It's funny you should think that way since it was the conservatives that voted this week to allow the NSA to continue to collect information about you. I guess it must be more of the progressive's plan. Get the conservatives to be the ones voting for government spying on its citizens
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/18/leahy-usa-freedom-act-nsa-spying/19222895/
@parados,
What was the vote spread? Don't the Dems still control the Senate until Jan?
@Baldimo,
Some hawks argued it would tie the hands of NSA at a time when terrorism is on the rise, and others argued it didn't go far enough such the Senator from KY, Rand Paul. It is doubtful it will even come up in the senate because McConnell worked to defeat it.
Quote:Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, worked hard to defeat the bill, which had the support of the Obama administration and a coalition of technology companies including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
“This is the worst possible time to be tying our hands behind our backs,” Mr. McConnell said before the vote, expressing the concerns of those who argued that the program was a vital tool in the fight against terrorism.
But Tuesday’s vote only put off until next year a debate over security and personal liberties. While a Republican-controlled Senate is less likely to go along with the kinds of reforms that were in the bill, which sponsors had named the U.S.A. Freedom Act, the debate could further expose rifts between the party’s interventionist and more libertarian-leaning wings.
source
@Baldimo,
Did you not read the article? The GOP used a filibuster.
@parados,
Funny that article says nothing about a filibuster.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:Did you know the Dems changed the rules?
The Democrats were a bit devious. The only changed the rules for a few specific circumstances that happened to favor the Democrats at that precise moment, like the confirmation of Obama's nominees. The change did not cover most filibusters.
The Democrats also gave the rule change a time limit, so that it will expire before the Republicans take power in a couple months.
I propose that the Republicans wait until a Republican is president (which will be roughly two years from now), and then impose the same rule change for the nominees of the Republican president, for the same length of time.
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
Funny that article says nothing about a filibuster.
It's right there if you are familiar with the process of voting in the Senate.
Quote:WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance a bill that would stop the National Security Agency from collecting the phone records of millions of Americans who are not suspected of any crime.
Senators voted 58-42 in favor of a motion to allow the USA Freedom Act to come to an up or down vote in the Senate. The motion required 60 votes to pass.
Cloture is the process to bring a measure to a vote. It is more commonly referred to as filibuster.
@oralloy,
Quote:The Democrats also gave the rule change a time limit, so that it will expire before the Republicans take power in a couple months.
The Democrats didn't give any rule a time limit. All Congressional rules are set at the beginning of each new Congress. That means ALL rules expire with the end of the previous Congress. It's been that way for over 200 years.
@parados,
Quote:Emergency powers of the governor do not grant police the power to shoot looters on sight.
Wrong. He can issue that order to national guard and any police working with them would fall under that order.
Quote:
Which stores do the police own?
When did I ever say it should be the police who should shoot looters???
I WROTE:
Looters and arsonists should be shot on sight...anyone who is unruley or disruptuve or who do not follow lawful orders of police should be arrested immediately. Any use of force should be met with overwhelming counter force. Video should be taken to identify agitators and instigators and charged with terroristic actions and incitement to riot.
If police violate the law they should be ajudicated by the rule of law.
I listened to Sharpton tell reporters how the IRS pursuing him for millions in unpaid taxes is part of a politically motivated campaign against him. Behind him was a very large sign that read, among other things, "No Justice, No Peace."
Now we know that Sharpton believes that a finding that there are no grounds to indict the cop will be a miscarriage of justice, so presumably he is encouraging his followers to deny their communities peace should the Grand Jury decide in such a manner. In so doing he will bear responsibility for any violence, destruction, injury and death that potential rioting results in. However, that means nothing to Sharpton. He has never taken responsibility for any of his numerous despicable actions..
The man is a liar, a criminal, a tax-cheat, a clown, and a ghoul.When he arrives, mayhem and hatred arrive with him. Yet, our president considers him a trusted adviser. This speaks volumes about Obama.
I hope that this is not true,
but last night thay said on the TV news
that Officer Wilson is negotiating a resignation from the police dept.
I can t imagine Y he 'd do that.
He does not appear to have done anything rong,
but we don t necessarily know everything.
David
@Frank Apisa,
"
no chance whatever" is over-stating the case,
but I deem it un-likely in contemplation of the known robbery
by the hopped-up robber.
