4 ms·
The fight isn't even started, this is just another punch in the face. According to https://www.usafreedom.fail/ https://www.usafreedom.fail/ this act actually e
by swombat 11y ago
The fight isn't even started, this is just another punch in the face. According to https://www.usafreedom.fail/ https://www.usafreedom.fail/ this act actually extends spying rather than restricting it. Of course, it's being presented as the opposite of what it is. That's par for the course in US politics these days though.
- irishcoffee 11y agoI do appreciate you providing backup to your claim. I do find it hard to give the link much credence. It would be like me commenting about how horrible meat is for people while linking to a fantastically pro-vegan website.
- swombat 11y agoThis very first link about the bill extending section 215 (the section under which spying has been justified) until 2019 is pretty self-explanatorily demonstrated by this link, from the page, via a third party legislation tracking site, govtrack.us: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#link=VII_705_a_~T1&nearest=H3970213DCD8B4A7C9D2AC368B1ADFDCA https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#li... I'm on my phone so I can't check out the other ones, but perhaps you can point to specific claims that are not supported? At the very least this one seems clearly correct. Edit: also, I disagree with your implicit assertion that a site can't be credible if it has an opinion that it asserts and backs up with facts. It's not always true (frequently not, in the case of U.S. politics) that both sides are viable. Often, one side is just plain wrong or lying, as seems to be the case in this present situation.