities. And yet we still believe their "campaign promises" and vote them into a new term, only to have them spend it on campaigning for the next possible reelection. Even Washington, in his Farewell Address, so astutely captures this sentiment:

The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. Read more: http://communities.washingtont... [washingtontimes.com] Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Just a pervert at heart (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#46605809)

Rogers and his ilk just like peeking at their neighbors. When he retires from politics and moves back home, make certain you don't leave your curtains open. He probably has a telescope.

Treason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46605987)

And they say Snowden is the bad guy! Sheesh!

"Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan" is the one (of several, no doubt) that should be tried for treason, not Snowden.

So get rid of him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46606057)

I'm starting to feel like America just needs to get their act together and kill off the people who want to ruin things from the top. Peacefully protesting and lobbying against this guy obviously haven't worked, but a rope will.

Re:So get rid of him (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 4 months ago | (#46607809)

Well, before using the rope, you could first stop voting for that kind of person.

privacy, wiretapping, eavesdropping (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 3 months ago | (#46606909)

few months ago watching "The Anderson Tapes" (early 1970s) and near end of movie police searching building for more robbery suspects find some equipment tapped into some of the buildings phone lines. Senior officer says, "whoever set this up better have a warrant!" Later the 'snoops' that have been tracking character played by Sean Connery erased and purged all the tapes of conversations they recorded because they could get in big trouble as none of it was authorized by the courts. Fast forward to these days, meh, that kind of storyline is totally ridiculous. There are other such movies back in the days when people did respect legalities of wiretapping and eavesdropping. Of course there were shenanigans played out by some govt agencies but they knew they were doing wrong so they had to cover it up. These days, they don't because "it's ok."

Someone should give him early retirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607775)

with a baseball bat to the head. Problem solved.

I'm not American... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46607877)

I'm not an American, but this guy sounds like he gets his playbook mailed to him as a personal menoir from Vladimir Putin. Just sayin'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...