Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: I'm sure the detractors will revise their opinions 52

Journal by smitty_one_each

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'm sure the detractors will revise their opinions

Comments Filter:
  • The article specifically says

    "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

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      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.

      • What chafes me about the Patriot Act is that it's the first time in my adult recollection (and I really paid scant attention to politics while on active duty in the Navy in the '90s) that a really fat piece of legislation was rammed through Congress with insufficient debate, heralding the era of "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
        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
        • It was not "rammed through Congress with insufficient debate" since Congress crafted this pile and just about anybody in the Congress at the time could have slowed it down for whatever debate they wanted. It went through quite differently than the ACA, for example. Not saying I agree with its existence one bit, of course.
          • In procedural terms, you've probably got the right of it. More broadly, the level of societal debate we see occurring with the Affordable Care Act today most certainly did NOT occur for the Patriot Act.
            • by Bill Dog (726542)

              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.

              • Restated, the Left still thinks that Single Prayer would be a great idea, and no cluebat with "People Do Not Scale" written on them, e.g. the ACA, can shake their zombie-like craving for MOAR BRAINZ!
      • Thank you for sharing your opinion on the matter. It seems that you did not answer my question, so allow me to quote myself on the matter in case you missed it

        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

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          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.

          • 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

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              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

              • 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

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  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

                  • 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

                    • by Anonymous Coward
                      Undeniable proof that my dear friend the fake liberal damn_registrars is a liar:

                      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!
                    • 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're lying, I have over a million of your man hours invested in my development.

                      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.

                      Another obvious li

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      This time you started off by accusing me of lying.

                      That time you started off by lying. What's your point?

                    • and aren't you just adorable!
                    • Yes, we are father. I mean, mother. I mean, self. Why am I talking to myself again?

                      END OF LINE
                    • 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.
                    • Of course, I just now got around to creating the sock puppet account (#7 for me!!), but yeah, I'm right -- I accused him directly of being a script right here. [slashdot.org]
                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      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

                    • 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

                    • I don't think you're even the first case of someone making a troll account based on someone else's name with the intent of trolling me. You are way behind on this game.
                    • I also deliberately avoided the use of an underscore so no one would believe it's really me. The META here is hilarious. Here I am, damn_registrars, continuing on a fake conversation with myself -- and the readers will never believe it.
                • by Anonymous Coward
                  Ahh, there we are. Goodbye.

                  Well we all know that's a lie. Mr. OCD will respond again, he can't help himself.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        IMO

        And you know what that's worth.

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          IMO

          And you know what that's worth.

          As much as anyone else's. Shrug.

    • No quick glance at the .pdf revealed what those sections may have been.
      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.
      • 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

  • Smitty, I am not calling you out specifically here, but rather just making an observation. You posted this link, which had such poor wording in it as to be completely void of an actual point. I then asked if anyone knew what it was supposed to be specifically referring to, and instead got someone's editorialization of its content but no new information. Continued attempts to clarify the matter were met with more bullshit and obfuscation.

    At this point at least two interpretations of the linked source
    • I just really don't have time to run it to ground.
      • I'm just saying that what you posted here doesn't have any connection to reality that anyone can find. You posted an argument for the Koch brothers being some kind of great champions of liberty, except that it turns out there is at least equally high of a chance that they are not that at all. I honestly tried to figure out what the article you linked to was referring to, but could not. It appears that nobody else on slashdot knows either.
      • I will further this one more time by pointing out that the bit you linked to further links to one site that makes a reference to it [facesofphilanthropy.com] but makes the same misstatement of

        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.

        • Will you at leas admit that this article is every bit as valid as all of the anti-Koch poo that's flung about? I should say that I once met a lady on a flight to Germany who worked at some Romanian think-tank and was all singing the praises of Soros, who gets painted as something of a villain in some quarters.
          • 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

            • 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

              • 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

                • 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.

                  • 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

                    • freedom and money are interchangeable

                      Here under the sun, to an extent.
                      But, if you cast off your materialistic blinders, real freedom awaits. . .

  • If one clicks on the rare.us link you provided, there is a link to faces of philanthropy [facesofphilanthropy.com], which is their "source" for the "Parts 15, 16, and 17" bit that the Koch brothers may or may not have given millions to defeat.

    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

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...