July 30, 2011

Where Right Meets Left
— rdbrewer

Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee Approve ISP Snooping Bill, HR-1981.

On Thursday legislation was approved that would force internet service providers to save information on customer usage for twelve months on the chance law enforcement might want to look at it sometime. The bill was mislabeled the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011" in a nauseating attempt to cut off debate on its merits.

It eliminates the warrant requirement.

ISPs would be required to store customer names, bank account numbers, IP addresses, credit card numbers and home addresses. In other words, a gigantic database will be created for any snooping purpose. And, let's be clear, since there is no warrant requirement, law enforcement will end-up simply grabbing all of the information available, whether or not there is an ongoing investigation, and storing it permanently.

Republicans did this.

There's a point where right meets left. It's where some in the Republican party would liberally use government power to further their ends. It's a "we need a new law for that" kind of mentality. "Hell, we just wanna do good." They're the same as liberals; they're just on different sides of the coin. They both want to spread their good deeds far and wide with little thought to proper limits on the extent of government and police power. This has very little to do with what America is all about. It has everything to do with how these people view themselves. Liberals and conservative like these are drunk on power. They're so enamored of their own brilliance and so certain of their abilities, they feel they can fashion new law on an ad hoc basis whenever it suits them.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was a co-sponsor of this bill.

I would submit that the only real conservatives are constitutional conservatives. Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things. They view government power as a sword rather than a shield. They also assume government is only benevolent, that bureaucrats never do harm.

Below the fold is a rogue's gallery of CINOs who joined forces with Sheila Jackson Lee to vote this bill out of committee.


Lamar Smith (R TX-21)


Howard Coble (R NC-6)


Elton Gallegly (R CA-24)


Bob Goodlatte (R VA-6)


Dan Lungren (R CA-3)


Steve Chabot (R OH-1)


J. Randy Forbes (R VA-4)


Steve King (R IA-5)


Trent Franks (R AZ-2)


Tim Griffin (R AR-2)


Tom Marino (R PA-10)


Trey Gowdy (R SC-4)


Dennis Ross (R FL-12)


Sandy Adams (R FL-24)

Darrell Issa and James Sensenbrenner voted against the bill. Here are links to transcripts and webcasts of the full committee markup of the bill.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 10:20 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 448 words, total size 4 kb.

1 So there's still a chance this can be defeated in the full House? I hold no such hope for the Senate.

Posted by: fiatboomer at July 30, 2011 10:25 AM (0Wf6c)

2

To Hell with them all.

Posted by: Alex at July 30, 2011 10:26 AM (/TevE)

3

"ISPs would be required to store customer names, bank account numbers, IP addresses, credit card numbers and home addresses. In other words, a gigantic database will be created for any snooping purpose."

 

FLV porn sites FTW.

Posted by: CAC at July 30, 2011 10:26 AM (9tdDl)

4

After 25 years, I'm ready for another party. I barely recognize the cowards that represent me now.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at July 30, 2011 10:26 AM (C6OjH)

5 Is that a fife and drum I hear?

I think so.

It's getting very close to the time when I'll have to decide whether I want to be a part of this slavery experiment anymore.

Posted by: sifty at July 30, 2011 10:26 AM (ECjvn)

6 politics really is show business for ugly people...

Posted by: D. Hopper Badger at July 30, 2011 10:28 AM (qPTz0)

7 No surprise about Dan Lungren.  He used to be the state's Attorney General, and he never met a person he wouldn't arrest for something.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at July 30, 2011 10:28 AM (QxGmu)

8

Posted by: sifty at July 30, 2011 03:26 PM (ECjvn)

Been there. Done that.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 30, 2011 10:29 AM (GKQDR)

9 What a shame Lamar Smith in particular is gunning for the erosion of my rights.  I really like that guy most of the time.

Good for Sensenbrenner for having principles.  Perhaps he should be Chairman again, and perhaps Smith isn't ready to lead.   Sorry to say it.  Darrel Issa is, as usual, a champ.

This kind of legislation is repellent from start to finish.  The idea this is protecting kids from pornographers is insane. 

Posted by: Dustin at July 30, 2011 10:29 AM (519+h)

10 This is what totalitarianism looks like.  Everyone who voted in favor of this should be tried for violating their oath of office.

Posted by: cranky-d at July 30, 2011 10:32 AM (sNyNR)

11 So that means that the only good guys are con-cons?


CONNNNNNNN!

Posted by: Where's rdbrewer? at July 30, 2011 10:32 AM (zPb4d)

12 CRAAAAPPPP!!!! HOW DO WE STOP THIS GUYS!??!?!?!?

Posted by: Anthony Weiner at July 30, 2011 10:35 AM (9aO2M)

13 It's never really been a fear that the CURRENT Admin would use the excessive powers of search and seizure. It's the Admin after this one or the next after that.

Slippery slopes and all.

Those that say "Well don't do anything you're not supposed to be doing" are being glib and disingenuous.

Who would have expected that smoking would be banned in NYC 30 years ago?

What 'crime' will be designated as the new shibboleth of 'protecting the children' tomorrow?

Posted by: Where's rdbrewer? Oh, here he is! at July 30, 2011 10:37 AM (zPb4d)

14 I saw that this bill made it out of committee the other day. It scared me to death. We allow TSA agents to molest our kids at airports without saying a word. We allow bills like this to pass without even a minor protest. This country is in a financial death spiral and we kiss more and more of our freedoms goodbye every day. Sometimes I feel like there is just no hope. I would like to say there is no way it will get through the House but it came out the Judiciary Committee with heavy Republican support.

Posted by: Laura at July 30, 2011 10:37 AM (v6lBF)

15 so Breitbart gets the comments from the Feds?

Posted by: roman moroni at July 30, 2011 10:37 AM (3CYs7)

16 *squirt*

Posted by: Digital video image stored for one year on ISP server at July 30, 2011 10:39 AM (C0Z3w)

17

If they have to store 12 months per customer of all the IP addresses that they have visited, do these assclowns have any idea of the storage size required to do that??? WTFO?

Email/write your Congress Critters and get this shot down. Please.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at July 30, 2011 10:39 AM (EhYdw)

18 I've told you before, the Republican leadership is a major part of the problem. It isn't left against right.

Posted by: Texan Economist at July 30, 2011 10:39 AM (TC/9F)

19 The Right has BECOME the Left.

Run you finger around the edge of a circle and you will return to the original point the Left has gone so far left they've turned into their worst nightmare of 40 years ago, ditto the Right going too far right.

Posted by: Where's rdbrewer? Oh, here he is! at July 30, 2011 10:40 AM (zPb4d)

20 Killing the nternet, one small step at a time.

Posted by: pawn at July 30, 2011 10:41 AM (1Ol6/)

21 Lighten up Francis. I've read the bill and I don't see anything about storing bank account numbers etc. What I do see is that they will require the isp's to store DHCP and RADIUS records for 18 months. I hate to tell you all this but The isp's already have this data and they maintain it and store it (look up Iron Mountain). Most of them will provide this data to law enforcement without a warrent. This bill mearly codifies the required data retention time.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 10:42 AM (0mczf)

22 Lamar Smith sponsored this thing. He's been pushing "data retention" since at least 2009 (HR.1076/S.436). He also tried to get a provision into the 2007 copyright law update that would have applied civil forfeiture (i.e., the government comes and takes your computer) to copyright violations (i.e., did you view/download something you shouldn't have?). ------------ I usually don't have a lot of patience with the California deligation, but I've gotta give props to Zoe Lofgren for her (failed) amendment (it's #36) that would have given Smith's bill a more accurate title: On the first page, beginning in line four strike "This act" and all that follows through the end of line five and insert "This act may be cited as the 'Keep every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without A Warrant Act of 2011" Go Zoe!

Posted by: Old Grouch at July 30, 2011 10:42 AM (MLvy5)

23 That Howard Coble fellow looks pretty tech savvy, I'm not sure why we would question his motives.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 30, 2011 10:43 AM (NcgQo)

24 Yet more proof that some people hate small business. There used to be small Mom & Pop ISPs. They could not compete. There are now fewer ISPs around. With a new regulatory burden like this, even more outfits will be driven out of business. Congress critters are willing to place a burden on others that they are not willing to bear themselves, nor do they understand what they ask others to bear.

Posted by: fluffy at July 30, 2011 10:43 AM (4Kl5M)

25 Half of them are from the South.  No surprise.

Social conservatives love this kind of shit.  Recently, the Republicans down here made a lot of noise about banning porn altogether by allowing the state (Louisiana) to dictate to private cable companies what programming they would be allowed to carry.  The statist impulse is strong in "conservatives" who want to use the police power of government just as aggressively as liberals, toward their own ideas of social betterment.

I'll be voting to re-elect my Sec. of State, AG, and Treasurer in a few months and that'll be about it.  Everyone else here, from Jindal to my state representative to my mayor, can go right to hell.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 30, 2011 10:43 AM (42kE1)

26 Epic fail, they didn't include newspaper subscribers,  PBS donors, or cable/satellite TV viewing logs in the database.  How can we catch the predators if we don't know what you have on your TIVO?

Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at July 30, 2011 10:44 AM (NLWij)

27 Steve King (R IA-5) especially has proven he is not a CINO. What they need to do is amend that portion of the bill to protect rights while still achieving the goal protecting children.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 10:45 AM (o2lIv)

28 Another sad thing is that almost half of these people are among the vaunted House Freshmen.  Griffin, Marino, Gowdy, Ross, and Adams.

Howard Coble, on the other hand, has been sitting there for almost 30 years.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 30, 2011 10:46 AM (42kE1)

29 I would submit that the only real conservatives are constitutional conservatives. Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things.

This sort of support of statism by most "conservatives" is the reason for me refusing to label myself as one but, rather, as an "anti-nanny-statist" and "non-leftist."

Posted by: Herr Blücher at July 30, 2011 10:46 AM (hbjRj)

30 What they need to do is amend that portion of the bill to protect rights while still achieving the goal protecting children.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 30, 2011 10:47 AM (42kE1)

31 I don't think stuff like this is a socon thing as much as it's an old people-scared-of-that-internet-thing thing.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 30, 2011 10:47 AM (G/hEe)

32 I guess the Republicans have already loss the fight since now we're picking scapegoats, huh?

Posted by: Anony at July 30, 2011 10:49 AM (Yigvc)

33 30 Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.

I think it can be done, but they'd have to do it carefully.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 10:50 AM (o2lIv)

34 gahhhhhhhhhhhhh

Posted by: Truman North at July 30, 2011 10:50 AM (K2wpv)

35 I would submit that the only real conservatives are constitutional conservatives. Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things.

Is this simple trolling?

There are two strands of traditional American political thought. Conservative  and libertarian - going all the way back to Jefferson and Adams.

Both died in the 1930s. Conservatives revived slowly but surely, but libertarianism never did. Progressivism has managed to pretty much kill it for the last 80 years.

So the problem isn't the conservatives, or as you call them the socons. The problem is the socialist left has replaced the libertarians, who have not figured out how to recover their traditional place in the political order. One obvious point though - picking ad hominem fights with the conservatives is not going to get them there. And oddly, that has been their "sword" of choice for the last 20 years or so.

Seriously, if you want libertarianism to revive, and we all should, you need to encourage them to stop taking the easy road of working with the Left.

Posted by: 18-1 at July 30, 2011 10:50 AM (FBr/C)

36 We need a wealthy private entrepreneur or corporation to launch a program that will populate the earth's atmosphere with a private network of highly encrypted communication satellites.

So who wants to step up and become public enemy #1?  For the record, I'd be happy to invest in such an endeavor.

Posted by: Fritz at July 30, 2011 10:52 AM (p2IBw)

37 That's because the Left embraces some of the Libertarian's well cherished view points about civil rights and protection from government.

Or at least until lately.

Plus the Libertarians have some really, really cock-eyed views about foreign policy. (Nor Luap, I'm talking to you)

Posted by: Where's rdbrewer? Oh, here he is! at July 30, 2011 10:54 AM (zPb4d)

38

You know, anytime I see something come up in the House that is specifically designed to restrict freedom and liberty, I assume Wasserman-Shultz is one of the main driving forces behind it. It's just like an auto-reaction.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 10:54 AM (OX4OZ)

39 Any machine that beats Kasparov can't be trusted.

Posted by: Howard Coble at July 30, 2011 10:56 AM (p+mzQ)

40 The U.S. is bipolar and I'm not talking about bears either.

Posted by: It's all gonna end in tears at July 30, 2011 10:56 AM (zPb4d)

41 Lulz.

But, hey, we need to listen to the republicans because otherwise we're stuck with the what the democrats want!

LOL. They're not one better than the other.

Posted by: Honey Badger at July 30, 2011 10:56 AM (H0dXA)

42 38

I read that as autoerection at first. HEH.

Posted by: It's all gonna end in tears at July 30, 2011 10:57 AM (zPb4d)

43 "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronÂ’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S.Lewis

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at July 30, 2011 10:58 AM (3I2Ox)

44 The U.S. is bipolar and I'm not talking about bears either. Get the hell outta my way! I have pine cones to eat!

Posted by: manic porcupine at July 30, 2011 10:58 AM (4Kl5M)

45 Please, for the love of God, read the bill. Its only seven pages. Then come back and tell me page, paragraph and line that is so offensive.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 10:59 AM (0mczf)

46 ~C.S.Lewis

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at July 30, 2011 03:58 PM (3I2Ox)

CS Lewis being perhaps the most notable evil socon of the last century.

Posted by: 18-1 at July 30, 2011 10:59 AM (FBr/C)

47 I read that as autoerection at first. HEH.

Erection and "Wasserman-Shultz" should not be in the same paragraph, unless said paragraph is detailing how W-S deflates erections.

It's all gonna end in tears chaos.

FIFY.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 30, 2011 11:00 AM (c0A3e)

48

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at July 30, 2011 03:58 PM (3I2Ox)

That quote never gets old.

Posted by: blue star at July 30, 2011 11:00 AM (lofS9)

49 Yeal, no social conservative is really a conservative.Those vaunted social moderates, like Scott Brown and Mark kirk are the real conservatives. Social cons like Jim Demint are the enemy of conservatism!.

 This is tiring. I'm okay with differences of opinion, and I have no qualms with libertarians. But I'm tired of being told that social conservative views are not conservative. Fighting against the federal government forcing abortion on all 50 states without public consent is equivalent to liberals forcing views on all 50 states without public consent?

 What, I'm an enemy now?

Posted by: Crazee at July 30, 2011 11:00 AM (H3ujh)

50 Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at July 30, 2011 03:58 PM (3I2Ox) Bingo! I was just about to post that same quote.

Posted by: Andy at July 30, 2011 11:01 AM (veZ9n)

51 I'm for polar marriage

Posted by: cherry π at July 30, 2011 11:01 AM (OhYCU)

52 Wow, I'm very surprised by Trey Gowdy's support of this.  He's my rep. He's in the freshman class and, I thought, reliably small gov't conservative.  Looks like I'll be contacting his office.  Damn.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 30, 2011 11:02 AM (EIlEQ)

53

I would submit that the only real conservatives are constitutional conservatives. Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things. They view government power as a sword rather than a shield.

Thank you for saying that. I've believed that for a long time. I'll add the neocons to your list of conservatives who aren't real conservatives.

One more thing: There's no such thing as fiscal conservatives. There's fiscallly responsible and fiscally irresponsible. Two plus two equals the same in blue states as it does in red states.

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 11:03 AM (gTGz3)

54 Chaos is just  lack of perception.

There's order in everything

Posted by: The Law of Entropy. Learn it, live it, love it. at July 30, 2011 11:05 AM (zPb4d)

55

Steve King is against everything except spying on his fellow Americans without a warrant. Fuck him and the rest of those assholes.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 11:05 AM (MtwBb)

56 Look, as long as you obey all the rules today, and all the rules we retroactively apply tomorrow, you'll be fine.

The rules are simple

1. Feed your children the proper govt-approved diet.
2. Own and operate a proper govt approved vehicle.
3. Never say anything mean about any govt protected class of people. The govt will let you know if what you said qualifies.
4. Don't read any non govt approved material on the internet.

Also, you are only allowed to find Scarlett Johansson attractive from the day she turned 18. So none of her movies before age 18 are you legally allowed to find her attractive. And since she filmed Lost in Translation a month before turning 18 ... I expect all you dirty pervs to immediately register as a sex offender.

And don't try to be get all clever and say she was 18 when the movie was released. She was 17 when she made it, you pervs. Clearly Bill Murray needs to be locked up for his role in this perverted piece of filth. Why a mere child was allowed to play the role of the sexy, young, innocent ingenue is beyond me.

Posted by: Congress at July 30, 2011 11:06 AM (QcFbt)

57 OT:  As expected it looks like the establishment repubs will join with the dems on a debt deal.  The tea party congressman will vote no, but it won't matter.  We get more debt.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 11:08 AM (0f7gD)

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 11:08 AM (o2lIv)

59 On the first page, beginning in line four strike "This act" and all that follows through the end of line five and insert "This act may be cited as the 'Keep every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without A Warrant Act of 2011"

Go Zoe!
Posted by: Old Grouch

Heh, that kicks ass.

I wish someone would pass legislation that requires each bill have an alternate name decided by the opposition. The continual abuse of language and truth in bill titles is insane.

"I rise in support of the The 2011 Act for Puppies, Pleasant Dreams, and Cookies (oh, and suicide machines for Medicaid hospitals)!" 

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 30, 2011 11:08 AM (DEcmU)

60 At least the Nazis didn't claim to be acting in the interest of 'the children'.

Posted by: The Law of Entropy. Learn it, live it, love it. at July 30, 2011 11:08 AM (zPb4d)

61

I'm surprised at Sandy Adams. I really thought she knew better.

I agree with your assesment that only those conservatives who are strick Constitutionalists are true conservatives. The illegality if this bill jumped right out at me. The government has absolutely no right to even so much as glance in my direction unless and until I've broken the law. Even then, there are specific steps that must be taken in order to prosecute me. These must be done in order and themselves follow more specific rules in order not to be thrown out of court.

This law violates the Fourth Amendment in the most blatent way possible. I keep expecting the lawyers who craft these laws to know better. I get disappointed every single time.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 30, 2011 11:09 AM (d0Tfm)

62 The folks who call in to C-Span are complete dolts.

I am sooooo tempted to call in and give a shout out to the morons.

Posted by: As IF... at July 30, 2011 11:10 AM (piMMO)

63 I am sooooo tempted to call in and give a shout out to the morons.

Posted by: As IF... at July 30, 2011 04:10 PM (piMMO)

I listened to half of the first call.  All I could understand was that the caller was in public housing, in poor health and hated billionaires.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 11:11 AM (X6akg)

64 Oh yeah! Grover Norquist and all the rich are working with AQ to destroy America from the inside!

Bring out the popcorn!

Posted by: As IF... at July 30, 2011 11:11 AM (piMMO)

65 Lighten up Francis. I've read the bill and I don't see anything about storing bank account numbers etc. What I do see is that they will require the isp's to store DHCP and RADIUS records for 18 months. I hate to tell you all this but The isp's already have this data and they maintain it and store it (look up Iron Mountain). Most of them will provide this data to law enforcement without a warrent. This bill mearly codifies the required data retention time.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 03:42 PM (0mczf)

 

I agree.  I thought they had been doing this all along.  Nothing new here.  If you want total privacy, then don't do or write anything on the internet.  It's that simple.  Someone, if not the government, is storing your data.  It's a freedom that we voluntarily give up, even as I write this comment.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 11:12 AM (21K2z)

66 80's, that bill was rewritten at the last minute.  The final version would be a good link.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 11:12 AM (i2fkw)

67 James Sensenbrenner is my former congressman. If there was ever a smart, dedicated, stand up conservative, he is it.

Posted by: Oldsailors poet at July 30, 2011 11:13 AM (ZDUD4)

68 Please, for the love of God, read the bill. Its only seven pages. Then come back and tell me page, paragraph and line that is so offensive. "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz" Doesn't get much more offensive than that. Seriously, Chairman Mow is right. There's not a lot to this bill.

Posted by: fluffy at July 30, 2011 11:14 AM (4Kl5M)

69 61

That would be 'SUSPECTED OF VIOLATING THE LAW'.

Then they are required to follow certain rules to obtain the evidence that proves the violation.

Why was this part of the Bill of Rights?

Because in the past people were thrown in jail first and then the charges were filed. Bail was almost unknown and many times the laws being violated had just been enacted or decreed by the government FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEIZING PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPERTY.

Sound like what goes on today with criminal seizures? That's because no matter how many 'conservative' judges on SCOTUS say it's ok, IT'S NO OKAY.

Cops are lazy they go after the easy lead they arrest the more docile suspects. That's why they love going after pot heads; no hassles. PCP tweakers and strong arm robbers; not so much.

Posted by: The Law of Entropy. Learn it, live it, love it. at July 30, 2011 11:15 AM (zPb4d)

70 Nothing new here.  If you want total privacy, then don't do or write anything on the internet.  It's that simple.  Someone, if not the government, is storing your data.  It's a freedom that we voluntarily give up, even as I write this comment.

Listen to the man, folks.  And also, if you don't want a burly, sweaty ex-felon slipping a hand up your ten-year-old daughter's dress in full view of three hundred people, then don't travel.

Posted by: The TSA at July 30, 2011 11:15 AM (GOXeN)

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 11:17 AM (i2fkw)

72 If you want total privacy, then don't do or write anything on the internet.  It's that simple.  Someone, if not the government, is storing your data.  It's a freedom that we voluntarily give up, even as I write this comment. Posted by: Soona

Which enumerated power gives the Federal government the right to tell companies to hold such information?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 30, 2011 11:18 AM (DEcmU)

73
Yeah, I had an argument with one of you conservatives just last week. Standing in line at the grocery with my double baskets, a woman complained because I used a credit card to pay for my groceries. 

She also didn't like the idea of me buying steaks and shrimp.  She acted all haughty and stuff.  She complained about my credit card from the State of North Carolina, saying I didn't deserve to eat better than people that paid for my food.  Well, let me tell you and all the other conservatives, I deserve free food, and you jerks can just go fuck yourselves.

Posted by: Tammy Sue Pfluggerfeister r, Sheriff Cartenheime at July 30, 2011 11:19 AM (Lt/Za)

74 This stupid bill modifies the existing Federal statues already on the book. You are all worried about data retention THAT THEY ALREADY DO. Read section 4, that is the part that has everyone in such a lather. I am one of the bigget privacy advocates out there, but this is data that is already maintained and provided to law enforcement no questions asked.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 11:20 AM (0mczf)

75 72 Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity. Does this mean some dog catcher can go fishing through my internet logs?

Posted by: fluffy at July 30, 2011 11:22 AM (4Kl5M)

76

Remember my good friends, anything can be justified under the guise of utilitarianism encased in an ends justify the means cognition.

Should we also be compelled to keep a written log of everything we may say at a cocktail party or in the privacy of our own homes? And submit a record of such every quarter to a file bank which could act as a sort of escrow clearing house of  information --- information that could potentially assist in preserving peace in this country?

It could be labeled the libel prevention and investment in the future act.  

The founding fathers' prescience is haunting.

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 11:24 AM (Fb9Q0)

77 This stupid bill modifies the existing Federal statues already on the book. You are all worried about data retention THAT THEY ALREADY DO. Read section 4, that is the part that has everyone in such a lather. I am one of the bigget privacy advocates out there, but this is data that is already maintained and provided to law enforcement no questions asked.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 04:20 PM (0mczf)

You're wrong about that, they are cases everyday where the government has had to get supoena's and even go to court to get companies to release ISP's. I don't know where you are getting the no questions asked from.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 11:24 AM (MtwBb)

78

So the data is largely retained by ISP providers already and this just codifies what they are already doing.

But in the transcript, members of the committee are in objection to the bill allowing law enforcement to access that data by administrative subpoena rather than a court order. Isn't that really the point -- that if the bill becomes law they'll just be able to go in and fish around at will without any judicial review?

Maybe records retention is a red herring. It's not the existence of the records that matters, it's the requirement to open them up to any cop or government bureacrat  who demands them.

You know damned well they won't just go in there for good reasons. Remember Joe the Plumber and his private records? And he didn't even do anything - he just happened to be standing there when Candidate Obama walked up to him and stupidly revealed his true agenda. Quick, gotta scarifice this insect to distract everybody.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 30, 2011 11:25 AM (C0Z3w)

79 66 80's, that bill was rewritten at the last minute.  The final version would be a good link.

72 Look at this amendment.


So it seems to primarily further explain and define terms within Section 4 while adding a few clauses. Need to study more.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 11:28 AM (o2lIv)

80

To argue that this legislation simply modifies, embellishes or otherwise treats "already existing statute" is a hollow argument. The fact of the matter is it expands the scope by placing explicit instruction to private enterprise as respects ISP information and serves to strengthen federal purview.

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 11:29 AM (Fb9Q0)

81 It looks like people are over-stating what the bill does, not that what it does (in aim of expanding warrantless searches) is not bad enough. Also, it's not "only seven pages," it's seven pages plus all the relevant codes it amends or refers to. It's also legalese, which is an alien language to most people - words mean unexpected things. The whole legal system has been caught up in the world of exceptions and seizures and bizarre maneuvers to the extent that it's just a huge minefield - that can't be reformed because it's designed and implemented by lawyers who benefit from all that hullabaloo. Also, nothing a politician ever does "for the children" is actually for the children. Child pornography has become the new "stranger danger" child abuse that put dozens if not hundreds of innocent people in jail in the 80s and 90s - so heinous that due process is never quite assiduously observed. We laugh at people who say they're innocent, they didn't put the kiddie porn on their laptop... well, you laugh, I've *seen* the immediate results of viruses, trojans or spyware doing *just* that to otherwise limited-use machines the user simply did not have the opportunity to look at porn on. The legal system will f*** you up, regardless of your intent or even knowledge of such an event, if that happens to you and your records come into their hands. So no, I'm not on board with any expansion of government powers in these areas. They're the 9000-lb gorilla in a china shop (to mix metaphors) already. If they want to spend more money (NO!) on this problem they need more eyeballs on people with a history of offenses, and missing-person cases (and not just sensationalist reporter eyeballs).

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 11:30 AM (bxiXv)

82

Will this be defeated when it comes for a full vote in the House?

It may be thought in good purpose, but I find it weird that no warrant is required, how is this constraining the Govt's power? limited govt, isn't that what consitutional conservatism is about?

Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at July 30, 2011 11:31 AM (ACkhT)

83 "Keep every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without A Warrant Act of 2011"

LOL.  Love it.

" This is tiring. I'm okay with differences of opinion, and I have no qualms with libertarians. But I'm tired of being told that social conservative views are not conservative"

Social conservatives like Rick Perry who want to keep the federal government the hell out of my business are conservative.  But social conservatives who want to use the federal government to dictate control and even monitor me?  Of course they aren't conservative.

I like to pretend there are only a few socons who really would want my internet usage, bills, etc stored and accessibly without a warrant.  That is insane, after all.  But apparently a lot of mainstream Republicans are like that.  They are not really conservative to want to expand the government into my life like that while eroding my personal freedom and sovereignty.

I hate abortion and think it is murder that should be prosecuted.  I think homosexuality is wrong, though I admit I don't want to run a homo's personal business, I do think it's something to frowned upon compared to a nuclear family.  Certainly I don't want it recognized as marriage or supported in the tax code at all like a real marriage.  I think sex and drugs on TV are corroding our society.  I know Jesus is Lord.  I could go on all day.

I am very socially conservative, but I am not at all on board with these Republicans who want to exploit federal power.  I want to educate other people as to why my values are right, instead of force my values on people with the law.

What we need is a term for people with traditional values but relatively libertarian views on government power.  I guess we could call them 'common sense good people'?

Posted by: Dustin at July 30, 2011 11:32 AM (519+h)

84 Which enumerated power gives the Federal government the right to tell companies to hold such information?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 30, 2011 04:18 PM (DEcmU)

This...

Since when does some nebulous possible interstate commerce regualtion, overcome both Property (the ISPs) and the Users Privacy Rights?

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 11:32 AM (NtXW4)

85 Which enumerated power gives the Federal government the right to tell companies to hold such information? Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 30, 2011 04:18 PM (DEcmU) That would be the "good and welfare clause," or maybe the "honestly we make this shit up as we go along" clause. (Ironically, John Conyers objected to this - he's the source for the made-up "good and welfare" clause.)

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 11:34 AM (bxiXv)

86 78 There are programs in place ( and have been there for a while) whereby ISPs voluntarily give up information in order to facilitate investigations. It is a simple phone call.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 11:34 AM (0mczf)

87 As others have said above in various ways, this is why I do not think of myself as a "conservative". When I have to describe my politics in one word, I like to say "Jeffersonian".

Posted by: prochazka_the_insane at July 30, 2011 11:34 AM (jNNWD)

88 well this should come in handy for many gvt purposes, I'm comforted that my gvt. cares so much about everything i or my neighbor might do.
this would really have been a boon to the Nixon administration wouldn't it?

of course administrations can be trusted to only use personal; information to get real sickos like joe the plumber and such right?/

Posted by: willow at July 30, 2011 11:35 AM (h+qn8)

89 \ maybe sarc tag is in wrong direstion.

Posted by: willow at July 30, 2011 11:36 AM (h+qn8)

90

#84 excellent post

"I am very socially conservative, but I am not at all on board with these Republicans who want to exploit federal power.  I want to educate other people as to why my values are right, instead of force my values on people with the law."

I'm the opposite, I'm more socially liberal/left of center, and I want limited govt, I support the 10th amendent, so me if NY wants gay marriage fine, if UT wants to ban marraige, fine as well, no federal law forcing views on me. As long as an individual (gay, straight, white, black, whatever) are not discriminated as indivisuals, I'm fine with states having the 10th amendement to do what that state's believe when it comes to social issues like gay marriage.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at July 30, 2011 11:37 AM (ACkhT)

91 This bill sounds like something Fuckabee would dream up, big government that social conservatives and big government nanny staters can wank each other off to

Posted by: kbdabear at July 30, 2011 11:37 AM (Y+DPZ)

92 Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things.

Don't know any social conservatives, do you?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 30, 2011 11:37 AM (r4wIV)

93 Soooo....

Libertarian Party FTW?

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at July 30, 2011 11:38 AM (QxGmu)

94 Look again, everyone.  It's looks like it's for fee-for-access cites that they're talking about.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 11:38 AM (21K2z)

95

OK, now I'm just all kinds of confused. Here's why: you need to look at the SU Code 2703 that's amended. Here's what it says...

 A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction. (emphasis mine)

If I'm reading this correctly, and I believe I am (it's like reading a purchasing contract, a few of which I've read), it sounds like all this bill does is change the length of time records are kept. And the amendment didn't change anything much, unless I really missed something.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 30, 2011 11:40 AM (d0Tfm)

96 Of course I want this bill passed. Someone has been putting pictures of a girl that got "passed around" at U of FL frat parties in the 80s.

It's not me of course, but I want to protect that curly haired big hipped woman, whoever she is ...

Posted by: Debbie Whatsername Schultz at July 30, 2011 11:41 AM (Y+DPZ)

97 54Chaos is just lack of perception.
There's order in everything

Posted by: The Law of Entropy. Learn it, live it, love it. at July 30, 2011 04:05 PM (zPb4d)

I LOVE the Law of Entropy!!!

I just think most of the Western world is reaching a bifurcation point.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 30, 2011 11:41 AM (GKQDR)

98 17

If they have to store 12 months per customer of all the IP addresses that they have visited, do these assclowns have any idea of the storage size required to do that??? WTFO?

Email/write your Congress Critters and get this shot down. Please.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at July 30, 2011 03:39 PM (EhYdw)

Yes, they do.  Hence the recent data storage facility built in Utah.  They've been retaining emails since we've had emails, as well.  This legislation will simply put the legal patina on what they're already doing.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at July 30, 2011 11:42 AM (xc/va)

99 Who do I sue when all of my financial information is stolen? 

Posted by: alexthechick at July 30, 2011 11:42 AM (sf+iw)

100

Market-Ticker's website does not seem to think this is a big deal. Here is his resonaning.

http://tinyurl.com/3gd8vm8

Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at July 30, 2011 11:42 AM (ACkhT)

101

      Get all the pr0n you can, while you can ....

        (with apologies to Joe Namath)

Posted by: Bolt Upright at July 30, 2011 11:43 AM (9imoz)

102 38

You know, anytime I see something come up in the House that is specifically designed to restrict freedom and liberty, I assume Wasserman-Shultz is one of the main driving forces behind it. It's just like an auto-reaction.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 03:54 PM (OX4OZ)

Yep.  Voting for a Wasserman-Shultz bill is like voting for a Kennedy bill - if you find yourself in the affirmative you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 30, 2011 11:44 AM (/gOMq)

103

That would be the "good and welfare clause," or maybe the "honestly we make this shit up as we go along" clause.

 

I can tell you're commenting without actually reading the bill.  If you'd look up the constitutionality of this bill, you'd find they're using the Interstate Commerce Clause.  It's a catch-all, I know.  But everyone ranting about this should actually read the bill first.



Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 11:45 AM (21K2z)

104 100 Who do I sue when all of my financial information is stolen? Posted by: alexthechick at July 30, 2011 04:42 PM (sf+iw) Whoever has the deepest pockets, of course!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 11:45 AM (bxiXv)

105 I can tell you're commenting without actually reading the bill. If you'd look up the constitutionality of this bill, you'd find they're using the Interstate Commerce Clause. It's a catch-all, I know. But everyone ranting about this should actually read the bill first. Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 04:45 PM (21K2z) I read the bill, but thanks for taking that joke and slap at the ever-vascillating and ignorant Conyers as some sort of magical indicator otherwise. PS They use Commerce for EVERYTHING!!!!eleventy!!!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 11:46 AM (bxiXv)

106 I'm going to get a t-shirt that says "I understand your position, you're just wrong."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 11:47 AM (bxiXv)

107 Now this my friends, is TYRANNY

Imagine in 10 years when the country is about to go balls up.. A law like this will seem like strawberry shortcake in comparison.

This is shameful.  Where is the outrage by the way?  At least with a Republican President, there would be rallies and marches and talk of the tyrant in the whitehouse.

Shame.

Shame.

For all time.  Can one imagine the founders watching this happen?  They revolted over much less.  They had balls though.  We don't

Our leaders should all be voted out.  Term limits at 2.  No lobbying if you've served.  All finances are open to public if you've ever served in congress or as president.

Enough of this "we're public servants!" crap when they are doing anything but serving us.  They disgust me

Posted by: Reid and Pelosis' Xanax dealer at July 30, 2011 11:50 AM (eXQfZ)

108

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 04:45 PM (21K2z)

Read it, thus my post above... but..

How, if I am NOT buying somthing online, and thus NOT engaged in Interstate Commerce, and my DHCP server is within my own State (also normal)... is this controled by Interstate Commerce REGULATION?

Or... is this another question of 'the interstate commerce clause', is there nothing it CAN NOT do?

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 11:50 AM (NtXW4)

109 I don't agree with the vote, but to call Sandy Adams and Steve King "Conservatives In Name Only" is hyperbolic and unfair.

Posted by: RJ at July 30, 2011 11:51 AM (QjrRF)

110 98 54Chaos is just lack of perception.
There's order in everything

Posted by: The Law of Entropy. Learn it, live it, love it. at July 30, 2011 04:05 PM (zPb4d)

Don't forget to attend our meeting at the base of the fountain in the park.  8pm sharp, and bring a sidedish for our potluck to follow.  Alternate date would be the 10th, in case of rain.  Wear black everyone.  We need to show "The Man" that we are a united force.

Posted by: Anarchists United at July 30, 2011 11:52 AM (yQWNf)

111 hmm, just read Market ticker's view on this, this bill is not as bad as it seems, needs some work, but based on how he explained it, its not as bad as I thought it would be, still needs some work though.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at July 30, 2011 11:52 AM (ACkhT)

112

New Post please.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 11:55 AM (Fb9Q0)

113 Where's DiT's NFL thread? The Eagles have been making moves, yesterday Nnamdi, today they signed Cullen Jenkins. DeSean Jackson still sulking.

If Andy Reid doesn't get them to the SB this year, there will be blood in Philly

Posted by: kbdabear at July 30, 2011 11:59 AM (Y+DPZ)

114

We have to primary McConnell. Listen to how this idiot talks? "a national default is not an option." WHY DO THESE FUCKING IDIOT REPUBLICANS LET THE LEFT PICK THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE? Why does he willingly use their terms?

So here we are, the House defeating the Reid plan, the Senate defeating the Boehner plan, and instead of holding the fort, this dumbass is shaking in his boots quickly trying to make a deal. He simply CANNOT help himself. It's in his blood. If there is a problem, McConnell has to deal. Has to. It's never, in his entire legislative life, occurred to him to..you know..not make a deal.

Now, back to the primary thing. I'm all for going after these morons like he and Graham that happen to reside in States that are far redder than they are. Take this asshole down.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 12:02 PM (OX4OZ)

115 Marino is a piece of garbage,even for a PA politician.  He's probably in Google's back pocket.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at July 30, 2011 12:02 PM (ONvgl)

116 I don't agree with the vote, but to call Sandy Adams and Steve King "Conservatives In Name Only" is hyperbolic and unfair. Posted by: RJ at July 30, 2011 04:51 PM

I'm not clear on something.  Didn't they just vote to end the warrant requirement on data handled by ISPs and to order them to make arrangements to keep that data stored for a year?  Um.  I think they did.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:02 PM (i2fkw)

117 75 This stupid bill modifies the existing Federal statues already on the book. You are all worried about data retention THAT THEY ALREADY DO. Read section 4, that is the part that has everyone in such a lather. I am one of the bigget privacy advocates out there, but this is data that is already maintained and provided to law enforcement no questions asked. Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 04:20 PM (0mczf) So in other words, we all object to what is being expanded by the bill, but since it doesn't expand it much we shouldn't oppose it. No wonder we have 115 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, that how the GOP treats spending bills. How about "no?" Is "no" okay? 'Cause I'm gonna go with "no."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:02 PM (bxiXv)

118

I've read both the bill and the amendment and I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why this country is in the mess that it's in is because of the way we write these bills.  Who the hell can really understand what's being done without researching all the other laws that are affeccted.  Yes our Congress critters have staff that allegedly do this for them, but how many citizens do?

I don't like the warentless part of this and I don't like the press exemption either.

Posted by: rabidfox at July 30, 2011 12:03 PM (0Uhcu)

119 What is the penalty for refusing to comply?

Posted by: Curious Cat at July 30, 2011 12:04 PM (bAySe)

120 Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things.

You must not talk to many social conservatives. We want less government, not more. Not many of us actively petition for more laws. We do encourage people to obey the law. And please remember that without "socons", there would be no conservative movement at all.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at July 30, 2011 12:05 PM (HF2US)

121 Republicans did this.

It's not called the "Stupid Party" for nothing.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at July 30, 2011 12:06 PM (UF15p)

122 We got to pass some laws, heya.  Uh, let's have a law for that... and a law for that too.   And while we're at it, lets get a law for this.  Cuz, there are some, I say, there are some laws that need passin'.

Posted by: Congressman Foghorn Leghorn at July 30, 2011 12:06 PM (i2fkw)

123
Every Republican turd that voted for this monstrosity should be voted out!

Posted by: thebronze at July 30, 2011 12:06 PM (bojRH)

124 You must not talk to many social conservatives. We want less government, not more.

You're a conservative.  Many aren't, say, the ones who would prefer to eliminate porn altogether.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:07 PM (i2fkw)

125 107 I'm going to get a t-shirt that says "I understand your position, you're just wrong."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 04:47 PM (bxiXv)

No, no, no.  The problem is you just haven't educated yourself.

Posted by: 19 year old dormroom Marxist at July 30, 2011 12:07 PM (/gOMq)

126 You're a conservative.  Many aren't, say, the ones who would prefer to eliminate porn altogether.

Quoting myself here.  Um.  And the ones who would do away with the warrant requirement on the seizure of internet data. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:10 PM (i2fkw)

127 No, no, no. The problem is you just haven't educated yourself. Posted by: 19 year old dormroom Marxist at July 30, 2011 05:07 PM (/gOMq) All right, how is Barack Obama posting here from 1982?!?!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:10 PM (bxiXv)

128 Wow.  I'm currently doing research for a book on familicide. Guess this means I'll be on another government list. *sigh*

Posted by: Laura Castellano at July 30, 2011 12:11 PM (fuw6p)

129
I just don't want laws like this to allow the government to go on fishing expeditions.

The last thing we want is our local law enforcement to have NSA-like abilities when it comes to catching criminals.

Posted by: Curious Cat at July 30, 2011 12:13 PM (bAySe)

130 the Republicans down here made a lot of noise about banning porn altogether

If porn is outlawed, only people with proxies will have porn.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 30, 2011 12:14 PM (JEvSn)

131 Let's go, John F Not Kerry and Christopher Taylor.  I want you two to explain to me how eliminating the warrant requirement on seizure of ISP customer data and forcing them to make accommodations to store the information for a year is conservative. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:14 PM (i2fkw)

132 At least the Nazis didn't claim to be acting in the interest of 'the children'.

Der Stürmer, a Nazi propaganda newspaper, told Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because “Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah.” Posters, films, cartoons, and fliers were seen throughout Germany which attacked the Jewish community, such as the film The Eternal Jew.

Posted by: cherry π at July 30, 2011 12:15 PM (OhYCU)

133 Geez, this hot tub feels great but I think it's getting warmer. Where's my beer?

Posted by: Chillaxin Frog what likes SoCons but knows history at July 30, 2011 12:16 PM (3I2Ox)

134 124 Every Republican turd that voted for this monstrosity should be voted out!

Combined with every other primary threat, that leaves the House GOP Conference at 2-5 members.

I think the better thing to do is to ask the aforementioned lawmakers why they voted for this and see what they say.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:18 PM (o2lIv)

135 Did you guys catch this part of what I said?

And, let's be clear, since there is no warrant requirement, law enforcement will end-up simply grabbing all of the information available, whether or not there is an ongoing investigation, and storing it permanently.

So, they send, say, ATT one administrative subpoena per year and tell them to provide to them all their data on everyone for the past year.  And then they store it permanently in case they might like to look at it someday.  If this isn't unreasonable search and seizure, then nothing is.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:18 PM (i2fkw)

136 Oh, just learned Reid's plan calls for 2 years of budgets "deemed" as passed, as pointed out by Guy Benson over at Town Hall, tip sheet.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:19 PM (Fb9Q0)

137 The purity purge continues...

Posted by: RJ at July 30, 2011 12:19 PM (QjrRF)

138 rdbrewer -WORD.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:20 PM (Fb9Q0)

139 So, RJ, if I'd like to keep the warrant requirement in place, and I don't believe the people who voted to remove it are conservatives, I'm on a purity purge?

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:21 PM (i2fkw)

140 What if we just fire everyone in the Federal govt, and keep the GOP congresscritters?

Posted by: cherry π at July 30, 2011 12:22 PM (OhYCU)

141 137 Oh, just learned Reid's plan calls for 2 years of budgets "deemed" as passed, as pointed out by Guy Benson over at Town Hall, tip sheet.

Senator Jeff Sessions and a number of his colleagues have sent letters and made floor speeches about it.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:22 PM (o2lIv)

142 Newsflash, folks:  The issue isn't about the effing warrant requirement; it's about purity purges.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:22 PM (i2fkw)

143
They view government power as a sword rather than a shield.

Nailed it.

Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 12:23 PM (ubRgW)

144 Hey theres still porno mags!! I wonder if alzheimers has any effect on a fantasy?

Posted by: Krazy Kat at July 30, 2011 12:24 PM (A23u6)

145

Of course purity purges. Something as foundational as privacy rights, private property and due process ----- of course.

RJ, by George I think you are on to something.

I bet your house is on a free floating slab eh, RJ?

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:25 PM (Fb9Q0)

146 The legislation regards possession of child porn, not any porn.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:25 PM (o2lIv)

147 The intention is not at issue; the application of the means is what is at odds.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:26 PM (Fb9Q0)

148 >>The legislation regards possession of child porn, not any porn. phew

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 12:27 PM (TMB3S)

149 This is going to be just horrible for Ace. Just think of all those interracial child pr0n pics he has on his computer...

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 12:27 PM (AF1jB)

150 We got to pass some laws, heya.  Uh, let's have a law for that... and a law for that too.   And while we're at it, lets get a law for this.  Cuz, there are some, I say, there are some laws that need passin'.

Sounds a lot like a local asshole named Joe Simitian.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at July 30, 2011 12:28 PM (UF15p)

151 So they gonna make Tor and VPNs illegal?

Posted by: Woody at July 30, 2011 12:29 PM (07RHD)

152 I think the better thing to do is to ask the aforementioned lawmakers why they voted for this and see what they say. Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:18 PM (o2lIv) Why, I think you've solved it! That's the solution to overwhelming government power and debt! DIALOGUE! I love ya to death, 80sBaby(!), but you come from a world where people sit down and compromise to a solution halfway between life and death, and we're dying because that world has avoided the consequences of that philosophy by making OTHER PEOPLE PAY. And we've just run out of Other People's Money (or OPM if you prefer).

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:30 PM (bxiXv)

153 If you skype be sure to voip.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:30 PM (Fb9Q0)

154 The legislation regards possession of child porn, not any porn.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:25 PM (o2lIv)

If you knew someone was in possession of child porn are you telling me you couldn't get a search warrant?

What happens if you think someone is in possession of child porn and you take their stuff without a warrant and they are not?

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:30 PM (MtwBb)

155 147 The legislation regards possession of child porn, not any porn. Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:25 PM (o2lIv) Earlier in the thread, the seeking of general porn bans by certain states was brought up as a relevant side note.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:31 PM (bxiXv)

156 What happens if you think someone is in possession of child porn and you take their stuff without a warrant and they are not? Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 05:30 PM (MtwBb) Umm... profit?

Posted by: Eric Holder at July 30, 2011 12:32 PM (bxiXv)

157 152 So they gonna make Tor and VPNs illegal?

Posted by: Woody at July 30, 2011 05:29 PM (07RHD)

I think they probably will, eventually.  If not officially, then unofficially everyone will know using Tor is an invitation for the cops to take your computer and look for child porn thumbnails in your browser cache.

Posted by: 19 year old dormroom Marxist at July 30, 2011 12:32 PM (/gOMq)

158 It's for the children so show some goddamn gratitude.

BTW, you Google searched the term "cornhole game" last May. Care to explain that?

Posted by: House Republicans at July 30, 2011 12:32 PM (B60j2)

159 Out, damn sock.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 30, 2011 12:32 PM (/gOMq)

160 148 The intention is not at issue; the application of the means is what is at odds.

I know, but the facts about the intentions are still important because they show who would be punished and why.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:33 PM (o2lIv)

161 Where did I hear all these arguments in favor before?  Oh yeah, that Patriot Act thing.  Don't worry, if you aren't a patriot you have nothing... ummm, I mean... oh, hell, SHUT UP! that's why!

Posted by: kurtilator at July 30, 2011 12:34 PM (juh4Z)

162

And then they store it permanently in case they might like to look at it someday.  If this isn't unreasonable search and seizure, then nothing is.

 

This is why I keep all of my important documents on file in my colon.  I just put it on microfiche and have the Gerbils put it in the File Cabinet that is next to my duodenum.

Posted by: Richard Gere at July 30, 2011 12:35 PM (iHRw4)

163 They can draw and quarter people connected with child porn for all I care but just get a frigging warrant first so you don't have some asshole in the government using it as an excuse to spy on you. There is already enough danger of that with a warrant.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:35 PM (MtwBb)

164 so, we're sliding towards insolvency AND a police state!
wheeeeee

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 12:35 PM (1N25r)

165 "Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things."

What is your definition of a Socon?  What do you consider a person who believes in libertarian government and that one should choose live (voluntarily) according to traditional morality?

Posted by: Nosferightu at July 30, 2011 12:36 PM (9sOYx)

166

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:33 PM (o2lIv)

< But you have to consider scope, power and legal foundation as opposed to a thought, idea and intention of why a law may be ostensibly, "good."

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:36 PM (Fb9Q0)

167 http://tinyurl.com/43m2k99
I could see the CIA weaponizing this technology or using it as a hard to detect drone. Imagine robotic flocks wrecking all kinds of havoc on unsuspecting enemies. Hitchcock would be amused.

Posted by: The Donkey Show at July 30, 2011 12:37 PM (ijjAe)

168

BTW, you Google searched the term "cornhole game" last May. Care to explain that?

 

Good God...

the keyword searches I've done just to get my puppehts right!?

I'd hate for grandma to see those...let alone all the porn.

Posted by: garrett at July 30, 2011 12:37 PM (iHRw4)

169 I know, but the facts about the intentions are still important because they show who would be punished and why. Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:33 PM (o2lIv) No, intentions *should* matter, to your friends, your Mom, and your Priest or Rabbi. But all that matters in the Really Real World is consequences.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:39 PM (bxiXv)

170

chemjeff, and don't forget soon with Obamacare, what you eat will affect the group as a whole.

At some point on present course, and I am not joking here, Big Macs, Fries, Onion Rings and generally fast food will be deemed "immoral." And will be limited due to its collective impact on a society who sucks from the teit of government.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:40 PM (Fb9Q0)

171 153 Why, I think you've solved it! That's the solution to overwhelming government power and debt! DIALOGUE!



I love ya to death, 80sBaby(!), but you come from a world where people sit down and compromise to a solution halfway between life and death, and we're dying because that world has avoided the consequences of that philosophy by making OTHER PEOPLE PAY.

And we've just run out of Other People's Money (or OPM if you prefer).


This has nothing to do with the debt or your perceptions of my views. Furthermore, I think the intention is a good one, but Section 4 indicates they are going about this the wrong way. Surely there is some way in which this can be done without violating the rights of the innocent?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:40 PM (o2lIv)

172 We probably won't see ace today, Rubio gave mangificant speech on the senate floor today and I imagine ace is in his bunk.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:40 PM (MtwBb)

173 Cornhole is actually a legit bean bag tossing game. Though try explaining that with a straight face to authorities, not familiar with the game, that you aren't bullshitting them when they will likely be ready to put your face through a table.

Posted by: The Donkey Show at July 30, 2011 12:41 PM (ijjAe)

174 150 This is going to be just horrible for Ace. Just think of all those interracial child pr0n midget Thai tranny pics he has on his computer...

FIFY

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 12:42 PM (1N25r)

175 What is your definition of a Socon? What do you consider a person who believes in libertarian government and that one should choose live (voluntarily) according to traditional morality? Posted by: Nosferightu at July 30, 2011 05:36 PM (9sOYx) Not to put words in anyone else's mouth, but that would be a Libertarian. Because we're talking about the role of Government, here. People are generally called "Socons" not because of how they lead their private lives but because of what they advocate for the role of government. Because the people who use the term "Socon" generally are the kind of people who don't get so worked up over the private lives of others. Harry Browne was fairly socially conservative in his private life, but strongly felt the government's role should be limited. He's not a "Socon" in anyone's book.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:42 PM (bxiXv)

176 The intention is not at issue; the application of the means is what is at odds.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 05:26 PM (Fb9Q0)


exactly

Posted by: willow at July 30, 2011 12:42 PM (h+qn8)

177 Surely there is some way in which this can be done without violating the rights of the innocent?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:40 PM (o2lIv)

Yeah it's called a search warrant or a supeona. I havn't heard any reasons why they believe  that would be such a big deal to get.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:43 PM (MtwBb)

178 At some point on present course, and I am not joking here, Big Macs, Fries, Onion Rings and generally fast food will be deemed "immoral."

they'll never be deemed "immoral" by the left, because to them, "immoral" only applies to hypocritical evangelical Christians, and Dick Cheney

but eating onion rings will be "theft" of public health care resources, from the collective

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 12:44 PM (1N25r)

179

>> You must not talk to many social conservatives. We want less government, not more.

The social conservatives I've talked to want laws against abortion, laws to define what a marriage is, laws that would allow or require some sort of prayer in public schools, etc.

>> Not many of us actively petition for more laws.

Compared to progressives, and social progressives in particular, maybe it's not many -- but it's still a lot. It seems to me that they're losing only because they're outnumbered.

>> We do encourage people to obey the law.

rdbrewer isn't talking about laws that you or I can obey or disobey. These are laws that the government ought to follow -- laws, such as the 4th amendment, that prohibit certain government actions. When government enacts liberties for government, it usually isn't pro-liberty.

>> And please remember that without "socons", there would be no conservative movement at all.

True conservatism is antithetical to any "movement" that would advance its cause. True conservatism recognizes property rights, the need for effective yet minimally instrusive security, and the value of the widsom of those who preceded us. True conservatives, in my opinion, hold these are the guidelines for both public and private existence. Any other issue or struggle may be worthwhile but it isn't conservatism.

(Set me right if you see it differently.)

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 12:44 PM (gTGz3)

180 This has very little to do with what America is all about. It has everything to do with how these people view themselves. Liberals and conservative like these are drunk on power.

And there is nothing stopping them. Representative government looks good on paper, but right now it's failing us. Miserably.


Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 30, 2011 12:44 PM (vbh31)

181 170 No, intentions *should* matter, to your friends, your Mom, and your Priest or Rabbi.

But all that matters in the Really Real World is consequences.

Is it wrong for adults to exploit children by forcing them to engage in certain acts, then posting that on the Internet? If that doesn't matter, then why does our legal system punish people (real world consequence) for so doing? Where is the line?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:45 PM (o2lIv)

182 >Cornhole is actually a legit bean bag tossing game. Though try explaining that with a straight face to authorities, not familiar with the game, that you aren't bullshitting them when they will likely be ready to put your face through a table. You obviously missed the Carson Palmer Cornhole Classic thread a few years ago. Now that was some funny shit.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 12:46 PM (TMB3S)

183 Cornhole is actually a legit bean bag salad tossing game.

FIFY    (call me!)

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at July 30, 2011 12:46 PM (1N25r)

184 This has nothing to do with the debt or your perceptions of my views. Furthermore, I think the intention is a good one, but Section 4 indicates they are going about this the wrong way. Surely there is some way in which this can be done without violating the rights of the innocent?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:40 PM (o2lIv)

 

This is just a vote to get it out of committee.  I'm pretty sure that the warrant question will be taken up during debate.  Almost without exception, bills finishing up floor debate resemble very little of what comes out of the committee. 

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 12:47 PM (21K2z)

185 #156, the issue I see is if any kind of porn quickly falls into the slippery slope of illegal porn. Some girl dressed up in a school girl outfit, pig-tails, sailor uniform, or pretty much anything out of Japan probably would quickly find itself classified as illegal if the participants were over 18 or in the case of weird Japanese tentacle style stuff were vaguely drawn age wise. This isn't even getting into all the other fetish stuff people are in too. If someone could think of it, Google has probably search logged for it, and someone has probably made it.

I mean good "Ace of Spades! Marco Rubio goes hardcore with an Ewok & a Jawa" and there's probably an entire forum dedicated to it.

Posted by: The Donkey Show at July 30, 2011 12:48 PM (ijjAe)

186 Is it wrong for adults to exploit children by forcing them to engage in certain acts, then posting that on the Internet? If that doesn't matter, then why does our legal system punish people (real world consequence) for so doing? Where is the line?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:45 PM (o2lIv)

The line is giving the government an excuse for more power to search you without have a judge take a look at why they want to search you.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:48 PM (MtwBb)

187 178 Yeah it's called a search warrant or a supeona. I havn't heard any reasons why they believe  that would be such a big deal to get.

So why not simply amend the bill?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:49 PM (o2lIv)

188

80's baby, please do listen to robtr on this.

It is important to understand the genesis of the legal system and how vitally important that it be preserved in fidelity to the constitution, which formed the foundation of the emergence of our Republic as one beholden not to a king or emperor but one in which liberty would be enshrined.

Laws and good intentions and all of that should always be distilled through the constitution, and that sadly is not being done.

A nation of millions of laws will soon subsume its people and their code, the constitution.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:49 PM (Fb9Q0)

189 True conservatism is antithetical to any "movement" that would advance its cause.

okay I call bullshit on this one
what do you call conservative activists who work to repeal about 100 years of socialism?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 12:49 PM (1N25r)

190 So why not simply amend the bill?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:49 PM (o2lIv)

Then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Google caches all your stuff anyways, if the government got a warrant or supeona to look at it I don't have a problem with it.

The thing is  that is the current law so why do we need another one?

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:52 PM (MtwBb)

191 Search warrants are SO 20th century. They're papery and icky and sometimes they have boogers or hair on them. Search warrants make me sad.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 12:53 PM (AF1jB)

192 All I am saying is that I am against the making and possession of child porn but I too am rather wary of that one clause. I think they can strengthen laws-- especially in this time of higher incidents of child exploitation-- without violating rights.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:54 PM (o2lIv)

193

I remind everyone that this trend was born when the law enforcement community morphed into the crime prevention industry.

 This march to the police street was acomplished in great part by the original war on drugs started by Nixon and doubled down on by Reagan (of all people). We scrificed many liberties and rights years ago and now the criminal justice systems have become terminally ill. Not justice, but tribute.

There is no reason for this and this lays bare the rank hypocracy over those citizen enemies who howled when policy allowed outgoing cell phones call to suspected terrorists overseas be recorded.

 

Posted by: Tom22ndState at July 30, 2011 12:55 PM (rsIZH)

194 192 Search warrants are SO 20th century. They're papery and icky and sometimes they have boogers or hair on them. Search warrants make me sad.

I agree.

Posted by: Judge Dredd at July 30, 2011 12:55 PM (1N25r)

195 >>This has nothing to do with the debt or your >>perceptions of my views. Furthermore, I think the It does, because an all-powerful surveillance state is EXPENSIVE. Also because the *process* we're discussing has led to both results. >>intention is a good one, but Section 4 indicates they >>are going about this the wrong way. Surely there is Intentions are lovely, consequences actually *happen*. One of the two exists in the real, physical world. >>some way in which this can be done without >>violating the rights of the innocent? >>Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:40 PM (o2lIv) It's called "work," and nobody actually wants to do it. Seriously this is all about data mining, the giant gill-net version of a fishing expedition - it's the "easy road" to catching offenders by eliminating privacy. Which is what happens when the state can simply database everything everybody does online (this is a step, not the endgame) with a yearly administrative subpoena and just a few *billion* more for the database. You may not have noticed, but federal law alone is so vast and complex the government can't honestly account for how many laws it administers, in the tens of thousands of pages of criminal laws alone, with new and rapidly expanding civil and health codes, tax codes, and that doesn't even touch state, county, city and other local laws. *YOU HAVE BROKEN SOME OF THESE LAWS* If we do not apply the brakes, we will reach the point where the line between criminal and law-abiding citizen lies in being in the good graces of government officials. I don't want to go there, do you? Now, obviously most people would never consider availing themselves of child pornography. But you don't seriously think this authority will be limited not only to that area of law, but to parties genuinely guilty as opposed to people who, for example, got a virus that loaded up a lot of porn on their machine from "suspected" URLs and get caught in the Warrantless Gill Net? Sorry about the formatting, Firefox betrayed me for the last time and I had to switch browsers.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 12:55 PM (bxiXv)

196 174 Cornhole is actually a legit bean bag tossing game. Though try explaining that with a straight face to authorities, not familiar with the game, that you aren't bullshitting them when they will likely be ready to put your face through a table.

Posted by: The Donkey Show at July 30, 2011 05:41 PM (ijjAe)

Its not an issue in Ohio.

Posted by: buzzion at July 30, 2011 12:55 PM (oVQFe)

197 Everyone go to wikipedia and read up on "Netflow". Your isps have been collecting tons of data on you. Source ip, det ip, source port, dest port, session duration, byte count, application type etc. This bill does not ask for any of that. It is mandating that the isps store your assigned ip address for 18 months. That's it.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at July 30, 2011 12:56 PM (hf8fX)

198 Where the hell is the ACLU? Oh yeah, they're busy making the world safe for illegal aliens. Or holding a cocktail party to hustle rich donors.

Posted by: Steven Reinhardt at July 30, 2011 12:56 PM (/q/kQ)

199

Sailor suits are out? Sailor suits are out?

I have a folder full of Rachel Maddow dressed in a sailor suit pics and I've only masturbated to probably half of them.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 12:56 PM (AF1jB)

200 196 See: 193 All I am saying is that I am against the making and possession of child porn but I too am rather wary of that one clause. I think they can strengthen laws-- especially in this time of higher incidents of child exploitation-- without violating rights.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 12:57 PM (o2lIv)

201 199 Where the hell is the ACLU?

they are just another lefty pressure group now.
they had a press release out a little while ago discussing how Republicans want to violate civil liberties because they want to cut spending wrt the debt ceiling debate

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 12:57 PM (1N25r)

202

Merovign,

I want sit next to you, when this turns tent city.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:57 PM (Fb9Q0)

203

okay I call bullshit on this one

>> chemjeff has called bullshit. The official in the replay booth is letting that call stand.

>> what do you call conservative activists who work to repeal about 100 years of socialism?

I don't know. One thing I don't call them is social conservatives.


 

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 12:58 PM (gTGz3)

204 oy
Lets face it, RD, its not news that Republican and conservative are not synonyms. Its a shame cons feels so beholden to Repubs, with whom they have little in common.

Posted by: some dope at July 30, 2011 12:58 PM (+kznc)

205 Yeah it's called a search warrant or a supeona. I havn't heard any reasons why they believe  that would be such a big deal to get.

Well, they're trying to get rid of the warrant requirement.  The administrative subpoena (merely a signature on a piece of paper) would still be in place.  They call them "administrative" because there's no fight over them.  The warrant requirement is what is important.  The administrative subpoena is next to nothing.  Completely pro forma.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 12:59 PM (i2fkw)

206

Merovign,

I want sit next to you, when this turns tent city.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 05:57 PM (Fb9Q0)

I call other side....and I wanna be somewhere near EOJ too.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 12:59 PM (X6akg)

207

On a brighter note,

Habeus corpus should altogether be eliminated by next year.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 12:59 PM (Fb9Q0)

208 174, make sure you explain to the cops that all their pensions are unfunded and they will be wal mart greeters till the day they die...

Posted by: D. Hopper Badger at July 30, 2011 12:59 PM (kBWjM)

209 All I am saying is that I am against the making and possession of child porn but I too am rather wary of that one clause. I think they can strengthen laws-- especially in this time of higher incidents of child exploitation-- without violating rights.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:54 PM (o2lIv)

Yeah most people are but I haven't seen the need to let the government take away more of our rights to combat it. Has there been a problem with the government being denied warrants or supeonas? I haven't heard about it if so.

In fact I would hope that warrants and supeonas are kind of hard to get, like maybe the gov. would really have to show cause instead of just going fishing or using it for an excuse to otherwise see what you have been up to.

 

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 12:59 PM (MtwBb)

210

"Liberals and conservative like these are drunk on power."

Bingo! Welcome to the party pal.

 Those 'Don't tread on me" flags got a lot more persona, didn't they? Here's another clue: It's a battle flag. You know" It's used when armies kill people and break things, kinda like they did during The Revolutionary War.

 The Founders went to war over a helluva lot less than we've endured...

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at July 30, 2011 01:01 PM (E7Z1r)

211

If we eliminate habeus corpus we could benefit by eliminating attorney fees, court costs and the burdens the court system and constitution place on fiat governmental decree.

It's all about efficiency, if not emotion.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:02 PM (Fb9Q0)

212 Is it wrong for adults to exploit children by forcing them to engage in certain acts, then posting that on the Internet? If that doesn't matter, then why does our legal system punish people (real world consequence) for so doing? Where is the line? Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 05:45 PM (o2lIv) Oh, for the love of God and all that is Holy, can we PLEASE not drop into the morass of accusing people who oppose warantless searches of supporting child pornographers? PLEASE? For ONCE can we just NOT reduce the argument to that God-damned level? Because if not, then y'all can just let the fucking country burn, because humans are too God-damned stupid to govern themselves. I am getting so SICK of people lately, I'm turning into my hermit father. :/ I don't know if you did that as a "debate tactic," or if you just forgot whose intentions we were discussing earlier (the lawmakers). If the latter, please take this as a clarification, if the former... that's just horrific.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:02 PM (bxiXv)

213 You know, as I sit here eating my happy meal with apple slices and typing away under the prison-like glow of a CFL bulb, I think everything's going to work out just swell. I think I'll have one of my fire safe cigarettes, or as I call them "rolled up dryer sheet with a filter", and just sit back and thank my lucky stars that those evil Christians aren't forcing their beliefs down my throat.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 01:03 PM (AF1jB)

214 This bill does not ask for any of that. It is mandating that the isps store your assigned ip address for 18 months. That's it.

Geezus.  "Yeah, it just guts the Fourth Amendment.  That's it."  "It just makes providers make accommodation for tremendous data storage in case they might want to look at it someday.  That's it." 

Dude.  What are you thinking about?

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 01:03 PM (i2fkw)

215 Where did I hear all these arguments against before? Oh, yeah. The MFM saying that the CIA was reading every email in America for Bush's oil war while monitoring overseas terrorist emails and asking for private web search data that the search engines already collect and charge businesses and organizations for looking at.

But, seriously, Undead is right. Canada and Europe gave up on Christian morality 40 years ago and freedom has reigned here and there ever since--masters in our own house with no one telling us how to live our lives.

Posted by: andycanuck at July 30, 2011 01:03 PM (oUG6f)

216 Merovign, I want sit next to you, when this turns tent city. Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 05:57 PM (Fb9Q0) Dude, I am *SO* going to be in a cave. Got one picked out, too, away from seismic faults and near water and everything.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:04 PM (bxiXv)

217 Did I make my point more clearly the last time? I also do not think the intentions of some of the lawmakers who voted for this are wrong so much as is a case of biblical morality versus the Constitution, discerning where and how those things overlap. This conflict about the two types of law is one that goes back to ancient times.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:04 PM (o2lIv)

218

They say its for the children.

Have you seen the children these days?

I think we need a law that mandates putting a pillow over the childrens' faces and holding it there for five minutes.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 01:06 PM (AF1jB)

219 Did I make my point more clearly the last time? I also do not think the intentions of some of the lawmakers who voted for this are wrong so much as is a case of biblical morality versus the Constitution, discerning where and how those things overlap. This conflict about the two types of law is one that goes back to ancient times.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:04 PM (o2lIv)

I am not following you, I was raised a catholic and they never told me they might come and search my house or my interwebs. Does your church do that?

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 01:07 PM (MtwBb)

220

Heh, the sure way to bust the child porn scourge is to surf the net and destroy the producers of it. Make the offenders surf the web while they do their sentences, show the the lost lives this filth imposes on a society.

As the tech people I'm sure have pointed out, whatever you do online is ALREADY ALWAYS out there. Liberty and freedom is the way forward.

 

Posted by: Tom22ndState at July 30, 2011 01:07 PM (rsIZH)

221 Tami could come to the cave, though. I love having visitors over. I'm kinda cave-proud.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:07 PM (bxiXv)

222 80's try to get it out of your head this is about child porn.   Child porn would be only one small aspect of the effect this law would cover.  It's about much more than that. 

By arguing over child porn, you're buying into their silly packaging.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 01:08 PM (i2fkw)

223 Tami could come to the cave, though. I love having visitors over. I'm kinda cave-proud.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 06:07 PM (bxiXv)

Thanks!  You'll have wireless, right?

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:08 PM (X6akg)

224 213 Oh, for the love of God and all that is Holy, can we PLEASE not drop into the morass of accusing people who oppose warantless searches of supporting child pornographers?

PLEASE? For ONCE can we just NOT reduce the argument to that God-damned level? [...]


Merovign, you misunderstand me, as I never said that and will never say that. I am speaking of two different things here and apparently not doing it well at all.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:09 PM (o2lIv)

225

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:04 PM (o2lIv)

< Legislation should always be discussed in terms of the constitution. That sounds rather foolish to most but it shouldn't. The constitution must be embraced and rights must be maintained otherwise you will have what we are approaching, a Republic that is spirailing out of control, free of constraints that were put in place to ironically, prevent that which is happening as we speak, or in this case, write.  

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:09 PM (Fb9Q0)

226 Yeah, my congresscritter is on that list. He's all bone from the neck up.

Posted by: Twba at July 30, 2011 01:09 PM (R8SHg)

227 I also do not think the intentions of some of the lawmakers who voted for this are wrong so much as is a case of biblical morality versus the Constitution, discerning where and how those things overlap. Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:04 PM (o2lIv) While I regret that it is so, intent has been almost completely scrubbed from the law by power-mad lawyers. Since the courts can ignore the intent of the lawmakers, the intent is irrelevant. Only the consequences matter. I happen to think the consequences of gutting the fourth amendment will be particularly severe. And yes, I know *this bill* is a small part of that process, that doesn't mean I should "lie back and enjoy it." I oppose the process, I oppose each part of it. Hell, I opposed the objectionable portions of the Patriot Act, too, sneak and peek and a few others. Most of it was administrative crap, by volume.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:11 PM (bxiXv)

228 The attempted statewide porn ban in Louisiana I mentioned upthread started out as something fairly innocuous.  It started out as an attempt to deny state funds to any entity that distributed pornographic materials.  Nothing wrong with that; there's no defense for the public funding of porn.

The move ran into a snag when legislators tried to carve out an exemption for the city of Lafayette, whose government runs the only publicly-funded cable and ISP service in the state.  With the proposed ban, customers of Lafayette's Fiber-to-the-Home initiative (which has been a money-losing boondoggle) would have found themselves at the mercy of what the state decided could be piped into their homes via the service they were paying for.

The attempt to exempt a whole city turned up the volume on the larger debate about how awful porn is, and some enterprising social-conservative lawmakers -- mostly Republicans -- took the opportunity to display their we're-looking-out-for-the-kids bona fides by stepping up to mikes and saying hey, if we can ban porn from a public cable service then wouldn't it make sense to ban it from the private cable systems as well?  Literally overnight, what had started as a simple debate over the usage of public funds had morphed into a mini-crusade to allow the state to regulate the services of private entities.  The movement was smothered in the cradle but for a brief few days it looked like it would actually go somewhere.  It wasn't difficult to believe it would happen, as Louisiana has chased businesses out of the state through this kind of regulation so many times before.

Governmental creep happens.  Especially when you're doing it for the children.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 30, 2011 01:11 PM (GOXeN)

229 Thanks! You'll have wireless, right? Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 06:08 PM (X6akg) Wireless-N, 4G repeater, and spare gaming machines! The cave is near hydrological power. It also has adequate parking.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:13 PM (bxiXv)

230 Merovign, you misunderstand me, as I never said that and will never say that. I am speaking of two different things here and apparently not doing it well at all. Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:09 PM (o2lIv) You and I, we have these communication problems.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:14 PM (bxiXv)

231 Hey fellas I have some research to do. ;-) Shhh!1 http://tinyurl.com/3ldu97z

Posted by: Krazy Kat at July 30, 2011 01:14 PM (A23u6)

232 But re: 80sBaby, #182 *really* sounded like that.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:15 PM (bxiXv)

233 Yeah, like I'm gonna follow a tinyurl link on THIS thread!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:15 PM (bxiXv)

234

I need a haircut but feel like having a burrito.

ISP Seminar / Federal Bldg. 12

The above statement was found on a server that emanated from the East Coast and when performing a boolean search using redundant ISP numbers aggragated against the stored numbers in the data base, we have been able to determine certain idiosyncratic relationships with many ISP numbers that were further digitized against numerous other data points within the original search.

The good news is, we are now monitoring 1,200 people based on our search results.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:16 PM (Fb9Q0)

235 Jack booted cock suckers.

Posted by: Bilbo at July 30, 2011 01:16 PM (EL+OC)

236

Let's take the Bill of Rights one amendment at a time.

1st: There are books and magazines and television shows and Internet sites that children should have access to. What we should then do is repeal all freedoms of the press and license media content on a case-by-case basis, so the children don't get hurt.

2nd: Having guns in the house is a danger to children. Only people without children, who can't have children and who aren't related to children should be allowed to have guns.

3rd: Can you think of anything that would make children safer than having soldiers living right there in the same house with them? The government should implement a program whereby soldiers are housed in private homes, with children, for the children. (This would have the added advantage of eliminating child pr0n.)

...

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 01:16 PM (gTGz3)

237 Governmental creep happens.  Especially when you're doing it for the children.

Yes, and who could be against the children!?

Posted by: Lamar Smith at July 30, 2011 01:17 PM (i2fkw)

238 Good....I hate looking for a parking spot. 

I'll bring beer and pizza....

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:17 PM (X6akg)

239 220 I am not following you, I was raised a catholic and they never told me they might come and search my house or my interwebs. Does your church do that?


Oh, good Heavens no. I was referring to the conflict in the Christian Church over divine law versus man's law. Some interpret that to mean you do what you feel is moral above that which is written by men. I'm just throwing that out there as being a potential reason as to why some social conservatives in the House would decide to vote for this amendment.

It's a long story...

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:17 PM (o2lIv)

240 Yes, and who could be against the children!? Posted by: Lamar Smith at July 30, 2011 06:17 PM (i2fkw) Umm, that's a trick question, isn't it?

Posted by: Roman Polanski at July 30, 2011 01:18 PM (bxiXv)

Posted by: andycanuck at July 30, 2011 01:18 PM (oUG6f)

242 234 Yeah, like I'm gonna follow a tinyurl link on THIS thread!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 06:15 PM (bxiXv)

At least its not a link from curious on this thread.

Posted by: buzzion at July 30, 2011 01:19 PM (oVQFe)

243 Habeus corpus should altogether be eliminated by next year.

That's okay, I never understood Latin anyway

Posted by: typical idjit voter at July 30, 2011 01:19 PM (1N25r)

244

I recommend the "Everyone has there own personal cop following them around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Act"!

Just think everyone will have a job policing everyone else! Jobs!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 01:19 PM (AF1jB)

245

I may need a nitro tablet under the tongue.

Lamar, you're giving me angina I didn't even know I had.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:20 PM (Fb9Q0)

246 Wow, Cardinals scored 6 runs while I wasn't looking

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:20 PM (1N25r)

247 245

I recommend the "Everyone has there own personal cop following them around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Act"!

Just think everyone will have a job policing everyone else! Jobs!

< And for those driving GM cars, a personal mechanic.

Hit the tip jar and remember, we validate.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:20 PM (Fb9Q0)

248 I recommend the "Everyone has there own personal cop following them around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Act"! Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 06:19 PM (AF1jB) Wait, do I get to pick the cop?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:20 PM (bxiXv)

249

Merovign,

Concerning the cave, will there by hyrogliphics?

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:22 PM (Fb9Q0)

250 Wireless-N, 4G repeater, and spare gaming machines!

okay, what is a 4G repeater?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:22 PM (1N25r)

251

I don't know what this is but it isn't pr0n.

http://tinyurl.com/yqcs7t

(You know you want to.)

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 01:22 PM (gTGz3)

252

Your cop, Merovign, is a big sassy black lady named Stella.

It's the law. You're just going to have to live with it.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 01:22 PM (AF1jB)

253 Merovign, Concerning the cave, will there by hyrogliphics? Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 06:22 PM (Fb9Q0) Umm, no, but I think I have a poster of Princess Amidala around here somewhere...

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:23 PM (bxiXv)

254

chemjeff, I'll Google the 4G question as soon as their site's back up from the govt. upload transfer.

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:23 PM (Fb9Q0)

255 okay, what is a 4G repeater? Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:22 PM (1N25r) It's like a 3G repeater, only 4G. It's a cave, not much cell signal. I don't have 5G yet.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:24 PM (bxiXv)

256 Wait, do I get to pick the cop?

dibs on this one

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:24 PM (1N25r)

257 What really bothers me is this is the exact time we need some kind of privacy statute covering meatspace and the internet that does the opposite of what Lamar Smith is trying to do.  This is America, not Oceania.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 01:24 PM (i2fkw)

258 253 Your cop, Merovign, is a big sassy black lady named Stella. It's the law. You're just going to have to live with it. Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 30, 2011 06:22 PM (AF1jB) No, that's... wait, how big? And how sassy?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:24 PM (bxiXv)

259 oh, it's a cell phone signal booster
got it

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:25 PM (1N25r)

260 And remember, those in caves get an obamacare waiver.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:27 PM (Fb9Q0)

261 261 And remember, those in caves get an obamacare waiver. Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 06:27 PM (Fb9Q0) I don't do these things by accident!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:28 PM (bxiXv)

262 All of you are crying about the warrantless data mining.  So with the judicial system this country has right now, what makes anyone think it's going to be any harder to get a warrant to search your data? 

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 01:28 PM (21K2z)

263 233 But re: 80sBaby, #182 *really* sounded like that.

I'm sorry. What I was trying to get at was real world consequences and in other places, the thinking of some social conservatives I know. It all gets into Aquinas, Calvin, Augustine, etc. and their writings on the relationsip between different types of law.

I need to just stick to politics.


Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:29 PM (o2lIv)

264 I'm just throwing that out there as being a potential reason as to why some social conservatives in the House would decide to vote for this amendment.

It's a long story...

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:17 PM (o2lIv)

Well just remember we elect muslims now to the congress too. If we start going down that road you won't have to worry about deciding what to wear.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 01:30 PM (MtwBb)

265 And does Stella have a couple of attractive yet socially-awkward adult daughters? These are the things inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:30 PM (bxiXv)

266

soona,

At least the term, "warrant" enters the conversation via the court route.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:31 PM (Fb9Q0)

267 If we start going down that road you won't have to worry about deciding what to wear.

Oh robtr, I'm sure they won't really care what color your suicide vest is!

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:31 PM (1N25r)

268

Soon we will all be Rich Little.

Think about it.

Thanks for coming. We have some nice parting gifts.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:32 PM (Fb9Q0)

269 OT: The Senate is now is session, debating Reid's bill.

: Reid - "I can't believe they won't let us vote!" McConnell - "Ok, let's vote at 6:30" Reid - "I object"

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:32 PM (o2lIv)

270 wow the Cubs defense is just awful this afternoon

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:35 PM (1N25r)

271 265 Well just remember we elect muslims now to the congress too. If we start going down that road you won't have to worry about deciding what to wear.

I most certainly hope not. A number of Cristian theocrats differ from Muslim theocrats but some are much the same. The most interesting and contradictory group is the libertarian theocrats.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:37 PM (o2lIv)

272 Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 06:32 PM (o2lIv) The criticism "it's all Kabuki Theater" works on *so* many levels.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 01:37 PM (bxiXv)

273 wow the Cubs defense is just awful this afternoon

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:35 PM (1N25r)

I just read Breitbart is at that game.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:38 PM (X6akg)

274 Back to what was said earlier, I'm sorry if anyone felt insulted; it was not my intent.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 01:41 PM (o2lIv)

275 I just read Breitbart is at that game.

he is?  what is he doing in St. Louis?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:41 PM (1N25r)

276 I just read Breitbart is at that game.

Scrubs don't need his powers to blow a 5-run lead...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 01:41 PM (AGsrr)

277 he is?  what is he doing in St. Louis?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:41 PM (1N25r)


From his tweet:

At Cubs/Cards game (National League bliss!) with the great Peter Kinder, Missouri's Lieutenant Governor.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:42 PM (X6akg)

278 okay this thread is officially slow.
time for a little pick-me-up.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:42 PM (1N25r)

279 Scrubs don't need his powers to blow a 5-run lead...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 06:41 PM (AGsrr)

Since I was born and raised in St. Louis, I don't care how they blow it, just that they do.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:43 PM (X6akg)

280 At Cubs/Cards game (National League bliss!) with the great Peter Kinder, Missouri's Lieutenant Governor.

huh cool
well I hope he likes the place

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:43 PM (1N25r)

281 234Yeah, like I'm gonna follow a tinyurl link on THIS thread!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 30, 2011 06:15 PM (bxiXv)

sure *cough* thing dude. I don't blame you.

Posted by: Krazy Kat at July 30, 2011 01:44 PM (A23u6)

282

Since I was born and raised in St. Louis, I don't care how they blow it, just that they do.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 06:43 PM (X6akg)


huh really?  I used to live in St. Louis

what part were/are you at?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:46 PM (1N25r)

283 Looks like the thread has wandered far enough off topic for me to ask:  Y'all hear the NPR broadcast this morning?  The one that blamed the latest bad economic news on the Republican budget cuts?

The Republicans that sell us reductions in the rate of growth as "cuts" are only making it harder to refute this nonsense.

Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at July 30, 2011 01:46 PM (NLWij)

284 279: The one on the right has a slightly different uniform. Does that signify something, like a captain's "C" in hockey?

Posted by: FireHorse at July 30, 2011 01:47 PM (gTGz3)

285

what part were/are you at?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:46 PM (1N25r)

Haven't lived there in many years but still have family there.  I was raised in Crestwood.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:47 PM (X6akg)

286 285 279: The one on the right has a slightly different uniform. Does that signify something, like a captain's "C" in hockey?

no, it means she's sluttier than the rest

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:48 PM (1N25r)

287 John F'n Kerry.  Wasn't he in Vietnam?

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 01:48 PM (21K2z)

288 Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 06:47 PM (X6akg)

oh cool - I used to live in Chesterfield, my folks now live in Florissant
Crestwood, eh?  that's a fairly swanky part of town

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:48 PM (1N25r)

289 Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 06:47 PM (X6akg)

oh cool - I used to live in Chesterfield, my folks now live in Florissant
Crestwood, eh?  that's a fairly swanky part of town

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:48 PM (1N25r)

My sister lived in Chesterfield for years...she's now in O'Fallon.  Crestwood?  Swanky?  Bwahahaha...no....not.at.all.

I went to HS in Ballwin.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:51 PM (X6akg)

290 Crestwood?  Swanky?  Bwahahaha...no....not.at.all.

you don't think so?  I thought it was fairly upscale.
It wasn't Ladue, but still... it's not Florissant either
you had a kewl mall

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:53 PM (1N25r)

291

Just watched the Marco Rubio Senate floor speach over at H/A and that clown of a senator, John Kerry try to cover for Obama's past quotes on the debt limit. What a joke.

Rubio is awesome. Just awesome.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 01:53 PM (Fb9Q0)

292 I was in STL earlier in the month.  I flipped off the stadium on my way home.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 01:54 PM (AGsrr)

293

Rubio is awesome. Just awesome.


Rubio/Rubio 2012

because he is so awesome he can do 2 jobs at once

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:54 PM (1N25r)

294 293 I was in STL earlier in the month.  I flipped off the stadium on my way home.

that's okay, the stadium doesn't care

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:55 PM (1N25r)

295 you don't think so?  I thought it was fairly upscale.
It wasn't Ladue, but still... it's not Florissant either
you had a kewl mall

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 06:53 PM (1N25r)

No, very middle-middle class.  Maybe you're thinking of Kirkwood, next door. 

I spent my youth at that mall.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 01:56 PM (X6akg)

296 Got the sound turned off while Lurch is talking.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 01:56 PM (21K2z)

297 297 Got the sound turned off while Lurch is talking.

speaking of Lurch - so I was reading a men's fashion book, and they used him as an example of a long face type, when discussing what type of haircut to get.  And I"m thinking "really? couldn't they find anyone else to use as an example?"  but then I realized that all these books are written by NYC types, so of course, the answer is - no

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:58 PM (1N25r)

298 Socons . . . like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things.

--That's a bit of a broad brush, if you ask me.

Posted by: logprof at July 30, 2011 01:58 PM (BP6Z1)

299 So are they going to vote on Reid's plan today?  Saw a disturbing post over at HA that Boehner and McConnell have come up with another plan.  Shit!

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 01:59 PM (21K2z)

300 No, very middle-middle class.  Maybe you're thinking of Kirkwood, next door.

I guess, I just thought Crestwood was an upscale place, maybe it was just the mall

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 01:59 PM (1N25r)

301 Saw a disturbing post over at HA that Boehner and McConnell have come up with another plan.  Shit!

Do not fear.  We, the proud banner-carriers of conservatism, have agreed to ONE BILLION DOLLARS in savings while the President gets a mere $2.5 trillion in debt ceiling increase.  It's a win-win!

Posted by: Boehner & McConnell, the Conservative Duo at July 30, 2011 02:00 PM (1N25r)

302 I say we keep the debt tennis match going until the next election or until we actually default, which ever comes first.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 02:04 PM (21K2z)

303 Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was a co-sponsor of this bill.




Smith is so into The Wazz that he's co-authoring op-eds with her:

SMITH & SCHULTZ: Protecting children from online predators
Requiring Internet providers to retain user data is key to prosecution

By Rep. Lamar Smith and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 30, 2011 02:04 PM (EeYDk)

304 300 So are they going to vote on Reid's plan today?  Saw a disturbing post over at HA that Boehner and McConnell have come up with another plan.  Shit!

(1) Supposedly by 1am EST

(2) Not yet. It was more a hope (mainly expressed by McConnell) than anything else.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 02:06 PM (o2lIv)

305 Geez.  We're finally done with Lurch's harangue and now we have to listen to Harkin.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 02:06 PM (21K2z)

306 (1) Supposedly by 1am EST

The Senate, the most august deliberative body EVAH, is actually going to vote at 1 in the morning?  on a Saturday?  will that be with or without an open bar?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:08 PM (1N25r)

307 I'd be more worried the state has my driver's license number and my license plate number and the model car I drive, that's much more intrusive than the logs ISP companies already keep.

In any case - if you ever ran a small online business that was attacked remotely by a hacker or a script kiddie - and the only way to connect a name with the online IP address (if your lucky enough for them to make contact with you) - it's good to know the ISP will have that information - otherwise the jerk lives to do it another day - and there is no way to prove it's him.

Posted by: Reality Man at July 30, 2011 02:08 PM (L2x1w)

308 Tomorrow's House floor schedule:

SUNDAY, JULY 31ST
On Sunday, the House will meet at 1:00 p.m. in pro forma session.


**Members are advised that they should be prepared to return to Washington within a few hoursÂ’ notice, if necessary, given the critical fiscal and economic situation of the nation.**

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 02:08 PM (o2lIv)

309 What's a little scary about this debt debate is I keep getting the feeling that this is one of the precursors of an all-out civil war.  Just can't shake it.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 02:09 PM (21K2z)

310 Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 07:09 PM (21K2z)

I think a division of some sort is coming.
I don't think it will be civil war.
I think it will be an Article V convention that goes horribly wrong.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:11 PM (1N25r)

311 I think a division of some sort is coming.
I don't think it will be civil war.
I think it will be an Article V convention that goes horribly wrong.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 07:11 PM (1N25r)

 

Either way I'm pretty sure there's going to be, at least, some torches involved.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 02:16 PM (21K2z)

312 All we have to do is give the police more power.  After all, we don't want them to be in the dark ages.

Posted by: Lamar Smith at July 30, 2011 02:18 PM (i2fkw)

313 Because, hell, you can trust the government.

Posted by: Lamar Smith at July 30, 2011 02:19 PM (i2fkw)

314

There's an extra $1.2 Trillion or so being spent on the national credit cards every year now that wasn't being spent a couple of years ago with NOTHING to show for it. That needs to be clawed back.

Since this means an effective Balanced Budget Amendment, and Obama's birthday is coming up, and Harry Reid is such a turd the last three times I've seen him, I'm back on the let's hold out forever side.

August 2nd - 3 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes

Operation Birthday Turd - 5 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes

Remember Mr. President. While at the party, smile for the cameras 2 days into the crisis which is supposed to destroy the country.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 30, 2011 02:21 PM (GKQDR)

315 310 What's a little scary about this debt debate is I keep getting the feeling that this is one of the precursors of an all-out civil war.  Just can't shake it.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 07:09 PM (21K2z)

I certainly hope not.  My family and I are living in a blue state.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 30, 2011 02:21 PM (/gOMq)

316 I still don't understand what the fuck the 14th Amendment has to do with borrowing more money to waste on bullshit.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 02:23 PM (AGsrr)

317 313 All we have to do is give the police more power.  After all, we don't want them to be in the dark ages.

Posted by: Lamar Smith at July 30, 2011 07:18 PM (i2fkw)

A Las Vegas police officer under investigation for the videotaped beating of a man in March violated several Metropolitan Police Department policies, an internal investigation found.

No shit?

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 30, 2011 02:23 PM (/gOMq)

318 317 I still don't understand what the fuck the 14th Amendment has to do with borrowing more money to waste on bullshit.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 07:23 PM (AGsrr)

That doesn't mean he won't get away with it.  What does anything in the constitution have to do with abortion?

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 30, 2011 02:24 PM (/gOMq)

319

So I'm still extremely pissed at McConnell, who has for this entire debt ceiling debate been trying to cut a deal like his life depended on it. Jackass needs to go.

Oh, and all of this stupid little negotiations...yea, they could have happened w/o the Boehner. I think I said this a few days ago, but what's going on right now was always the end game so long as the Rs weren't willing to go to the brink. Here it comes. The Boehner plan passing doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I'm sure the Wall-Street Journal will be thrilled.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 02:24 PM (OX4OZ)

320 great article, courtesy of Instapundit

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:25 PM (1N25r)

321 so, is anyone planning on holding a debtocalypse party on Monday?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:26 PM (1N25r)

322 That doesn't mean he won't get away with it.

Oh, I expect him to take a big steaming dump on the Constitution and enact legislation not passed by Congress (again).  But I don't understand what the fuck the amendment has to do with spending. 

Or is it just like "raaaaaacist!", something to scream when you realize you've got nothing substantive?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 02:26 PM (AGsrr)

323

Oh, I expect him to take a big steaming dump on the Constitution and enact legislation not passed by Congress (again).  But I don't understand what the fuck the amendment has to do with spending.

------------

It has nothing to do with spending. It's obvious in the language. And yet here we have law school professors pretending that they can't comprehend English. There is so much fucking wrong with this country not the least of which is the fact that professors are willing to lie right through there teeth for political purposes.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 02:31 PM (OX4OZ)

324 HeatherRadish, because of this part of the 14th Amendment:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

But all that says is that whatever debt the US issues, is valid debt.  It doesn't authorize the President to override Congress in deciding how the debt is to be paid.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:31 PM (1N25r)

325 so, is anyone planning on holding a debtocalypse party on Monday?

Can't afford it.

Posted by: Retread at July 30, 2011 02:31 PM (G+7cD)

326  What's a little scary about this debt debate is I keep getting the feeling that this is one of the precursors of an all-out civil war.  Just can't shake it.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 07:09 PM (21K2z)

It won't. Nobody in this country gives a damn because no one takes our elected officials seriously any more. They're all a bunch of fucking evil clowns.

We're all walking around and going along with our lives while a bunch of overpaid douchetools sit around in arrogant opulence playing with our future.

It won't come to a Civil War because cooler heads will prevail and the righteous shall overcome evil.

Posted by: ErikW at July 30, 2011 02:31 PM (oNvV8)

327 Can't afford it.

Posted by: Retread at July 30, 2011 07:31 PM (G+7cD)

Clearly you'll never be in Congress.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 02:32 PM (X6akg)

328 I still don't understand what the fuck the 14th Amendment has to do with borrowing more money to waste on bullshit.

All of the debt is Lincoln's. It's like a retro blame Bush meme.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 30, 2011 02:32 PM (JEvSn)

329 So, when will anonymous proxies be outlawed?

Posted by: Chuckit at July 30, 2011 02:33 PM (1AWe+)

330 326 so, is anyone planning on holding a debtocalypse party on Monday?

Can't afford it.

Posted by: Retread at July 30, 2011 07:31 PM (G+7cD)


So you're saying your Visa is completely maxed out...?


Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:33 PM (1N25r)

331 Is there a way to get the law, as amended, in a layman readable form?  I went and looked at the bill itself and it's just a series of amendments to existing law.  Or do I have to go get Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18 and mentally paste in the amendments?

I was trying to find where they eliminate the need for a warrant go get the retained data.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 30, 2011 02:35 PM (GTbGH)

332

So you're saying your Visa is completely maxed out...?

Well, in that case, don't you just have to call Visa and ask them for a debt increase? Visa knows you're good for it.

And then you can party like it's 1773.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 30, 2011 02:36 PM (GKQDR)

333 Also, I don't see the bank account part at all.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 30, 2011 02:36 PM (GTbGH)

334 All of the debt is Lincoln's. It's like a retro blame Bush meme.

Lincoln WAS one of those evil slavery-loving Republicans.

/Yeah. Yeah, I know.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 30, 2011 02:36 PM (AGsrr)

335 Clearly you'll never be in Congress.

Why thank you.

Posted by: Retread at July 30, 2011 02:37 PM (G+7cD)

336 So, when will anonymous proxies be outlawed?

If proxies are outlawed, then only outlaws will use Tor.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 30, 2011 02:37 PM (JEvSn)

337
I think we can all agree that whatever is passed will be in the best interest of America, and both democrat and republican members of Congress gave their all in providing our citizens the most comprehensive and all-encompassing debt reduction bill imagined possible.  I salute this valiant effort, and bless each and every citizen of this great land.  God Bless America.

Posted by: Joe Biden, Professional Negotiatior for the people at July 30, 2011 02:38 PM (Lt/Za)

338 Is it wrong to want them all to burn in hell?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:40 PM (1N25r)

339 Posted by: Joe Biden, Professional Negotiatior for the people at July 30, 2011 07:38 PM (Lt/Za)

Ok Joe, you can pull the train whistle now.

Posted by: Tami at July 30, 2011 02:40 PM (X6akg)

340 Is it wrong to want them all to burn in hell?

I'm cool with it.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 30, 2011 02:40 PM (JEvSn)

341 A Las Vegas police officer under investigation  Ace's liver

D
ude, don't talk about Vegas cops without googling Erik Scott.
Fuck all you SoCons. Shit's getting real, this world does not start with 'Once Upon A t\Time' and end with 'They All Lived Happily Ever After". Your opinion means as much to me as that of Warren Jeffs.
Blow me EricW

Posted by: depressive realist at July 30, 2011 02:43 PM (le5qc)

342 yeah so I just saw Claire McFuckstick on TV
god I hope she really burns in hell, 9th level all the way
god I can't wait for her to be defeated in 2012

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 02:44 PM (1N25r)

343 Little House on the Prairie? Dude. it got fucking cancelled in 1982. Embrace the future, we are not going back. Life does not work  like that. Pray for the Gay? Fuck off.

Posted by: depressive realist at July 30, 2011 02:48 PM (le5qc)

344 Is it wrong to want them all to burn in hell?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 07:40 PM (1N25r)

 

Not really because God makes that final decision but if you're worried about how the Big Dude views such thoughts, not to worry.

He understands and forgives.

That's the knowledge as I know it.

Posted by: ErikW at July 30, 2011 02:53 PM (oNvV8)

345 All right, I have read all the comments, and the bill, and the manager's amendment, and dammit, even the titles that the bill intends to amend, and I don't see the problem here.

I think we've been pwned.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 30, 2011 02:54 PM (GTbGH)

346 Blow me EricW

Posted by: depressive realist at July 30, 2011 07:43 PM (le5qc)

That's Erik with a K, thank you very much.

I'm a damned dirty Scandi with red hair and striking good looks. 

Posted by: ErikW at July 30, 2011 02:56 PM (oNvV8)

347 It's not "Right meets Left" it's "Right goes further Right".  And this isn't something exclusive to the Right.  Leaning either way, eventually, if you lean far enough, you circle right around to Fascism. 

Posted by: Palooka at July 30, 2011 02:57 PM (DMm6a)

348

Just watched the Marco Rubio Senate floor speach over at H/A and that clown of a senator, John Kerry try to cover for Obama's past quotes on the debt limit. What a joke.

Rubio is awesome. Just awesome.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 06:53 PM

I wanted to ask Kerry if he thought the US could just marry a richer woman.

Posted by: huerfano at July 30, 2011 02:57 PM (aZLY2)

349 If the govt passes enough laws, we will soon all be criminals.

Posted by: Snafu at July 30, 2011 03:06 PM (8d28r)

350 An early evening drinking thread perhaps?

Posted by: D. Hopper Badger at July 30, 2011 03:15 PM (kBWjM)

351 huerfano heh
that gave me an idea
if the government just does this about 4 billion times, our debt problem is over!
(note the difference between price and face value)

Posted by: chemjeff at July 30, 2011 03:16 PM (UMXkZ)

352

This place is dead anyway.

Did anyone mention the GOP nannies, and their Internet gambling bill up thread?

And Cardinals mentioned and no Mallamutt here?  He's not a fan.

Guess that's it from me.

Except my mangina tingle for Marco Rubio.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at July 30, 2011 03:18 PM (dWPyO)

353 If the govt passes enough laws, we will soon all be criminals.

We're already there:

http://tinyurl.com/yadrtc4

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at July 30, 2011 03:21 PM (JEvSn)

354 Is it so much for me to ask of my guests that they put coasters under their drinks and to put their cigarettes out in the ashtrays?

Posted by: Anarchists United at July 30, 2011 03:21 PM (yQWNf)

355 If the govt passes enough laws, we will soon all be criminals.

Posted by: Snafu at July 30, 2011 08:06 PM (8d28r)

I seem to remember reading that the average American commits three federal felonies per day.

Posted by: blue star at July 30, 2011 03:21 PM (lofS9)

356 This thread is staler than Helen Thomases cooter after she has spent a week in an indian (casino) sweat lodge.
 
May right never meet left except at the dueling grounds. Right should get first shot. Use a howitzer.

Posted by: GnuBreed at July 30, 2011 03:24 PM (bvXGR)

357

I seem to remember reading that the average American commits three federal felonies per day.

Posted by: blue star at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (lofS9)

Which is probably on par for any given Gubmint official.

Posted by: ErikW at July 30, 2011 03:25 PM (oNvV8)

358 ....and to put their cigarettes out in the ashtrays?
 
Who put their Kools out on my floor? Who put their Kools out on my floor?

Posted by: Eddie Murphy at July 30, 2011 03:27 PM (bvXGR)

359 . Socons and corporatists, like liberals, feel government is to be used get you things. Oh shove it. It's pathetic that this stupid meme gets repeated on a "conservative" blog, especially when time and again socons are the ones most actively trying to peal back the state. Or do you think you can rely on social moderates like Scott Brown to advance the conservative agenda.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at July 30, 2011 03:27 PM (DScmV)

360 Meh. Is this really new? Didn't Casey Anthony Google Chloroform? And we know this... How? I don't think it's new, but I don't like it. Research showed that it was impossible to find a male who doesn't access porn, at least occassionally or - if a moron - 80% of his waking leisure time. So from now on, if a guy gets so much as a parking ticket, his porn habits will be dredged up by some hypocritical DA that secretly faps to Richard Gere sticking gerbils up his butt?

Posted by: CoolCzech at July 30, 2011 03:29 PM (kUaEF)

361 you're welcome! stop by more often...

Posted by: D. Hopper Badger at July 30, 2011 03:31 PM (kBWjM)

362 Oh, and it figures this post was written by one of the second stringers. Good Lord, it's like listening to the Rush Limbaugh when a guest host other than Steyn is on the air.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at July 30, 2011 03:32 PM (DScmV)

363  Oh, and it figures this post was written by one of the second stringers. Good Lord, it's like listening to the Rush Limbaugh when a guest host other than Steyn is on the air.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at July 30, 2011 08:32 PM (DScmV)

Fuck you! 

Posted by: Mark Belling at July 30, 2011 03:35 PM (yQWNf)

364 Well played rdbrewer, Well played.

Posted by: Midnight Clad at July 30, 2011 03:38 PM (7old5)

365 yeah, fuck you too!

Posted by: Mark Davis at July 30, 2011 03:40 PM (kBWjM)

366 That Zummo fella is straight up racist.

Posted by: Walter E. Williams at July 30, 2011 03:42 PM (yQWNf)

367 "347 All right, I have read all the comments, and the bill, and the manager's amendment, and dammit, even the titles that the bill intends to amend, and I don't see the problem here. I think we've been pwned." Yes. What appears new is a REQUIREMENT for ISPs to store subscribers' IP addresses for 18 months, and only that. That is bad enough. But the bill has no language regarding mandatory storage of every click and byte. Still, it is reprehensible. The authority of gubmint to demand, by subpoena only, all data available in a particular case already exists on a case by case basis, as far as Code 2703 is concerned. There may be other laws already on the books that go beyond that, but no one has quoted the section in the Code.

Posted by: George Orwell at July 30, 2011 04:07 PM (AZGON)

368 These political folks are disgusting. We have moved soooooo far from the original intent that it's become disgusting. Aside from child pornagrapgy they have NO right doing this. My question is when are people going to wake up? R. A. B.

Posted by: Ron BrA at July 30, 2011 04:13 PM (7dObW)

369 i thought people on this site that hated Ron Paul? conservatism and anti-state libertarian paranoia (even when government's involved in something for reasonable purposes) are not the same thing.

Posted by: VRWC at July 30, 2011 04:33 PM (8HhF2)

370 We live in a growing police state.  Look at Britain.  They have cameras, microphones and speakers on every corner of London (except the Muslim quarters where they were constantly vandalized and had to be removed).  We aren't too far behind them.

George Orwell predicted a worldwide police state in "1984."  How do we currently measure up?  Do we have thought crimes?  Do we have a state-run media that propagandizes for one political party?  Are we in a constant state of war?  Do we live under constant surveillance?  Are our school books being rewritten to support current government policies?  Is our language being manipulated?

Did you answer "yes" to one or more of those questions?

Posted by: Cooter at July 30, 2011 04:40 PM (C06Qq)

371 Do you mistrust and/or fear your own government?

Posted by: Cooter at July 30, 2011 04:42 PM (C06Qq)

372 366, 368, 369 are the reasons I can't stay mad at this blog for long.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at July 30, 2011 04:59 PM (DScmV)

373 What the hell is a Socon?  Is that like a UnLiberal?

Posted by: Molon Labe at July 30, 2011 09:41 PM (g5MrG)

374 I hope they don't have to store the webcam feed I transmit to that little Filipino honey that swears she's 18 1/2, but looks old enough to be my third wife who I divorced 20 years ago. That'll put a curl in their hair that will need more than hair straightener to iron out. Maybe if I copyright it, that'll come under their digital millennium act monstrosity and get the prosecutor and the grand jurors send off to gitmo for unauthorized viewing. It seems that's the only way you can assert any rights anymore.

Posted by: Kazinski at July 31, 2011 01:04 AM (xbQZf)

375 140: Yes. When you are denouncing the vast majority of the House GOP (many of whom are Tea Partyers) as insufficiently conservative because of a single vote, then you are in full purge mode.

Posted by: RJ at July 31, 2011 03:20 AM (QjrRF)

376 One can disagree with this vote, and express disappointment. That's perfectly reasonable. But to denounce nearly every Republican member of this committee as "CINO" scum who needs to be primaried? Yeah, that's sort of an extreme position.

Posted by: RJ at July 31, 2011 03:25 AM (QjrRF)

377 Who said CINO scum who needs to be primaried?

I've debated people like you before.  You make it up as you go along.

I asked you and a couple of others to explain how these people can call themselves conservatives after a vote like this.  How can you consider them to be conservative?  They're big government, establishment conservatives, and, in most cases, they're socons.  (I looked at their voting records.)  Socons like these gave Bush 43 a pass when he gave us a brand new entitlement and the TSA.  These kinds of politicians can't be trusted to watch the store.  They like government just fine.  Hell, government butters their bread.  If we had the White House and both houses of Congress, you think any one of these people would conduct themselves like conservatives?  I think not.  I think it we would be right back where we were under Bush, with big spending, porcine Republicans basking in the glory of government power and using government just like the liberals do--just with different ends.

Now.  Explain to everyone how Lamar Smith is a conservative.  Try to focus on the issue.  And that means: Forget about your dumb sophistry about "full purge mode."  A specious point like that is not enough to change the subject--which is exactly what you're trying to do.  Forget about trying to reclassify and minimize my point so that it doesn't need to be addressed. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 31, 2011 04:04 AM (POEzP)

378 I asked you and a couple of others to explain how these people can call themselves conservatives after a vote like this.  How can you consider them to be conservative?

I, and others, have asked where in the proposed bill are these dire things: retaining bank account numbers, removing the need for supeonas to access the data, etc.

I can't find them, but then, bill writing is pretty arcane and I'm no lawyer or Congressman.  Can anyone supply the actual language that changes anything other than commercial ISPs must increase the amount of time that they retain the assigned IPaddresses of customers from 6 months to 18?

Posted by: toby928™ at July 31, 2011 04:40 AM (GTbGH)

379 Marino is not a conservative. He used to be a DA in Pennsylvania.. He also has had his own problems, I've heard,  with rumors of being connected to the mob.

Posted by: Jellytoast at July 31, 2011 05:08 AM (wgSS6)

380 380: Quoting you: "Below the fold is a rogue's gallery of CINOs..." Okay, so you didn't use the word "scum." Instead you used the phrase "rogue's gallery," which has negative connotations. You certainly did call them CINOs. And your post stated that they aren't TRUE conservatives, and that they are in fact practically as bad as liberals, which strongly implies that you would like to see them replaced by TRUE conservatives. And it would seem that the only way to replace a "CINO" with a TRUE conservative is through the primary process. I've debated people like you before. You say something, or strongly imply something, and then deny you ever said or implied it when you're called out on it.

Posted by: RJ at July 31, 2011 05:18 AM (QjrRF)

381 rdbrewer: Do you think Paul Ryan is a conservative (ACU lifetime rating of 93)? How about Tom Coburn (ACU lifetime rating of 9 ? How about Jon Kyl (ACU lifetime rating of 97)? How about John Thune (ACU lifetime rating of 89)? Are any of these gentlemen TRUE conservatives? Or is this just another rogue's gallery of CINOs?

Posted by: RJ at July 31, 2011 05:29 AM (QjrRF)

382 Us stoners are used to having no constitutional rights.  Welcome to the party, you fucking crybabies.

Posted by: sum(random) at July 31, 2011 08:21 AM (Urtd5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
266kb generated in CPU 0.26, elapsed 1.3692 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1476 seconds, 618 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.