3 ms·

One thing is clear to me from all of this: Rep. Issa is a really smart guy. I don't agree with his politics (for PATRIOT act, against gay marriage, and supports

One thing is clear to me from all of this: Rep. Issa is a really smart guy. I don't agree with his politics (for PATRIOT act, against gay marriage, and supports anti-flag desecration amendment) but I have quite a bit of respect for the guy. A few weeks before pretty much anyone else brought up the point of NAND mirroring, he stood before Congress and confronted Comey about it. In general, he's written very well thought out letters before about issues before Congress. In a Congress where the majority (!!!) does not believe that humans contribute to climate change, it's rare to find someone who actually thinks. Congratulations to Rep. Issa for his role in protecting our Constitutional rights.

rpgmaker 11y ago
Hold your horses. It seems the natsec apparatus is divided on this case and many have been vocal about it, including the Secretary of Defense. I don't think Issa himself cares very much about this issue, it's more likely that someone close to him, someone not too keen on having the courts ruling on this, fed him the NAND mirroring line. A good contribution to the debate congress was having but not enough to justify this inadvertent canonization of Rep. Issa.
- owenversteeg 11y ago
  Oh, I'd definitely like to avoid a canonization of him if possible. He's anti-gay, anti-climate change, and supports the PATRIOT act. But even if this is just a fed line (and this is definitely possible), just think how many other members of Congress would even be able to deliver such a line or understand it? Of the 99 others, do you think any would understand NAND mirroring? Even on a superficial level? My broader point remains that in general, Rep. Issa takes the time to analyze things and write about them, often bringing up issues that are otherwise neglected. Even in his support of the PATRIOT act, he lodged unique complaints about the constitutionality of the law under the fourth amendment.
DMac87 11y ago
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/darrell-issa-california/ https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/darrell-i...
tizzdogg 11y ago
You might want to look up Issa's voting record on environmental and climate change issues before praising him too highly.
- owenversteeg 11y ago
  Oh absolutely, in fact I wrote in my post how I disagree very strongly with most of his political opinions and voting record. I think it's unacceptable for someone to deny climate change, be homophobic, or vote for the PATROIT act. I would of course not vote for him due to this. On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of politicians from any party with any views in Congress are so ridiculously brain-dead that I could not vote for them either, even if they were a carbon copy of me on the issues. There are only 100 US Senators, and they make the most important decisions in the US. If an important decision came down the line, I have no hesitation saying that the vast majority of senators with my viewpoints would make a ridiculously uneducated, stupid decision. Given how sharply Issa diverges from me on pretty much all issues, it's very likely that his decision on any topic would be something I disagree with strongly. It might drive climate change in the wrong direction, it might discriminate (in my view) against certain people, and any related law may be something that I spend quite a bit of time and money fighting against (I say this as someone who is very politically active.) But I have no doubts it would be an intelligent, researched decision.

rpgmaker 11y ago

Hold your horses. It seems the natsec apparatus is divided on this case and many have been vocal about it, including the Secretary of Defense. I don't think Issa himself cares very much about this issue, it's more likely that someone close to him, someone not too keen on having the courts ruling on this, fed him the NAND mirroring line. A good contribution to the debate congress was having but not enough to justify this inadvertent canonization of Rep. Issa.

owenversteeg 11y ago
Oh, I'd definitely like to avoid a canonization of him if possible. He's anti-gay, anti-climate change, and supports the PATRIOT act. But even if this is just a fed line (and this is definitely possible), just think how many other members of Congress would even be able to deliver such a line or understand it? Of the 99 others, do you think any would understand NAND mirroring? Even on a superficial level? My broader point remains that in general, Rep. Issa takes the time to analyze things and write about them, often bringing up issues that are otherwise neglected. Even in his support of the PATRIOT act, he lodged unique complaints about the constitutionality of the law under the fourth amendment.

DMac87 11y ago

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/darrell-issa-california/ https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/darrell-i...

tizzdogg 11y ago

You might want to look up Issa's voting record on environmental and climate change issues before praising him too highly.

owenversteeg 11y ago
Oh absolutely, in fact I wrote in my post how I disagree very strongly with most of his political opinions and voting record. I think it's unacceptable for someone to deny climate change, be homophobic, or vote for the PATROIT act. I would of course not vote for him due to this. On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of politicians from any party with any views in Congress are so ridiculously brain-dead that I could not vote for them either, even if they were a carbon copy of me on the issues. There are only 100 US Senators, and they make the most important decisions in the US. If an important decision came down the line, I have no hesitation saying that the vast majority of senators with my viewpoints would make a ridiculously uneducated, stupid decision. Given how sharply Issa diverges from me on pretty much all issues, it's very likely that his decision on any topic would be something I disagree with strongly. It might drive climate change in the wrong direction, it might discriminate (in my view) against certain people, and any related law may be something that I spend quite a bit of time and money fighting against (I say this as someone who is very politically active.) But I have no doubts it would be an intelligent, researched decision.