Texas Bills Would Bar Warrantless Snooping On Phone Location 277
pigrabbitbear writes "The Supreme Court may have approved the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens for just about forever, but the good old state of Texas isn't going to take that lying down. Texas lawmakers don't believe that cell phone location data is fair game for law enforcement, and a couple identical bills filed in Texas's House and Senate would provide sweeping protections for private cell users."
Not necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't necessary anyway. Not when everyone willingly reports their location to Facebook and Twitter every time they need to brag about every bite of whatever they're eating. Or every bowel movement afterward.
Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Interesting)
First you're incredibly regressive (say, dealing with reproductive rights) and then you do something pretty cool.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds a lot like the sentiments expressed yesterday [slashdot.org] about Kentucky (Rand Paul's state.) Perhaps you people need to rethink the stereotypes you've been trained with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like how you generalized in your criticism of his generalizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Always" and "Never" are two words that we should always never use.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Naming two specific issues is stereotyping?
It's not really that far from how I feel about Rand Paul - I really support his discussion of drones and a number of other civil liberties issues. And disagree with him pretty strongly at least as many.
I'd be pretty happy to work with social conservatives in support of civil liberties... or to at least try to. (I mean, if they can't shut up about my body and my sexual preferences, it's just not going to work.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more than happy to work with any liberal who wants to support civil liberties and stop U.S. military imperialism. These causes require taking power and funding away from government.
However, the same liberals are often promoting the ideas of a government-run healthcare system, new and higher taxes, more social programs, more regulations on energy use and other causes which require expansion of government power.
As long as government has this much wealth and this much power under such centralized control,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you'd be better off with a cluepon that you could obtain by looking over the voting record of any politician you can think of. Who 'is in office' is irrelevent to how they act, the only thing different is how the media acts and who gets blamed.
What they do never changes, just what they say about others.
Get a clue. Neither your blessed democrats nor those ebil republicaans are your friends or are any different from one another, you're just too blind to notice it.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that I speak for a large amount of the libertarian bent Texans when I say that most of us don't like abortion, but if someone wants to do it themselves we aren't going to get in the middle of it in any fashion other than to make sure that the patient can become fully informed of the development of their unborn child to that point, and be informed of any medical procedure and it's positive and negative effects upon them. Heck getting orthognatic surgery is something that gets more councelling and support than an abortion in many ways. One thing a lot of pro abortion people put on their blinders about is that many women are forced or "strongly coerced" to have abortions by parents, boyfriends, bosses that knocked them up, etc. These women can be led through the process without ever really knowing what is going to happen to them physically and psychologially until it's irreversable. I know a woman that had to have the aboriton process on a fetus that died inside her. She was devestated emotionally for years, and this was something completely out of her control. Not only that she still suffered the post partem but had no baby to bring her happiness. I've also known women that have had abortions pushed by scared and angry boyfriends that regreted it to the point of depression, so there is noone that can convince me that abortion is an emotionally void process that should just be mechanically performed with no councelling at all.
However, if you want us to pay for it, then we will fight it tooth and nail. The govenrment has no place funding chopping up babies any more than it has perusing cell phone records without a warrant. It simply just shouldn't be in the business at all unless there is cause for dire public injury. Also a lot of us are pretty pissed about the conservative overreach of government just as much as the liberal overreach. Personally for example I think the government banning gay marriage is stupid as the day is long. They deserve to be just as miserable as us married folks.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. I actually just agreed with a libertarian on 90% of what they were saying....
They deserve to be just as miserable as us married folks.
Make that 91%
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:4, Informative)
Did you think homosexuals want to get married because of their undying belief in the institution of marriage? Fuck no..
Homosexuals want to get married because the words 'married', 'marriage', and 'matrimony' appear 1138 times within the laws of the land passed down by our elected representatives over the years. The use of the term within the statutes most often describe special rights, benefits, and privileges given only to married people. Homosexuals want those special rights, benefits, and privileges.
Adding homosexuals to the 'special rights group' doesnt enhance liberty. Unlinking those special rights from the institution of marriage is the only way to enhance liberty.
A single eye opening example is that I can't file taxes jointly with my roommate that shares expenses with me. Homosexuals want the right to file taxes jointly, but the 'gay marriage movement' isn't up on giving everyone the right to file taxes jointly. Quite the opposite, if everyone that lived together could file taxes jointly then that would be one less reason for homosexuals to want to get married.
The gay marriage movement isnt about freedom, liberty, or equality. Its not libertarian in nature at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And since you mentioned it:
And since you mentioned it: Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure.
Having seen it done, seriously, shut the fuck up. If thats the part your concerned with you're so disconnected from reality that you shouldn't talk, it just makes you look childish.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Informative)
Having actually been pregnant... One of the first things they do when you show up at the doctors office and say "I'm pregnant" is do a vaginal exam. By the end of a pregnancy so many people have shoved their hands up you and grabbed your boobs (for lactation help after the baby is born) you have a whole new definition of modesty.
They also highly recommend we let the doctors penetrate us once a year to test for cancer even when no babies are involved. Where is your outrage over that? Doctors shoving things up women is nothing new and is actually perfectly accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's hard to get a conviction, but when we do, we're damned sure about it.
On a more serious note, the only problem I have with the death penalty is the possibility of a false conviction. I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing to kill someone who is certain to have committed a crime that warrants it. It gets gray with things like mental illness though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science can *not* tell you when life begins. It's a philosophical/moral matter.
This is why it is an issue of rights. You don't have the right to push your philosophy or moral system on me, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Life? So what? A virus is alive. Sperm is alive.
No they are not. Neither meets the definition of a living organism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So is a bullet to the head or sterilization.
Cheap propaganda shock tactic, typical of a coward who knows their ideas do not withstand scrutiny. A truly ham-handed opening move.
Abortion is not perfect solution, not even good.
Attacking a straw man. And also you missed word there.
Second, there's always damage to the body, she can become sterile, or the next pregnancies become high-risk.
All of which can result from pregnancy. This is irrelevant unless you're going to show that on average having a legal, state-sponsored and -monitored abortion is more dangerous than a pregnancy under the same system.
women have a time limit until they can decide to have children, in a modern society, that's less than 20 years.
Irrelevant. It's their decision whether to even exercise that right.
We're humans damn it, sentient beings, not rabbits to breed just because there's food available.
Logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. Techni
Re: (Score:2)
What if paying for it costs you less than not paying for it?
Then there is another problem that needs to be addressed.
Step 1 - throw money at problem A.
Step 2 - observe that the cost of step 1 could be reduced by throwing money at problem B.
Step 3 - justify step 2 in quasi-isolation by telling everyone how much money it will save, without bothering to justify step 1 at all.
Step rational - realize that there is always another "problem" to throw money at, and that the correct move is to try to solve the problem instead of paving over it. The problem isn't unwant
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that irresponsible people have always existed and will always exist. How do we ensure their burden on society is minimal? Particularly relevant to this discussion is that irresponsible people come from irresponsible parents, so paying for abortion is likely to increase the responsibility of the average citizen.
If irresponsible people never hurt anyone but themselves, you'd have a good point. But they usually hurt other people as well. In this case, they are hurting an innocent child who d
nice fit, Texas, but no lollipop (Score:2)
Federal law trumps state law. this was nothing more than a hissy fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal law trumps state law. this was nothing more than a hissy fit.
It's not even that- It's show-boating; it's chest-pounding and marketing to Texas voters. Remember when they were going to pass a bill outlawing certain kinds of TSA searches at Texas airports? While it would be fine with me, it's the same kind of thing- they know they won't get anywhere with it, but they can point to it at election time.
Re: (Score:2)
There was also some question over whether they had the right to do that, but bottom line, when it comes to defending your rights against the g
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they backed down because the FFA/TSA threatened to prohibit flights to and from various cities in Texas. The time it would have taken them to fight it in the courts would have cost Texans a lot due to the inability to utilizes the airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Well don't count them out yet. I *AM* a Texan. But I will be the first to admit there are some things that just "ain't rite..."
Recently, and I believe it was here on Slashdot, Texas was proposing a bill which would outlaw the use of drones by ordinary citizens to spy on business especially when they are being used to detect illegal activity such as polluting the environment. This was a move designed to prevent whistle blowers, not to defend any rights or for public safety.
A bill to prevent wireless snoop
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, both tie into their "old world" mentality: Women should shut up and stay in the kitchen, and you should get off my lawn
Meanwhile the rest of the country is trying to be "progressive" in both categories. Women have rights, and big brother is installing video cameras on your lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in Houston for 15 years. I think it has something to do with Texas' root of being a "Lone Star" state in the Union, i.e., we used to be our own country -- the Republic of Texas. And a lot of people here are still proud of that root to this day.
So whenever the federal government starts to impose some draconian policy over the entire nation, Texans have the natural tendency of saying, FU, not here in Texas. And I suspect if/when things got out of hand and a new revolution were ever needed, it mi
Should be Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these questions about what requires a warrant should be obvious. If civilians can do it without any special authorization, then it's fine for law enforcement to do it. If law enforcement expects special access due to their authority, then that special access needs a warrant.
Any exceptions should be clearly stated in law, such as access to criminal and DMV databases.
Re:Should be Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard, higher than commercial or private ones. Simple case my son might want to build a quadcopter with a camera on it for a science project. This to me seems something reasonable for people to play with. Allowing police to do the same to gather evidence does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is it practical for something to require a warrant for law enforcement to do that anyone else could legally do without restriction and freely talk about anyways?
At the very least, if a private citizen were to have done such a thing and noticed something suspicious, then that suspicion alone could very easily be grounds for an actual warrant anyways.
It makes absolutely no sense to me to allow private citizens to legally do something without restriction that law enforcement can't do without a
Re: (Score:2)
It makes absolutely no sense to me to allow private citizens to legally do something without restriction that law enforcement can't do without a warrant.
It should make sense - the state is not a person, just like corps are not people and should not necessarily have equal rights. The state serves the people and thus shoudl be constrained as the people see fit. If the people decided that the state can't do some things that normal people could do, then that's fine because the state only exists as the whim of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then that private person could just as easily submit what they happened to discover as evidence to law enforcement of something they believe to be suspicious,
The difference is that if it is a person deciding to do it, as a person they do not have the force of the state behind them.
For example, when the state decides to do something like secretly record the identies of people attending church they do it because they already have an agenda and they have power to follow through with that agenda. If a group of private citizens decides to secretly record the identies of people attending church and then hands that information over to the state, the state will ignore
Question for you liberals... (Score:5, Interesting)
While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.
Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.
Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".
My question is... what the heck is up with that?
Re:Question for you liberals... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, I'm fairly moderate. Drone strikes should probably be considered acts of war. Attacking Americans on American soil is wrong, we have a police force to arrest those people. Attacking Americans that have joined an enemy in a war zone, and are actively fighting or actively planning to fight our troops (maybe not directly. planning attacks counts), doesn't seem wrong. We don't have a police force to arrest those sorts of people. Bringing them in and putting them on trial is the best possible solution, but it's not really practical, and the military strategy has to account for them some other way.
Whether the war itself is just is another question entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I'm speechless. A post on Slashdot with which I agree 100%. If only I had the mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the constitution and the bill of rights do not apply to US citizens who are outside of the US? Somehow the rule of law only applies inside it's borders and someone can mark you for death with a simple signature? How about a 16 year old child?
No seriously, i would love to hear how you feel about this. Why in any shape or form is this "OK"? Enemy combatants in a warzone is one thing. People who have never even shot at Americans who are 8000 miles away in a country that we are n
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking Americans on American soil is wrong, we have a police force to arrest those people.
I can guarantee numerous bullet holes and/or downed drones if any ever start flying over the US and have attacked a person (and are not just used for video recon). Sure they would be hard to hit, but with as many rifles as there are out there (and the increased purchases if said event happened), as well as everyone potentially being a target, it would be commonplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Quoth Agent K : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Politicians, and political pundits are just very very people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, what's up with that? One would expect to hear from the ACLU, which one does [aclu.org]. Perhaps the Huffington Post would have a bunch of murdered children covering their front page, like this [huffingtonpost.com]. One would not, however, expect the Democrats themselves to attack their own presiden, which they don't. That's just not how party politics work.
system capture (Score:2)
"oh, but I can't show you the data, it's classified." meaning "I can't turn this boat on a dime, and frankly, it would spill my drink if I could."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is whats up with that:
The difference between republicans and democrats is the spelling. That's pretty much it. They both want bigger government, more interference with our private lives, more power for their party. Neither is interested in you or your problems, unless it serves one of the purposes above. The whole conservative vs liberal thing is all smoke and mirrors. There are ways to fix this problem:
Stop voting for people in those parties. Let states governments choose senators
Re: (Score:2)
Whats up wiot it is that you nede to stop getting your information from 'news' sites.
"assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft"
sigh. Again, it's not different now then when Bush, or anyone else in the last 40 years was in office. It's just the same thing with a different piece of military equipment.
You probably should look into the situation that must occur before authorization is given and accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a liberal both by definition and by my own words, and I have spoken out online (whee! where's my medal) repeatedly against this whole robotic assassination thing, as you put it. I have long been playing the harp that Obama is at most irrelevantly different [hyperlogos.org].
Many people are willing to give Obama a pass on stuff just because he's their guy just because many people gave Bush a pass on stuff because he was their guy. There's stupid people on both sides. Don't pretend that this is a Liberal thing, because it
Re: (Score:2)
Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power. Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".
My question is... what the heck is up with that?
What you describe simply isn't true. There isn't any significant portion of people who fumed with anger at Bush's warantless wiretap but then support Obama on the same with a few reservations.
I speak for all liberals... (Score:3)
Well, i'm Tony, and I speak for ALL liberals. I asked, they're OK with me speaking for them.
We're NOT ok with Obama's continuing of the warrantless wiretapping, and we're NOT ok with the whole "assassinate Americans without a trial" (robots or no). We're actually pretty pissed about it. If you listened to us at all, you'd have noticed that.
Actually, I'm pretty pissed at the Democratic party. I can count on my fingers the number of representatives that I consider to be liberal. The rest are just... well
and yet they're so far out there on patents (Score:2)
Interesting that they're big on personal liberty when it comes to this, but yet they're so biased in favour of patent holders in the Eastern District
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason patent holders use that district is that it hears a very low number of criminal cases, so civil cases have a chance of getting on the docket.
Here's a good overview:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack [thisamericanlife.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Big on personal liberty except they lead the nation in executions and they have the largest prison population in the US.
Big on personal liberty except for roadside body cavity searches.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/personal-liberty-violation-roadside-body-cavity-search-in-texas/ [freedomoutpost.com]
Then of course there is the little empire of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.
Re: (Score:2)
Joseph M. Arpaio is in Arizona, not Texas
Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people are confused about how this sort of law could be passed in Texas, which according to left-wing groupthink is a regressive bible-thumping gun-toting desert filled with rednecks who hate Darwin and force kids to pray in school.
This, of course, is nonsense. Much of the anti-Texas sentiment results from fundamental ideological differences that go to the core of the "left" versus "right" arguments.
Texans, for very valid historical reasons, have a deep seated mistrust of centralized government and authority. This can be seen in pretty much every part of our culture, especially our constitution and court systems. This way of thinking, of course, is a direct attack on everything that those on the "left" believe in. Even worse, the evidence clearly shows that our way of governing and beliefs work very well - from tort reform, to right to work, to zero income tax (just to name a few) we have a state that cherishes individual liberty, resists government interference, and we have one of the best economies in the world to show for it.
The success of Texas is a sore tooth to those on the "left". As a result, they are forced to rely on ad-hominem attacks and mischaracterization in a defensive attempt to protect and justify their beliefs, even though even casual comparisons of the success of cities and states that implement those beliefs shows that they are clearly misguided.
The fact is, disturbing as it may seem to those on the "left", Texas is beautiful, tolerant, friendly and a wonderful place to live. I moved my family here from the east coast seven years ago, and it was one of the best decisions we've ever made.
This law is just another example (among many) of Texas following in its long tradition of codifying individual rights and protecting liberties. Yes, Texas has some black marks in it's history - but show me a state (or country) that doesn't!
There is a reason why people from all over the country are flooding here, and why we gained four seats in the house in 2010. As much vitriol, misrepresentation and flat out lying that those on the "left" do about Texas, the truth is becoming more and more evident to those around the country, that just as once the United States was the place that people fled to in order to escape oppressive government, now Texas has become a safe haven within the U.S. for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I miss Dallas.
Re: (Score:2)
I miss Dallas.
It's on TNT every Monday night.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
PewResearch [pewhispanic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there.
Here is the definition of Tolerance.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance [merriam-webster.com]
Until someone comes and "STOPS YOU" they are at the very least tolerating you. Tolerating does not require someone to "accept" or "not disparage" you in any way.
Speaking of schools, lets review their "Zero Tolerance" policies and the fact that they lean more left than right. The left is the intolerant side if anything which is why that word sits on your minds more frequently than the right. Hyp
Re: (Score:2)
It's A definition, not THE definition. What you cited says:
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
2b : the act of allowing something : toleration
2a is clearly the applicable use here.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who look in from the outside have to look hard to find "issues" they can point to do disparage the State of Texas and the people who live within it's borders. If this is the best you can come up with to malign the state, move on along, nothing really to see here.
Texas isn't perfect, nobody who lives here will make that claim, but our conservative roots serve us well in both social and economic benefits that prove that conservationism is not automatically a bad thing.
Minimum wage in Texas goes farth
Re: (Score:2)
>"Victory or Death!" may sound silly to you, but the saying came from Texas just prior to March 6, 1863.
You are kidding, right? This is FAR older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_or_death [wikipedia.org]
By the way, I grew up in Bedford Mass, where a copy of this flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Flag [wikipedia.org]
hung in the entrance to the high school.
So much for education in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1836, having defeated Mexico's army, sent to rid the territory of white settlers on Mexico's land, Texas was an independent country. It is unknown if that status could have been maintained without help from the outside but it was largely accomplished without official help from the United States. Literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, facing war with Mexico and looking to solidify it's future freedom, Texas became part of the United States. Something that really ticked off Mexico at the time and
Nope. (Score:2)
look hard? bwahahaha
Rampant entrenched homophobia
4th highest crime rate:
Taxes:
Do you known the different between Ca. Taxes and Texas actual tax rates? 1.3%. whoopee save 1.3% and have substantial lower dynamic atmosphere, economy, and services.
Population:
The people moving out of the state are wealthier than those moving in.
Health:
The most polluting state.
Science denialism throughout the culture.
AGW and Evolution for starter.
religion:
They constantly force others to have to deal with christian beliefs, while
Re: (Score:2)
Your message, and the way it disparages the 'left' is in itself a refutation of the idea that Texas is tolerant.
As far as Texas being successful, the fact that its citizens have the highest percentage of minimum wage jobs in the country puts that under great question.
The fact that Texas is tied for last place in the percentage of its children with health care insurance and is fourth in the nation in child poverty again brings into question as to whether it is 'successful'.
The decisions on things like teaching evolution in Texas schools call into question the process by which it is governed. The fact that Texas ranks 50th among the states in percentage of citizens over 25 with a high school diploma illustrates the impact of these decisions.
This.
Texas has some successful rankings like one of the only red states to give rather than take from the federal government. Rent is cheap, gas is cheap, no state income tax. But we are far from perfect.
And tolerance is generally centered on the major metropolitan areas, there are plenty of bigots out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, illegal immigrants aren't counted in these statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say "illegal."
Re: (Score:2)
Putting your money into a personal savings account in lieu of buying health insurance is an absolutely foolish thing to do. The main benefit of health insurance is covering catastrophic illnesses.
For example my neighbor is recovering from kidney cancer. He is on his 2nd million of medical bills. Fortunately he is covered. Otherwise he would have lost everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a listing for a 2600 sqft house for sale for $190,000. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/Alexs-Ln-Austin-TX-78748/2119505827_zpid/ [zillow.com]
How much would a comparable property cost in San Francisco?
I work a job at a military base in San Antonio, about 1.5 hours from Austin. I live in a 700 sqft apartment that is 15 minutes from work in morning traffic. I pay $685 per month. How much would that cost in SF?
Some
Re: (Score:2)
The actual tax difference between Texas and CA is 1.3%.
Another double standard ruling. (Score:2)
Spying on Texas businesses? NO WAY [slashdot.org]
NCIS will be crushed (Score:2)
Re:The elusive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly the same as anywhere else in the US, since patents are covered by federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
No, thinking beyond the 1800's. That's not conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'll be modded down, but screw it.
Yes, those terrible Conservatives and that stupid old, dusty, ancient Constitution thing, right? Thank goodness the Progressives (who are in BOTH major parties) are here with their "modern" ideas courtesy of Marx & Lenin to provide us with such modern institutions as eugenics (which the Nazis got from Progressives in the US and eventually lead to the Holocaust...nice job guys) in the form of Margaret
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
As opposed to looking like what? Liberals?
As stupid as the government of Texas may or may not be, seems that Texas is doing pretty well overall since 2008 by keeping Unemployment well under the national average and actually *growing* its economic activity along with its population. Texas has managed to keep its budget in relative balance though the whole downturn as well. This was done by being *conservative* in outlook and generally right of center Republican with active Tea Party involvement at all leve
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
As opposed to looking like what?
As opposed to: See their education textbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
The political process of approving text books for public schools in Texas leaves some things to be desired, but public schools in Texas are usually pretty good from what I've seen.
Re: (Score:2)
you know what is progressive? Saying that an individual's rights is more important than a corporation's rights. Right now that is right off the chart progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
No its not. I've never heard a single progressive politician proposing a law that says that. Perhaps you could let me know.
Progressive laws:
You are too dumb to save for retirement, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Social Security.
You are too dumb to medical take care of yourself, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Medicare/Medicaid
You are too fat, we will ban sodas larger than 16 oz.
You are too dumb to protect yourself, you should not be al
that would assume Texas' opinions carry weight (Score:2)
assumption being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? While I think this has little to do with the discussion, your statement is completely idiotic. The United States was attacked on 9/11. Texas is a small (albeit larger than most) part of the whole. We all got hit.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's already done... " - Fitz [wikiquote.org]
I miss that series..
But we also don't have strict parking laws either for parking tanks. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DHS is exempt from state regulation. The state can't prevent them from asking for the information. It's the carriers who are being barred from providing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the bill. In no way are they barred from providing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a lot of truth to that. However, there are also plenty of people who were harsh critics of the Bush administration that have radically evolved their views now that THEIR guy is in office. Where are all the peace demonstrators for example?
The important point is that Texas is doing the right thing NOW. If you agree, don't knock it. The "other" team is going to take power again someday, so any protections that can established now will be welcome both now and in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where are all the peace demonstrators for example?"
have you been keeping you head under a rock?
And read the bill. It doesn't actually change anything. You know all those reason the government uses to not need a warrant? they're all exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if you listen to many of the people who complained vocally about the USA PATRIOT when Bush was President, you now only hear crickets now that Obama is President.