No Democrats voted against cloture. It was all Republicans, who apparently hate civil liberties. Due to the lax filibuster rules in the Senate, this effectively kills this reform bill.
2 Likes
Traitor or not, at least one of them is an unabashed hypocriteâŚ
Throughout his career in public service, Sen. Cornyn has been a champion of open government.
I suspect heâs not alone.
2 Likes
Interestingly, âFight For the Futureâ (the folks who initiated âReset the Netâ) was sending mail asking people to call their representatives to vote against the bill, and linked to an article saying that many civil libertarians were opposed to the bill on the grounds that it does not go nearly far enough:
I certainly donât believe the bill stalled because the âtraitorsâ wanted MORE restrictions on spying, and Iâm not sure whether or not I agree with FFTFâs tactic, but I guess they got what they thought was best.
See, I was always a fan of the famous USELESS GOBSHITES headline from Ireland a while back, because it was hysterical and hilarious, as well as being rather apt and on the nose, capturing a moment in time and the frustrations of many people across Ireland. (And it came from a tabloid, so the expectation for hysteria was already firmly entrenched, because no sane person takes those things seriously.)
This, however, is just as hysterical, but it lacks any degree of charm or aptness. Being called a useless gobshite is one thing - being called a traitor is quite another entirely.
One is irreverent mockery and scathing criticism, while the other is simultaneously both invoking petty Tribalistic squabbling (those who agree with me are True Scotsmen, and those who agree with the other guy are monsters and bogeymen!) in the name of Nationalism, and invoking the extreme legal status of being branded a traitor, which is a capital crime - in short, quite literally saying âThey should be shot!â.
Mr. Doctorow, shame on you. Your goals and philosophies are in general laudable, but your methods are deplorable. You have an obligation to the truth, and you cast it aside in favor of fostering hysteria and hyperbole.
The simple fact is that the politicians herein named are, in no rational measure, traitors. They have been empowered to vote, ostensibly on the behalf of their constituencies, and they were free to vote as they saw fit in that regard.
You and I believe they voted wrongly (and I would assume we also both believe with personal financial gain as their primary motivation, secured through shady deals from special interest groups). And yet, they had every right to cast their votes as they saw fit, even if we disagree entirely with how they did so.
As representatives, they can of course be voted out of office by their constituents. And as someone who feels the casting of these votes was the wrong course of action, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and to share it with others in the hopes of convincing them of the rightness of your viewpoint, and convincing them to take direct political action and vote against these representatives in the future.
But you could very well express this opinion with far greater integrity, and with less pettiness and counter-production strung along with it. As much as I share many of your viewpoints, I find it extremely hard to take you seriously at times because of your penchant for unfounded vitriol and your willingness to twist the truth and to say âImpartiality and honesty be damned!â.
As much as I might agree with you in principle, I cannot allow my decisions to be informed by your contributions when those contributions consist entirely of willful exaggeration, disingenuity, and petulance.
5 Likes
The borders are an artificial construct that does not deserve much respect. The concept of nation-state is obsolete. The idea of loyalty to such artificial concept comes to me as weird, especially as I have way too many friends from way too many different countries, and refuse to take geopolitics into account when dealing with them.
Open your eyes. There is a world behind your borders. There are people there too. You are more similar to them than to your own politicians.
6 Likes
Not to speak for @clifyt but I catch Cory posting stuff all the time that he obviously has not read up or thought out thoroughly and not just on political matters. He is of course free to use this site as his bully pulpit and owes us no explanation of his opinions whether we agree, disagree or find them patronizing. My own impression was that it was an ad hominem attack.
What I find interesting is how he seems to be legally aware enough to avoid using this same sort of invective towards politicians in his UK. Even he is not a citizen there, as a resident he would still be subject to British libel law. IANAL in any country but by my understanding, this one word rage dump could be interpreted as an accusation of criminal behavior and thus he could get his Canadian self sued were he to level the same charge at a group of MPs.
Not entirely, or at least not as I see it being a legal permanent resident in a country different than the country in which I hold citizenship. I can piss and moan about the Japanese legal system till the cows come home but as someone who has no voting rights, the only real âvoteâ I can cast if I really object is to leave or become a citizen and devote myself to politics. The second of those two options is unrealistic under the local legal system so my only option would be to leave.
Things arenât always black and white.
As I recall, a fistful of European countries also play the same game.
2 Likes
Yeah man, that blew my mind. They must have tens of thousands of the things. Then you get the AM radio talk-back crowd somehow defending them? Iâm seriously looking forward to when enough of these ignorant fucks die off that we can get some sensible, compassionate laws in this currently backwards shithole.
My first act after inventing a time machine will be to repeatedly kick Tony Abbottâs father in the balls until Iâm sure they arenât working any more. Also, and Iâm surprised this isnât published more often due to her âinterestingâ face, this is Tony Abbottâs mother:
Iâd say âjust look at itâ but that would be offensive to innocent fruit.
1 Like
has not read up or thought out thoroughly and not just on political matters.
Way to expose your politics bud.
IANAL
Really? We couldnât tell from your biassed commentary.
The second of those two options is unrealistic under the local legal system so my only option would be to leave.
Itâs nice you have options. Some people donât.
As I recall, a fistful of European countries also play the same game.
Câmon. You know perfectly well that the NSA trumps every other nationâs signals-gathering ability and since so much internet traffic - even between parties that arenât in America - goes through America, the NSAâs ability to spy on its citizens wherever they are is unparalleled. Also typically the EU agencies donât operate on a secret budget without oversight. Nice false equivalence.
Also, why do you care so much about this topic? Can you explain to us why you donât think the word traitor applies in this situation?
Only this cunt:
Nelson (D-FL)
Of course heâs from Americaâs wang.
1 Like
Word originates from the 12th or 13th century.
Try again, and this time try not talking out of your arse. Just because America is so under-evolved that the death penalty still exists doesnât mean that you can hijack the meaning of the word âtraitorâ.
Really? A court operating entirely in secret, granting carte blanche to the executive branch of the government, to secretly collect massive amounts of personal data, on law abiding citizens, with the legislative branch failing to curtail either, by even a tiny bit. Seems like the âtraitorâ label applies to a rather long list of people using the Constitution to wipe their ass, including the legislators on that list.
Given the fact that the Founding Fathers made the First Amendment the first amendment they clearly felt that âpissing and moaningâ was an effective tool to bring about change.
3 Likes
If I remember right, that whole thing came to my attention because of a huge social media campaign outraged at the t-shirts being removed from sale. Political correctness gone mad, apparently. It beggars belief.
1 Like
Faggot? Itâs not, like. Itâs either a rather unpleasant species of meatball, a somewhat archaic term for a piece of burning wood, or, well, you knowâŚ
1 Like
Show me a definition. Iâve given you one. Prior definitions automatically trump new ones by virtue of the idea that the adaptation of a word to a new meaning is done because the root word is the dominant concept. Otherwise theyâd have just created a new word. âprimary conceptâ? âcenturiesâ? Prove it. This is the internet weâre on, itâs not like youâre short of resources.
Why am I brining up Coryâs nationality? Because you are applying a particularly american interpretation of the word to the writing of a man who knows and learned the actual definition of the word. Is the double entendre lost on Cory? Obviously not, but the word means several things and I, for one, will not let you dilute my language.
Iâm afraid youâre completely wrong here.
So youâre going to school me on the usage of words in my country? Nice try. Iâve never heard people call it a âfaggotâ ever, and I used to smoke 'em. Show me examples of this use or Iâll continue to assume youâre talking out of your arse.
But by all means, stand firm in your ignorance and presumption, and continue to make insulting and condescending jibes at me
I will. Short of the jibes youâre doing exactly what youâre accusing me of, except Iâve actually provided independent proof of my definitions. Youâve given us all quotation marks and conjecture. If you havenât noticed, being offensive is kinda my thing so if you think youâll win credit for taking the high moral ground, Iâll laugh in your face, provide a compelling and referenced argument for my talking points and then call you names because youâre wasting my time.
Iâm not sure how opposing a bill which
-
Pays lip-service to reforming an agency that has a long history of just doing whatever-the-fuck-it-wants and will continue to do so, because it operates in a shadowy environment of âblackâ operations darker than any night youâve ever experienced
-
Re-ups the âUSA PATRIOTâ act, which is in large part responsible for the authority for such darker-than-night sort of covert surveillance
is âtraitorousâ. In fact, it seems to me the only course of action. Rather than pass something which causes more harm than good (but which mindless sheep will think accomplishes good work), these folks put their foot down and said âNo, we need actual reform with sharp goddamned teeth.â
This is the kind of thing that warms the cockles of my heart. It means Iâve really gotten under your skin.
Apologies to @Falcor (you know I love you) but I think even he would agree that I provided a definition of the word you both seem to misunderstand or wilfully misrepresent, then Mr one-comment-wonder rolls in to ignorantly insult the postâs author with his own unsubstantiated definition.
Youâll also notice that even though I thoroughly disagree with Israel_B above I was entirely civil (although a little snarky) because heâs not insisting we all accept his definitions of words. If you find Coryâs posts so dishonest youâre welcome to leave. Youâre also welcome to spare us your belly aching.
1 Like
Oh is that what they said? Where?
3 Likes
You might want to brush up on your history on this matter and pay particular attention to the Applications section and the First Amendment section. What their intention was at the time is something Iâll leave up to SCOTUS members, but historically the idea that you canât be thrown in jail for pissing and moaning in the US is rather new as the wikipedia article explains.
Donât get me wrong, Iâm a big fan of the current interpretation that I or other US citizens canât be tossed in a dungeon for pissing and moaning, but when it comes to constitutional law I wonât pretend to be a formal authority or even play one on TV.
Sadly Humpty Dumpty linguistics is a common feature of political discourse these days.
The definition you posted was fine and in fact would be exactly my complaint. The first definition, say âa traitor to the causeâ which isnât legalistic doesnât apply here since the politicians in question donât seem to have shared common cause with Mr Doctorow as far as I can determine thus it is hard to assume that this was the meaning intended.
This leaves the second definition which is legalistic and describes a criminal charge. Since these politicians have not been charged with treason nor does there seem to be any move to do so, my conclusion was the word was used in an emotionally manipulative way and perhaps an ad hominem attack.
Why do I care? Maybe its old fashioned of me, but I figure once someone has a reputation, big or small, as a thought leader, my expectations of quality increase. Thus it does bother me when I see sloppy or inaccurate work from that person. This is why I donât always just follow your later suggestion to leave or spare you my belly aching but I do try to limit when I engage these matters since they usually devolve into internet pissing matches and that is for the most part neither educational nor fun for me.
First Iâve ever heard of that usage despite living in all of those places. Bundle of sticks yeah, meatball defo, even as an obscure stitching or metalworking term but as a dog-end? Never.
3 Likes
No, it was a vote to cut off debate - in effect a vote to vote. It only takes 40 votes to defeat that. The party of freedom wonât allow a vote.
4 Likes
