Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: I'm sure the detractors will revise their opinions 52
Long before MSNBC began defending mass surveillance or even before the Republican National Committee began denouncing it, the leftâ(TM)s favorite bogeymen saw the Patriot Act as an attack on civil liberties.
In fact, the Koch Brothers mightâ(TM)ve given more to repeal the Patriot Act than any other individual political campaign.
I request a clarification (Score:2)
"in relation to crushing Parts 15, 16 and 17 of the US Patriot Act."
I can't find exactly what that would mean. Looking at wikipedia I see that the Patriot Act [wikipedia.org] is divided into 10 titles, which seem to each have sections with three digit numbers to them. I'm honestly not sure what they are referring to by "Parts 15, 16 and 17". I tried doing a google search and didn't find much of use in that matter either.
Furthermore, it is interesting that they found only some specific part of the act objectionable, and directed their money specifically t
Re: (Score:3)
From the beginning, the Patriot Act has been mostly good IMO, with some bad parts (e.g., massive expansion of NSLs). But nothing in the Patriot Act was as bad as the surveillance state we've got today, that most Americans are just finding out about. Nothing.
But since the President is a Democrat, it must be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
And I could also argue the case that national security is a big deal, and we need things akin to the Patriot Act to carry out Constitutional responsibilities.
Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's because the Right sees little to nothing good in the ACA and so can scream unhesitantly about it, whereas it was hard for the Left to feign with much convincing force an opposition to something amounting to more intrusive and larger government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm honestly not sure what they are referring to by "Parts 15, 16 and 17". I tried doing a google search and didn't find much of use in that matter either.
Do you know what these "Parts 15, 16, and 17" are? I could not find them. That is why I started this thread that you replied to. The Koch brothers, according to the article that Smitty linked to, specifically opposed those three "parts", but I can't even find a way to divide up the massive bill know as the Patriot Act into "parts" that would be
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that you did not answer my question
You didn't offer one. You said you were not sure about something, which is perhaps interesting, but not a question.
Do you know what these "Parts 15, 16, and 17" are?
No.
That is why I started this thread that you replied to.
That's nice.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that you did not answer my question
You didn't offer one. You said you were not sure about something, which is perhaps interesting, but not a question.
I urge you to go and read the comment you replied to here [slashdot.org]. It appears you might not have read it before hitting reply and offering your opinion. Had you read it, you might have noticed things such as the subject of the comment
I request a clarification
Which was a very plain request for information, or where I said
I'm honestly not sure what they are referring to by "Parts 15, 16 and 17". I tried doing a google search and didn't find much of use in that matter either.
While it may not have ended with a question mark, it was most certainly a request for information, and you provided no information in response to it.
Do you know what these "Parts 15, 16, and 17" are?
No.
So then why did you reply to my comment? I was asking for informat
Re: (Score:2)
I urge you to go and read the comment you replied to here [slashdot.org].
Already did.
It appears you might not have read it before hitting reply and offering your opinion.
Incorrect.
Had you read it, you might have noticed things such as the subject of the comment
Yes, and?
While it may not have ended with a question mark, it was most certainly a request for information, and you provided no information in response to it.
It was not a question, despite your initial claim that it was. And I have no reason to even attempt to provide information, and the fact that my reply was to your comment is not an implication that I should have done so. How can you still, after all these years, not understand how discussions work?
Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to, here. Nevermind, we all know you don't know how discussions work. You're the brainiac who replies to me providing detailed evidence saying
Re: (Score:2)
I urge you to go and read the comment you replied to here.
Already did.
The fact that your reply did not actually reply to the matter discussed suggests otherwise.
Had you read it, you might have noticed things such as the subject of the comment
Yes, and?
The subject - and the body of the question - were both asking for clarification on what the Koch brothers were opposing from the Patriot Act. You did not respond to either.
While it may not have ended with a question mark, it was most certainly a request for information, and you provided no information in response to it.
It was not a question, despite your initial claim that it was.
Is your entire argument based on the absence of a question mark? You should know better, being as you claim to have a degree in journalism. Ever hear of a FOIA request? They are questions - specifically, requests for information - that do not
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that your reply did not actually reply to the matter discussed suggests otherwise.
You're lying. You were talking about supporting some parts and opposing other parts. I responded to that. You know this; ergo, you're lying.
The subject - and the body of the question - were both asking for clarification
You're lying. We've already established that you did not ask a question.
Is your entire argument based on the absence of a question mark?
No, but you keep repeating the lie that you asked a question, so I keep pointing out that it is a lie.
They are questions - specifically, requests for information
Requests are not questions. You can't be that stupid, can you? If I say, "please give me a candy bar," that is a request; it is not a question.
Just because one particular punctuation element was not there does not mean that no question was there.
You offered no question. Stop lying.
If you see it that way then you really have no reason to be in this discussion at all.
You're lying
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that your reply did not actually reply to the matter discussed suggests otherwise.
You're lying.
This time you started off by accusing me of lying. This sounds more like the PudgeScript we have all come to know and love; perhaps you worked that bug out of the system?
You were talking about supporting some parts and opposing other parts.
No, I was not. I was specifically asking for a clarification for what the parts were that they were opposed to. The text of my comment states that plainly. It is sad to see that reading comprehension is still such a mighty challenge for you.
I responded to that.
No. You responded by giving your opinion of the patriot act. You could have just as well tol
Re: (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Dude, you said "Goodbye." I called you a liar, and you proved me right!
I'm starting to pick up more nuances of your satire craft!
Re: (Score:2)
You're lying, I have over a million of your man hours invested in my development.
Another obvious li
Re: (Score:3)
This time you started off by accusing me of lying.
That time you started off by lying. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
END OF LINE
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're really quite late to the party, troll. People had suggested quite some time ago that Pudge was a script. Hell I accused him directly of being a script last January [slashdot.org]. Granted I called him "Pudge-script" rather than PudgeScript but nonetheless the idea is not new to this year.
The thing is that you don't criticize me when you accuse me of being a script. Predictability in argument is generally a virute, as far as I am concerned. If you lie, I point it out. If you make a reasonable argument, I respond to it (as I have in the past, though rarely; even though you consistently lie and say I never do). And you're predictable too: not only will you lie often, but you will never, ever, ever even attempt to back up your lies about me.
So yes, please continue to point out that I predic
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is that you don't criticize me when you accuse me of being a script.
I don't really much care what you think about it. I am saying that you are so highly predictable in your responses that you could be replaced by a script and likely we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Whether you take offense at the comment is immaterial.
Predictability in argument is generally a virute, as far as I am concerned.
It does not surprise me that you would view yourself as being virtuous.
If you lie, I point it out.
Except you haven't. You accuse me of lying, but you do so when I am not lying. You use the description of lying as a way to brush off people who are making arguments that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well we all know that's a lie. Mr. OCD will respond again, he can't help himself.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what that's worth.
Re: (Score:3)
usually he labels his opinions as irrefutable truths
You're lying.
Re: (Score:3)
usually he labels his opinions as irrefutable truths
You're lying.
you have done exactly that many, many times. we have all seen you do it many, many times.
You're a liar. Again, you cannot provide a single example of this, despite your false claim that I've done it "many, many times."
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what that's worth.
As much as anyone else's. Shrug.
Re: (Score:3)
you have consistently argued ... that your opinion is ... worth more than others
You're a liar.
[and] that your opinion is the irrefutable truth while others' opinions are worthless garbage at best
You're a liar.
I have never, ever, in my life, thought or expressed any such ideas as this, and the telling evidence supporting me is that you are incapable of providing a single example backing up your false claims.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the listing of sections of U.S. Code affected, and that might almost line up, except that it does not.
The overarching point is that the Kochs are not conservative; they are libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the listing of sections of U.S. Code affected, and that might almost line up, except that it does not.
Which makes it impossible to know which part(s) of the Patriot Act the Koch brothers are opposed to. It may be a typo on the page you linked to, but nonetheless it leaves open the question of what they disliked to the tune of $10M, and why that part was so much worse than the rest of the act that they would specifically contribute their money to only the defeat of it instead of the bill in full.
The overarching point is that the Kochs are not conservative; they are libertarian.
Perhaps in other places or at other times in this place there was an important distinction between conservative
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This was less than useful (Score:2)
At this point at least two interpretations of the linked source
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
â David Koch has also contributed $10 million to the ACLU in relation to crushing Parts 15, 16 and 17 of the US Patriot Act.
Which has no source mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all of the anti-Koch poo
I'd be interested to know specifically what you see as "anti-Koch poo".
There have been multiple documented money trails going from the Koch brothers to the Tea Party. Now, if you want to make an argument that the Tea Party sprung up independently with hyper-capitalist ideals and then the Koch brothers latched on and started pumping money in to them, you might be able to make that case. However this article was unable to substantiate any of the claims about the Koch brothers having an opposition to th
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested to know specifically what you see as "anti-Koch poo"
Really bad variations on Koch, the Tea Party, and oral sex, for example.
emphasis mine, obviously:
if you want to make an argument that the Tea Party sprung up independently with hyper-capitalist ideals and then the Koch brothers latched on and started pumping money in to them, you might be able to make that case.
What is "hyper-capitalist"? There are buyers, sellers, and marketplace. Is the "hyper" part introduced via caffeine? As far as I know, the Kochs have behaved ethically, funded groups such as AFP [americansf...perity.org], and offered leadership to help mature some of the less-developed Tea Party enthusiasm. I don't support all of their positions, but I can't find anything in their actions that is objectionable.
And for all this, they've
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested to know specifically what you see as "anti-Koch poo"
Really bad variations on Koch, the Tea Party, and oral sex, for example.
I'm not sure how making fun of the name of the tea party is specifically "anti-Koch". Or are you referring to something more specific than that? I don't see "tea baggers" as being any worse than "moonbats", "libtards", or any of seemingly endless cries from various conservatives claiming that all liberals are performing fellatio on President Lawnchair.
What is "hyper-capitalist"? There are buyers, sellers, and marketplace.
I consider something hyper-capitalist when someone actively seeks to shaft the working class to increase revenue for the top economic echelon. If you see
Re: (Score:2)
the Koch brothers - who have far more freedom than nearly anyone else in this country
How do you begin to quantify that, unless you mean freedom == $?
I have infinite liberty in Christ. I would you understood that for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
the Koch brothers - who have far more freedom than nearly anyone else in this country
How do you begin to quantify that, unless you mean freedom == $?
In this country, freedom and money are interchangeable. They have the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want. They are not restrained by the same things that hinder opportunity for the rest of us. They don't need to worry about losing their jobs, or not having money for rent, or what they'd do if their car broke down while going to work.
Furthermore they can say whatever they want, to whomever they want, and have no need to worry about any repercussions. Compar
Re: (Score:2)
freedom and money are interchangeable
Here under the sun, to an extent.
But, if you cast off your materialistic blinders, real freedom awaits. . .
Interesting follow-up (Score:2)
The other day I used their comment tool at the bottom of that page to ask what these parts are, as they do not correlate with how the Patriot Act is enumerated. Did they reply to my question? No. Instead, they deleted my question. Their text remains the same, even though it does not lin