Congress’s vote to eviscerate Internet privacy could give the FBI massive power

Abortions, at least late ones, should be a national shame just like death penalties.

Doesn't support everything else Republicans do but just wanted to mention this since your post made it sound like this wasn't an important issue.

Can you name something similar the Democrats have done? As I remember it, nothing like it had ever been done before; they threatened to bankrupt the United States government, and caused the government's debt rating to be lowered, increasing the costs to taxpayers of of interest payments.

Saying 'they all are the same' is the bane of serious analysis and a well-established tactic of propagandists to shut down criticism (not that you are one, but my point is that there's a reason they use that tactic).

> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality

See, this is annoying. Because of telecom regulation, there is no 'market' so to speak. Lets roll back the regulations and allow some actual, legit last-mile competition, and then this might make sense.

As it stands now, in most markets, there is no choice of a high-speed ISP that isn't drooling over the collection of internet usage data.

> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality

Bullshit propaganda. They are not interested at all I solving these problems. To them, "market based solutions" means doing nothing and let the market do its thing.

If they were serious, they'd be in favor of cap and trade for carbon emissions, like they were for sulfur in the 1990s.

> Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1]

That doesn't disprove what I said. Just because you've been not killing people for 10 years, and suddenly you kill someone, that doesn't make it OK. Both parties had been holding votes to confirm the other's nominees to the Supreme Court, until the Republicans didn't. That was my point – they are the first to break a rule, that until now has been observed. It seems they have no qualms about it. Please list the same about Democrats, in the same amount – I actually want to see it.

> Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy

A fine line coming from the guys who have been historically giving 10x as many subsidies to fossil fuels as to clean energy? In essence propping up this industry? We are talking many billions of dollars in market distortion. We could have had a lot of clean energy by now if they hadn't been picking winners and losers.

Is that why Donald Trump just made sure that environmental considerations won't be a factor in funding new coal plants? All the experts say this won't bring back coal jobs, yet DT and the Republicans really try. If they are for market based solutions, why do the subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of billions?

> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality

Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions.

> Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right.

Well then they shouldn't have voted for the CORBA bill of 1985. Prior to this, patients would be turned away from hospitals for inability to pay, and would die on the way to the next hospital. That law requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. So individual responsibility is, in fact, making sure people pay before they need it, instead of freeriding on society's money. That's their individual responsibility.

In fact the individual mandate is the conclusion of the Heritage Foundation, which was implemented in RomneyCare by Romney, an establishment Republican. And resulted in everyone in Massachussets being able to afford healthcare. But as soon as Obama did the same thing, it suddenly became evil and slavery. Well, that would mean that Republicans' own ideas are evil and slavery, according to Republicans. This is an example of the hypocrisy. Where am I being unfair? It's their own words and standard, before and after.

> Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government.

And other things are not, such as interstate commerce or the welfare clause, or regulating banks?

And frankly, which government? State governments have much more ability to do those things and more. The Federal government may be more restricted.

So anyway, because the army is "in the purview of government" they can take unlimited amounts from people's paychecks to fund an ever expanding top-down centrally planned project to build 800 bases around the world (over 30x the rest of the world combined) and feed all the soldiers free food etc on our dime? And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough?

> Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. > So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it > is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically > correct groupthink present on the left.

Yes, the left has various SJWs who also care more about their ideology than facts, etc. But the Republican party has denial of evolution, global warming, distrust of college education, etc. I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds.

That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right?

But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically.

(Just as one example of thousands: they attempt to block funds to NY/NJ after Hurricane Sandy, but then claim that the Federal government isn't fulfilling their obligations to Texas when they need help there.)