Slashdot Mirror
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
DustyShadow writes "Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement. '[T]he Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a "sole executive agreement" that requires only the president's approval. ... Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents. The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.'"
This isn't just piracy anymore.
It's Big Brother. And it's all linked together, you're always locked to BB.
Screw it.
Yeah. It's not like the US actually cares about international agreements they don't like, anyway. See Kyoto.
I believe the only hope in passing ACTA was to keep it secret. The cat's out of the bag with the leaked and commented document. Yes, I've read it and yes it's very scary. Much of it goes way beyond countering counterfeiting and piracy.
Now that the public has access to the leaked document, hopefully a lot of people will read it, make their own conclusions, and let their representatives know how they feel about it. That's the way to defeat this. At least here in the EU, our MEP's have said wait a minute, let's take a deeper look into this.
If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.
Ok, let's read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
So, how is a trade agreement not a treaty?
This just goes to show that ACTA is really all about policy laundering.
http://outcampaign.org/
Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary. Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda. And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?
The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law. The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.
Go back to school, do not pass go, do not collect grant money.
It is not being called a "treaty" because then the senate would have to vote on it, giving the American public a small window of opportunity to review it and decide whether or not we want it. Copyright lobbyists know that would be bad news for them, since they have not yet convinced the American public that their business interests are more important than our rights and freedoms (but they are working on that -- brainwashing schoolchildren and all), so they convinced their friends in the White House to sidestep democracy. Really, these people have no interest in freedom or democracy, unless it applies to them and their business; when it is inconvenient, they are quick to abandon it.
What is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it.
Palm trees and 8
Do we need a new revolution?
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war? Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics. After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
No, that is not how American government works. The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty. What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
Palm trees and 8
Liberals are dancing in joy about a law that confiscates wealth from all citizens to give to the insurance companies as long as we call them evil as will fill their pockets. I suspect no complaints from them about this attack on the Constitution because it is 'their guy' doing the attacking.
The answer is certainly not moderates who a are pretty much happy to give up any right as long as you do it slowly.
Enjoy the scenery on the road to serfdom because when we get there, I think we will find that the collectivist paradise promised by the political elite will leave us wishing were we are the promised land of the "South of the Border" tourist trap. Hopefully we will at least get a nice bumper sticker out of the deal.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
Didn't stop him and his puppets from passing the unconstitutional HCR bill.
So what we're saying here is that this is above his paygrade... right?
We really do not know what is really discussed in the ACTA context. But the few things which leaked are not compatible with the German and the French constitution. It is against rules in the European human rights agreement and the Lisbon-Treaty (which made the EU a little bit more democratic). The European Parliament has expressed their concern that ACTA is not discussed in the public, which is not very democratic, but big companies especially US-companies can have treaty documents. So a elected parliament is kept in the dark while the money jerks are directly involved. In short the parliament is pissed. And they will dismiss it, just they did with the SWIFT-spying treaty between the EU and the USA. When do executive politicians learn that we life in a democracy?
If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?
Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.
If you're right, I'm really concerned and sadenned. Bush et al weren't proscuted for committing torture, perhaps simply because they refused to accept that choice of terminology. If the other two branches of government let the same, humiliatingly vapid technique keep them slapping down Obama regarind a treaty that he has no right to enact, then I just don't know what to say. I know that people in power (all three branches) get away with ignoring the Consitution, but it's starting to seem like the norm rather than the exception.
I know people often say, "If .... happens, I'm moving to Canada / Australia / Europe." Usually when I say it, I'm just joking. But if the U.S. adopts ACTA and Europe does not, I really might be getting close to the tipping point of seeking a visa for some European country. It just seems like there are more and more straws on the camels back, starting with around W's presidency.
Isn't it likely to get passed anyway since the US is really a plutocracy? I'm not sure the American public have as much say on it as you think; the public mouthpieces (i.e. the media) would make sure they argue the case for it to sway public opinion. Maybe there'll be one or two minor concessions, but I doubt it. And what do you mean "it is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it"? Did you really expect Obama be different to any other US president that have all continually been pro-corporate? That's where their bread is buttered.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
it could be considered corruption if Obama would be signing this executive agreement just for the sake of business/dollars....
Famous last words:"but...."
Where were you when Congress passed a law that requires you to buy a consumer product (insurance) just to live in this country?
Land of the free my ass.
...supposed to vote on laws, too... they know what's best for us, we just need to submit and for get about those pesky laws...
King of kings and Lord of lords
I believe the new definition is one where a draft can be constituted versus one where a standing army alone is deployed. This of course is not the definition I agree with but it seems to be the one that they role with seeing as how congress has not declared war officially. Naturally expecting congress to do their job would be too much to expect. They could have stopped the ridiculous spending of the Bush era thus preventing Obama from using the new powers that Bush assumed. This would have extended to Iraq although Afghanistan would still have been a target being the source country for 9/11.
Can NAFTA be next? And all the other IMF treaties? It's a little late in the game to start worrying about the rule of law now, isn't it?
Did you, uh, read that at all before you pasted it?
He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT AGREE.
This article is about him signing this as something that requires only his signature, with no senators needed. Thanks for playing.
ACTA violates constitution in almost all free, democratic countries. ACTA would fit nicely in the former Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic, North Korea or Peoples Republic of China. Politicians accepting ACTA do not represent neither freedom nor democracy, they are totalitarians in need of control of the population.
Isn't it likely to get passed anyway since the US is really a plutocracy?
No. Wealth is not the only power in the US.
Did you really expect Obama be different to any other US president that have all continually been pro-corporate?
Who says ACTA is pro-corporate? Sure ACTA is supported by the usual *AA suspects. They tend to be corporations. But it is opposed by corporations as well (Google, for example). Like most such legislation, there are both winners and losers on the business side. There's no universal "pro-corporate" face here.
Keep in mind that they would need 2/3 support in the Senate for this treaty. Given that the Democrats don't have that amount, that means some Republican support from a group that has in the recent past been very keen on obstructing Obama initiatives. Sure, that vote could happen as you expect, but it'll result in more work and a few bruises that Obama can avoid merely by bypass the Senate and the Constitution.
Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens. The constitution is no longer relevant to the party in control of our government. They have deemed it something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time. All they need to do is redefine what words mean and suddenly the constitution means all sorts of things!
:end rant
Here's a few examples:
1895: Wage is now the same as income! Democrats begin their long march towards socialism! With the help of the Socialist Labor Party of the 1890's, they pass an amendment so they can now collect income tax from everyone! The sucking noise begins.
1935: Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another. Democrats, unhappy with the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments, so they decide to craft laws that skirt the letter of the constitution, arguing that social security/medicare is an retirement benefit to the people, while arguing to the SCOTUS that it is a tax. When the SCOTUS rules the initial law unconstitutional, democrat FDR runs personal smear campaigns against SCOTUS justices and has them replaced with justices that are willing to interpret the constitution the way he needs it. And thus begins the largest ponzi scheme in world history!.
begin rant:
The government then took from the ponzi err. social security fund as frequently as pleased to and for whatever reason it deemed important enough to do so. Which was of course any reason. Now, were this a REAL business, at this point the CFO would be thrown in jail, but this is the U.S. government! They buy the jails! Social security has been bankrupt for decades, the debt is around 17 trillion. But this week, for the first time, even on paper, the government is giving out more money in social security than it is taking in..
I ask you, if the government can force you to buy something from someone, is there anything there anything the government can't force you to buy? And if the government can arbitrarily come in and tell me what I must buy, what I can buy, and what I can't buy, can we truly say we live in a free society?
And for you fools in control. What makes you think the next generation is going to pay any attention to the laws you so haphazardly pass when you completely ignore the laws of the previous generations? That's anarchy!
I would be remiss to point out that Thomas Jefferson was like a fricking Nostradamus in predicting what would happen in this country. And how can I possibly follow the words of Jefferson with my pathetic waxing? So adieu!
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
-Thomas Jefferson
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
-Thomas Jefferson
Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.
-Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the
No, if the troops are used for more than 90 days, war must be declared by congress. They don't have to use the specific words, "we, the xxxth congress of the US, declare a war on blahbahstan." A "force authorization" is also a declaration of war, in the same way that "warranted search" does not mean that there needs to be a specific document with the title of "warrant." There are circumstances which warrant search.
It might be nice if we did require them to use those specific words, though.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
> He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
The key is not to have any Senators present, or just 1 who supports ACTA ;)
LOL, seems to me like the teabaggers have a fair share of assburgers as well. Fix your sarcasm detector, nerd.
What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
Exactly. 0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
0 is shaping up to be one of the worst Presidents ever, and almost certainly a one-term wonder. I'm hopeful that the Dems will lose a lot of their power this coming November.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
IIRC, NAFTA also isn't a treaty.
> How is a trade agreement not a treaty?
Treaties are more complicated than one line in the Constitution. Not only is there international law regarding what constitutes a treaty and how a treaty's to be interpreted (See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for example), but most countries, including the United States, have their own jurisprudence on what constitutes a treaty and what legal effect it has.
Regarding sole executive agreements, the President can make them because he is "the sole organ" of the nation in matters of state, which basically just means he's the head of state and speaks for the country. He doesn't have treaty power there, but he has a certain limited power, particularly in areas where executive agreements are historically useful.
For example, unfreezing the contested assets of a foreign country in the United States as part of a diplomatic arrangement. (IIRC, Reagan did this with Iran, unfreezing contested assets to send them to an adjudication process both countries had agreed on.)
Consider, also, that US Law differentiates between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties; the latter require domestic legislation to implement. Sometimes that means states have to implement treaties, and sometimes they don't. For example, Texas doesn't comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Medellin v. Texas, and if I'm remembering the right treaty--it's been a while).
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
That sort of reminds me of how the DMCA got passed.
What is scary is that this is the guy you put in power (I'm speaking to the majority of slashdotters who think conservatives are evil and democrats are the only sane choice - whether you were able to vote or not).
He has been proven to not care about the constitution if it gets in the way of what he wants.
Larry Lessig - live in the bed you made. You've chosen the party that is all about coercion and not freedom.
This needs to be modded up. I can't comment on libertarian candidates (they always seemed a little kooky to me, as a Canadian, though), but things would not be any better under any of the other viable choices you Americans had. I can understand being upset that Obama didn't quite 'keep his promises' in the ways you want (though there are some areas he is certainly making efforts, such as the healthcare bill -- even if it was watered down to its passed form...), but don't compare him to Bush.
With Bush, the Americans lost so much international respect and clout. You started two wars (only one of which may have had justification, the other of which was not even sanctioned by the UN). You tortured people. You instituted laws that make spying on your own citizens easier to do legally. Obama hasn't initiated anything that extreme, and has actually saved some face and respect internationally (though not recovering to pre-Bush levels). He's a better choice than Bush was. Does that mean he's the god-saint super-awesome president? No.
Just don't assume the Republicans are going to be the god-sent awesome saviours for your next election, either.
That was his point.. thanks for playing...
Eat a dick. No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.
And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there. How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
The next Republican who claims that Slashdot is a liberal haven where republican/conservative views are squashed due to groupthink will get this comment and its informative mod linked.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
RE: Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Supremacy Clause
The fact that fully ratified treaties have constitutional authority, became more significant to me when I discovered that President George H.W. Bush had signed something called The Copenhagen Document.
The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:
(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;..
I would love to have the Senate ratify it, and have that treaty become Constitutional law.
See: Copenhagen Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
I specifically said that the definition in use is not the correct definition. You are correct on what the actual definition is but congress has not declared war on Iraq and we've been there for many years now. There have been many engagements lasting longer than 90 days that we have participated in without a declaration from congress.
Hence my statement about Congress stopping Bush from spending trillions on Iraq. Many thousands of died as a result and there is no declaration from Congress.
Chill out and have some orange juice. This is advice from someone who chose not to spend mod points on you :p
[FUCK BETA]
Section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms
CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Eat a dick.
How eloquent. Nice job hiding as an AC, too. Man up and post so we know who you are, loser. :-)
No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.
Nice talking points, with oh so little substance though. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
I suppose you've also forgotten that 0, among his myriad broken campaign promises, has kept right on slogging both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there.
"Rethugs", how clever.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll, showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
The idiocracy currently in power will find out about the true will of the people in November this year, and on election day 2012. That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I think after this and the Clintons, No one with any brains would vote for or claim to be Democrat.
When did they?
They needed 2/3rds for health care too.. See how much that stopped them?
No. Wealth is not the only power in the US.
It might not be but it is increasingly becoming the only power that matters.
Most of the non-corporate lobbying groups have single issues and rarely get involved in
matters outside of whatever they have a chip on their shoulder about. The others mostly
dont have the money or resources to do anything.
While Google might be against ACTA it doesn't seem to go against Google's "future" business
interests. Google wants to become everyone's gateway to the net. They want to be your ISP,
your search engine, your browser, your office suite, your medical records keeper, your
entertainment provider. They want everything you do to be with them. Its all data they can
collect, index and sell to advertisers. If ACTA passes they'll still want to be your ISP
but one that sells you a walled garden where you can legally share music, tv & movies (with
targetted ads of course).
Ultimately ACTA requires closer monitoring of people's internet usage and that is that Google is all about.
Because the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People's Constitution: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties (strikethrough) provided two thirds of the Senators present concur (/strikethrough)"
I wonder if this EA idea also applied to the EU? Would their new president have the power to ratify treaties without the concurrence of the Parliament?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"The ridiculous spending of the Bush era..."
How quaint. When Bush did it, it was bad. When Obama speeds it up a gazilion times, its good?
Mr. President, do you *want* to drive geeks to joining the teabagger Republicans?
There's enough crap on the internet about your imaginary violations of the Constitution that you should probably avoid actually violating it.
Sign ACTA and I'll de-friend you on Facebook. No, really.
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
I thought the point of a "republic" was that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority? Or would you like to argue that direct democracy is a better form of government? Or is it just that you're pissed that your will isn't followed by all around you?
0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
You mean, he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the constitution. Or did you miss the parts of the constitution that were ignored in about, oh, a half-dozen major changes to the American Landscape in the last decade?
The arguments you're making are nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric, that can be applied to any situation. Unfortunately, that means that even if Obama would do exactly what you want him to do, the US would just continue down its current path - because you don't have a problem with the system, just merely with the direction the system is heading in.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Better to wait for a Free Health Care card than the Men In Black swooping in and shooting up your whole family because your neighbors reported you for...anything - 2001-2009. McCartyism Part II
You have to be a millionaire to get elected. Wealth is the greatest power in this country.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
When Bush spent billions, it was to kill poor brown people.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Funny how someone who didn't needlessly start a war over lies and waste trillions outside the country can be "one of the worst".
Somewhere in the bottom 50, you mean?
Actually, it seems that the US government doesn't really work the way you think. There doesn't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president "making law" by signing treaties unilaterally. The article says it's even fairly routine in some situations.
Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up. Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law.
The more I see of Obama, the more I want him impeached.
I feel like I made a BIG MISTAKE voting for the guy.
Like many people, I laughed at the right wing hysterics as mindless wharrgarbl, but this guy seems to be taking it upon himself to trample the constitution even more than Bush did. And while the Bush administration might have lied and cheated their way through getting Congress and the UN to back the Iraq war, at least they followed protocol and used proper channels.
The fact that Obama's health care plan took his promise for single payer universal coverage and turned it into a socialized cash-cow for insurance corporations with a unique provision forcing us to buy coverage or pay a "tax-penalty" and seeing him now trying to claim some sort of dictatorial power to force ACTA down our throats is startling. This is the second time he's taken a decidedly pro-corporate and potentially anti-consumer stance.
What next? Declaring we will get lower media prices and be allowed to use P2P freely without persecution, but must buy x-amount of MP3s, CDs and DVDs a month or pay a "tax" penalty? While it remains to be seen, I think the HCR Bill will prove to be the first of many attempts to socialize industry while forcing citizens to buy from or otherwise subsidize those industries with their non-taxed dollars.
Frankly, I think this direction he's taken towards establishing a socialized corporate state is alarming and a serious threat to our civil liberties.
It could quite literally end up making US citizen's indentured servants to corporations by levying "mandates" to force us to spend our non-taxed dollars on corporate goods and services. And while this may sound unprecedented and extreme, so have been the actions of Obama in regards to the HCR BIll and ACTA.
At the minimum, I think Obama needs to stand up and make his intentions clear. Why is he so adamant about ACTA? How can he declare victory with the HCR when it seems all he did was take away the socialist system he promised the PEOPLE and gave it to the corporations who have an obvious conflict of interest and have been little more than foxes guarding the henhouse? Obama's been great when it comes to grandstanding with photo ops and buzzwords. But what about a truly informative statement about his intentions with these brazenly pro-corporate endeavors?
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
Yes.
Will Obama sign it anyway?
Yes.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
I thought the point of a "republic" was that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority?
I actually agree in principle with the idea of healthcare reform. It's just that real reform wouldn't look anything like the abortion that the Dem majority and President have conceived.
Even despite their constant lying about the cost, people have seen through them. The cost will in reality be enormous and force enormous direct and indirect taxes on the middle class. Yet another broken campaign promise.
Forcing Americans to buy insurance is flat-out unconstitutional and un-American.
Or would you like to argue that direct democracy is a better form of government?
Not at all, just that the "Democrats" are supposed to be more, not less, directly responsive to the people. Many of them have been famous for their changing positions based on polls. Clearly, 0 isn't in that category.
Or is it just that you're pissed that your will isn't followed by all around you?
That's probably a good idea, but I leave that as optional. ;-)
0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
You mean, he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution (note capitalization) that the Federal Government is authorized to mandate that citizens buy goods or services. It's not a matter of "interpretation", the language is quite clear. Amazing that the Constitution accomplishes so much in just a few pages, so very unlike modern legislation that apparently requires thousands, and that legislators don't even bother reading or understanding before voting. It's ridiculous.
Or did you miss the parts of the constitution that were ignored in about, oh, a half-dozen major changes to the American Landscape in the last decade?
Not at all, nor did I like all of those changes. The thing I want least of all, though, is a change that vastly expands the Federal Government while very probably bankrupting the country.
The arguments you're making are nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric, that can be applied to any situation. Unfortunately, that means that even if Obama would do exactly what you want him to do, the US would just continue down its current path - because you don't have a problem with the system, just merely with the direction the system is heading in.
I would like to see the "system" revert to that described in the founding documents, with a limited government that mostly minds its own business and stays out of mine.
The country might even become prosperous again under such a system. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The Civil War killed States rights (I agree completely that slavery needed to end, but the Civil War was not about slavery, read some history). Over the decades since, the federal government, through the IRS, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, Land various subsidies and other Federal programs has quickly eroded the concept for individualism and personal responsibility. You have a right under the Constitution to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness is being seized from you by the federal government. You have no right to Prosperity, it must be earned. They are undermining your economy and telling you that you need to be saved by them. THEY CANNOT SAVE YOU. THEY ARE NOT MAGIC. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED BY THEM.
Your future, your life, your dreams have always been your responsibility and your gift to the world. Through taxes, subsidies, and federal programs, they are trying to control what you eat, where you live, the kind of car you drive, whether your spouse has a job, who cares for your child, whether you use a tanning booth, how much you drive your car, ad nauseum. They have do not have the right to manipulate our lives this way. They are NOT qualified to manipulate our lives this way. We do NOT need them to manipulate our lives this way.
Change the tax laws, take away their money and power! There was no personal income tax prior to the civil war and the country was better for it. They do not need that kind of power over you, that are not authorized that kind of power, and it is literally killing our country.
The US and the shit they spread - ACTA/DMCA, Iraqi/Afghan war, torture mentality, killer cops, etc is covering the whole world, where do you hope to go?
Would it be too much to ask for you to stay there and fix the problem? Excessive lobbyists could catch a little "civilian lobbying", politicians who don't do what they say (or break the law) could be hung...
Not only would it help the world, but you'd be able to stay home and it wouldn't suck. Clean up your yard.
Seriously. What. Else. Did. You. Expect.
Obama has shown over and over than he has no concern for what the people want. In his mind, he was elected king, and will do anything he wants, the people and the constitution be damned. He may not be as stupid as Bush was to call the constitution "just a god-damned piece of paper" around cameras but he certainly doesn't have any more respect for it.
that USA is the nation with the least to worry about from ACTA. Mostly because its various "piracy" additions come from USA in the first place, and is mostly about exporting DMCA to other nations.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Funny where were all these people when bush was using signing statements on all kind of shit.
"No, that is not how American government works."
What does the American government have to do with democracy ?
That's like stating that the People's Republic of China is a communist state.
Maybe in name, but not in practice.
The Constitution already requires legislative approval (specifically, a 2/3 vote by the Senate) on treaties -- it states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
They got 2/3rds of the vote for health care, though granted not for reconciliation. It doesn't look like they are going to even attempt a Senate vote on this on.
You've chosen the party that is all about coercion and not freedom.
As opposed to the party that is all about coercion and not freedom?
Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority?
Classic case of "shut up, we know what's best for you."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The US is already bankrupt.
The national debt is too large to pay off.
Once the entire federal budget has to be devoted to interest, we're screwed.
It just seems like there are more and more straws on the camels back, starting with around W's presidency.
So, DMCA wasn't an issue?
We've had major issues with unilateral action by POTUS for some time.
I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.
I can't comment on the first part of this, because I wasn't really paying attention, but the second part is completely untrue. Two intelligence agencies thought Iraq had an active nuclear program. The UK disclosed all of their evidence before the invasion and it was far from conclusive - the strongest evidence in the document was that Iraq was importing magnets (which, clearly, have no non-nuclear uses...).
From talking to people involved with the decision a bit later, the British and US intelligence agencies disclosed everything that they knew to the other, but both assumed that the other side was holding something important back. Neither group had any evidence of a nuclear program, but both thought the other had and wasn't sharing it.
For everyone not part of the intelligence SNAFU, it was obvious that the invasion was ill-advised. That's why a million people marched on London to oppose it.
Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
Yes, and the observed these programs being destroyed long before your invasion.
That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.
Funny, I seem to remember exactly the same rhetoric about GWB.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm one person out of ~309 million. For all practical purposes, I have no capacity to fight this zeitgeist.
It sounds like you're blaming this on entirely the U.S. While I do hate the U.S.'s role in exporting antisocial policies, I'd like to point out that other countries are free to not adopt them.
Also consider that having a highly productive members of society "vote with their feat" can be influential as well.
Why is this a troll? This is exactly what Bush's supporters were saying about all of his actions. See also comments about his being the Commander In Chief and The Decider. It seems that people are now learning that if you award powers to a political office then it's hard to remove them when someone you don't like is in power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Thus the cleaning up. Obviously that clause doesn't always apply, it isn't clear it should always apply, the definition of a treaty isn't clear, etc, otherwise there wouldn't even be a question of a "sole executive agreement."
Not the AC.
"Rethugs", how clever.
Yup, a its about as clever as calling Obama "0". Pot meet kettle.
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
This isn't actually true. There was some among the Founders who obviously thought that requiring a simple majority of citizens to pass laws and bills was a bad idea. This is why we're a representative democracy and not a straight democracy. Often times the electorate isn't informed or educated enough to make some decisions (treaties, wars, and such), and sometimes elected representatives are forced to make unpopular decisions for the common good , our system allows for this.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll [newsweek.com], showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
I've seen several polls with widely varying numbers. I've seem single polls on the issue with wildly varing numbers depending on how the question is asked. Which poll do we go by? I know the answer, the one you like and that supports your political tilt. This is true for everyone. I haven't actually seen a well sampled bill (i.e. not on a blag, or news site) that has the opponents of the bill representing a meaningful majority over those that supported it. Generally the percentages work up around 42% in favor, and 46% against (which is about the same margin as most of our elections, incidentally). In these cases things become tricky, since can you really crap on the will of 42% of the electorate to make 46% happy? And of these, probably 90% of each camp don't care strongly, leaving 10% of the population who have very strong opinions and a deep love of waggling their tongues.
. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
You managed to make a nice fallacy, and completely ignore the point. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't make it right. If I get some democrats, and some republicans, to agree that we should burn the Constitution does it make it more right than if I just had some democrats OR some republicans agree?
The republicans are just as apt to pass heinous laws as the Democrats. In fact, I'll take 10 crappy half-assed facist health care bills over half of a USA PATRIOT ACT. We also forgot that Bush did many illegal things on his own, with out the patina of bipartisanship, like warrantless wiretaps. As it stands, both parties are corrupt, backwards, and rather hostile to the American people.
Right now bipartisanship is part of the problem. If not for willy-nilly "reaching across the aisle" crap, we would have have actually reform, and not just another bill to force my money onto greedy antisocial corporations. Being that you love polls so much, most polls from the beginning of this healthcare debacle claimed that most Americans support reform with a socialized aspect (a "public option"). but Obama killed that by trying to get some contrarian Republican survivors to sign off just so he could claim the meaningless label of bipartisan. The Republicans are playing pure politics, and don't give one ass about the American people right now. They are out to win the next election, and "destroy" Obama. No matter how much you like the sentiment, this is NOT good practice, and not good for America as a whole.
And yes, Obama had a mandate for healthcare reform (which is now squandered), and popular support. He was elected with a fair majority, and pledged to
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
commodore64_love
the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People's Constitution:
I wish that was true! However; as an example, President George H.W. Bush has signed something called The Copenhagen Document. The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:
(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;..
I wish that had constitutional authority, but it does not! The Senate has not ratified it. Not to mention that the SCOTUS can use the literal, historical, liberal. conservative, living, and total joke, interpretations of the U.S. Constitutions in their rulings.
See: Copenhagen Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
The point of a CONSTITUTIONAL republic is that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. The problem with that is, the government considers the law to be a hindrance on its powers, and routes around it. Since government is founded as a monopoly on violence, who the hell has the power to tell them "no! bad dog!"?
No. The war was well founded, had huge majority support of both democrats and republicans alike, and inteligence at the time indicated a need. It's one thing to say the war was bad in RETROSPECT, but you cannot compare Obama implementing knowingly unconstitutional laws to Bush's generally agreed upon war as there is no commonalities.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
The USA is a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.
The US Constitution defines and limits the powers of each branch of the government (legislative, judicial and administrative).
The person who made the quoted statement is simply wrong and sadly ignorant of the facts.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Really? The clause has no exceptions what-so-ever anywhere in the Constitution. It is also very clear.
The question of "sole executive agreement" is pretty much the same as "executive order". Where does it exist in the Constitution? It is neither implied nor can be inferred by it or the 27 current amendments.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Actually, in name we are
The Federal Republic of the United States of America.
But yes, in practice we are not, quite unfortunately.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
"The next Democrat who claims that Slashdot is not a liberal haven where inane comments by morons are marked insightful will get this comment and its Insightful mod linked."
Save the Planet...recycle comments.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.
Oh, and which party do you think is going to object to a stilted treaty that puts the desires of one of America's few export industries over the needs of petty citizens? Democrats and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of stronger copyright. No previous extension of the reach of copyright has faced major opposition.
Here's what will happen. You'll get the bill before Congress. Someone will motion for a voice vote. With their hands washed clean, the bill will pass without any record to let us hold the people who voted for it responsible. No muss, no fuss, and the only people who lose out are us little people.
That's how the Sonny Bono Act was passed. That's how the DMCA was passed. That's how this monstrosity will pass if it ever gets before Congress.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So was Gandhi. Imagine if all of the great leaders in this world had simply said that?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
More accurately, that is how a republic works.
For every Ghandi, there are probably tens of thousands of would-be Ghandis that effect little or not significant change.
Also, one reason leaders like Ghandi are effective is because there's a sizable number of other people who have the same sensibilities, and are just waiting for a leader to organize them. Part of my despair about the U.S. is that the majority of persons here seems to place little value on the rule of law (including adherence to the national constitution) or prosecuting those who commit torture. And those who do care, who tend to end up in the Libertarian and Democratic parties (respectively), have demonstrated that they're completely ineffectual on these matters.
So I stick by my conclusion. The combination of life being so short, and the odds of my being effective here are so low, that I'd rather just live out my days in a country that doesn't cheer-on torture.
They needed 2/3rds for health care too.. See how much that stopped them?
Actually, they only needed 60% for health care, and they got it (sort of). Back when they had 60 Democrats. Now they have 59, so how do you think they're going to get 67?
Miss me yet? We'll be back.. cuz you dumbasses don't know how to vote for anyone else. Fuckers.. - GWB
You need 60 votes, not 2/3, to break a filibuster and close debate. That's not quite the same thing as needing that many votes to pass a bill. It's worth noting that a filibuster is much easier to do than in years past where the senators had to be present to defeat a vote to close debate. Now a senator has to do is say they are filibustering and go home - they don't even have to be present or speaking to filibuster anymore. Whatever happened to a reading of the works of Shakespeare on C-Span? Oh well...
The Democrats had enough votes to prevent a filibuster, and closed debate. At that point, only a simple majority was needed to pass the bill -- which is only 51 votes assuming everybody does vote.
In fact, any Senate vote on legislation (such as the healthcare) needs only 51 votes (which the Democrats certainly had) to pass. Many talking heads ignore this fact, and concentrate on the idea that breaking a filibuster is the same as voting for legislation. It's not. But most pundits (from every side of the political spectrum) aren't interested in presenting the facts or telling the whole truth. Their business is to get people to listen to the commercials during their shows. The way they do it is good 'ol fashioned demagoguery and chest thumping; calling to people's emotions (usually outrage and anger -- easy targets) rather than a listener's head.
A 2/3 majority (ie. 67 votes) is needed for treaties and constitutional amendments, and is fairly rare. (Contrary to popular belief, the Senate killed Kyoto long before W. was involved - it didn't have the votes in the Senate to pass.)
As the Democrats had already passed the point of filibuster, they used 'reconciliation' to finish the health care bill; Filibusters aren't allowed for reconciliation, and the constitutionally mandated simple majority is all that's needed to pass.
In spite of the recent bluster an berating, reconciliation has been used by the Republicans many times during the W. years for things that suited their ends, and were certainly as expensive, if not moreso. (Such as the Iraq war...)
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
A few people seem to have forgotten how Democracy works in this country, as is lined out by our constitution:
First we have the Soap Box (The right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech, etc.)
Then we have the Mail Box (The protection of out letters, as well as the ability to write to our representatives in the government and tell them our views.)
Then we have the Ballot Box (The electoral college, voting in senators and representatives that agree with your ideals, etc, in case the previous representatives did not work to your needs.)
Then we have the Jury Box, (Where we can vote that a law or enforcement of a law is unjust. You do not have to vote guilty if a law is broken, you can vote towards nullification... True the courts are trying to ignore this right whenever possible, but we still have it. If you have jury duty, and think cannabis should be legal, and you are sitting in a trial for a non-violent offense of a guy growing pot for his friends and not receiving cash -as example, easier to convince the rest of them with this one- then remind the rest of the jurors that here and now you can work to end the prosecution of cannabis, and work to end the laws.... If you vote together, then he goes free despite being guilty of that law. There will be appeals, and the law will be reinforced by a jury of judges, but if that happens "every" time, the law will eventually be removed.)
And then we have our right of last resort: The Ammo Box.... (The second amendment is not your right to go deer hunting with a rocket launcher, it is your right to not only bear arms, but to be trained in militias to use them. Until recently, many people would keep weapons from the war in their garage, thinking nothing else of them.... Someone on the block maintained his cannon from the war in his garage, just in case he was called again. But the second amendment as viewed by the author of it, George Mason, was to protect us from the threat of an overreaching government that no longer listens, or works for, the People. -"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Now, if you really want to be patriotic, gather every able bodied friend you have, and organize a militia. Train together, express your desire to protect your town if those damn Canadians invade, or the British come back.... Or anything really. And, worst case, should America turn against Americans, you now have the last line of defense to bring the power back to the people. But at that point, its not about letters anymore. Its about being willing to die for your fellow American. Because there are good chances you will. You will die for your beliefs, and kill other Americans, the soldiers and such, before you fall. You better have noble reasons in your heart, and know that true, because your group will either be a rallying point for all others, or you will be wiped out, vilified by all, and forgotten.
Then we have the Dirt Box (Re-hash of the Freedom of speech and press. The government does not have the right to hush out and kill an idea, and it gets harder all the time. Did we use these boxes in full in our lives? Will our actions and causes be remembered? Did we print and write and spread our thoughts like seeds into the wind, or was the most we did in life amount to a few +5 posts on Slashdot? Or did we manage to stop the corporatocracy, and bring back the Democratic Republic that we hold dear? Did we put a few extra term limits on each level of government, so that we will not just become a plutocracy in most things again? Where rick lawyers can no longer "retire" into a lifetime of politics- preserving the institutions that make lawyers rich in the first place? If you want to have a better system of health care, stop electing politicians that are former malpractice lawyers.... Lawyers will always make sure lawyers are needed in the future. If you don't like ambulance chasers, don't think he will do better running you local governmental institution.....
And thats our government in a nutshell. If you don't like something, write down what you want to happen, start collecting signatures; even if it means missing the new episode of House you want to watch.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Insightful? Good grief. Some people treat moderation like a football game: This comment is on "my side", so must be modded up, no matter how poor... or the inverse, it's on "the other side", so must be modded down, regardless of well it may be written.
Do better, slashdotters.
Do you realize the flaw with your cunning plan, yet?
I'm one person out of ~309 million. For all practical purposes, I have no capacity to fight this zeitgeist.
No, you're one out of ~6.5B, some closer than others. If you admit that it's nobody else's problem either you're left with taking your share and encouraging others to do the same, you might even get some help.
It sounds like you're blaming this on entirely the U.S.
ACTA itself yes, perhaps, but you're right that it's larger than any given thing.
While I do hate the U.S.'s role in exporting antisocial policies, I'd like to point out that other countries are free to not adopt them.
Free, if they don't mind tariffs on all their products, fine, penalties, blockades, etc. Like I'm free not to pay taxes, if I don't mind being forcibly relocated to jail.
Free to, but powerless not to. Like you, but more.
Also consider that having a highly productive members of society "vote with their feat" can be influential as well.
Well, I am advocating for you voting with your feat. Dump the tea in the harbour, burn down RIAA headquarters, string up Diebold execs and politicians who buy their machines, etc. But I know that was a typo and won't happen...
But yes, vote with your feet. Leave. Pussy out and run away. After all, it is the way to live to fight another day.
Even if it works (for you) though it leaves the original problem for everyone else. Who knows what would have happened if people had been committed to keeping Germany sane post WW1 instead of fleeing - often just far enough to get caught once WW2 started.
Ask for help if you need it (foreign election advisors, etc) but if you leave you'll just find your problems followed you.
66 != 60
Actually D.C.,military bases and other government holdings are the Federal Republic of the United States of America. Everything else is the several united states. Note caps.
This is actually important in federal courtrooms and has a lot to do with your constitutional rights which only apply to the people of the several states. Once you are on Federal holdings, your constitution is gone.Poof! Other chicanery includes making your property a federal holding by having a federal address which allow your rights to be removed whenever it is convenient for the Fed. There is no getting around this in theory if you still want mail delivered. We are the frogs who are currently being boiled because we didn't notice the heat going up slowly. Probably too late now without a massive bloody revolution. Welcome to Big Brotherland 1984. We and our labor are now the monetary system the dollar is based on. Wait'll China decides to collect on their part of our national debt they own. That is why the Panama canal is gone and China owns ex Military bases on our soil. It only gets worse from there. But we can thank mostly our Democrats and partly Republicans for this transition. We started falling to shit with president Wilson and it's been downhill from there. Slowly boiled froggy, U.S. style...
You are wrong. Poor starving people almost never revolt. Revolutionaries are rich kids who either get religious like communists or get threatened by taxes like the american revolution. I'd imagine copyright reform driving violent revolution in the U.S. before starvation in Asia. That said, we've no basis for violent revolution because people who want power can easily obtain it through election.
I'll vote against any president that signs the death warrant for thousands of poor people in Africa and South America that we call ACTA, even if that means voting for some moron like Sarah Palin. I'm a ver practical person who understands why there are compromises, but some things are so evil they are non-negotiable.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I don't think you read my whole post as I said that Bush extending powers paved the way for Obama implying that the ridiculous spending was bad no matter who was doing it. Reading into sentences too much perhaps?
You're very quick to sign me up for these things. How about you show us all how it's done? I don't know your face obviously, but I suspect that it hasn't been shown on the evening news wherever you live, as part of a documentary on effective IP activism. Of course, I could be wrong.
You're also presuming that pursuing this goal is most important thing for someone (in this case, me) to pursue. Without knowing my circumstances you can't possibly know whether or not me spending my life fighting for IP issues maximizes the greater good.
That's all I have to say on the topic.
No Treaty should be ratified except via consent of the People's representatives. That you disagree I find extremely scary. You would leave us at the whim of a single man using treaties to enact any law he pleases, like a modern day version of the Roman Emperor.
As for parties, the U.S. has a long history of multiple parties: Federalists, Democrats, Whigs, Republicans, Progressives, Reformers, the "know Nothing" Party, Libertarians, and so on.
And finally:
The Constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's the Law. You do not ignore the Law, otherwise our government is no longer a Republic. If you want to modify the Constitution, I am fine with that, but it should be done via the proper process (amendment) not by simply ignoring pieces of the Supreme Law that you don't like.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It is unconstitutional to vote on changes to a bill and deem that vote as the bill in entirety having passed, and then sign that into law, and yet it happened this week. Where house leaders and the President have stated many times they don't care about rules and process, but about getting things done, don't expect ACTA to have to require 2/3 senatorial approval. Under the current admnistration, executive order will be deemed sufficient, Constitution be damned.
Besides, how much has the Constitution mattered under any of the current and previous three administrations anyhow?
We have the power to change things: stop reelecting the same douchebags into congress, and stop electing presidents based on looks or skin color.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason. Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed. Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron, and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess. ACTA is clearly just large corporations continually attempting to subvert all human liberty, again. It is disgusting. Obama et al are no better than any of the puss bags we've "elected" since they shot JFK in the face:
Corporate whore,
Liar,
Charlatan,
Anti-Liberty,
Anti-Free market (pro monopoly!),
Anti-Privacy (Warrantless Wiretapping, Patriot Act).....
I could go on and on, but Obama lied about EVERY campaign promise, just like every president has since JFK got shot in the face. Troops out of Afghanistan? Nope. Troops out of Iraq? Nope. Repeal Patriot Act. Nope, Extend!! End warrantless wiretapping? Nope, even make it impossible to prosecute any of the guilty parties!
Fuck Obama. Fuck him and every other politician that acts in the interests in the corporations, not the people.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Actually, in name we are
The Federal Republic of the United States of America.
Which means that you are a federally organized bunch of (North) American states without a monarch.
By contrast Canada is a federally organized bunch of (North) American provinces with a monarch.
Both are representative democracies, unlike Saudi Arabia which is an absolute monarchy or N Korea which is republican dictatorship.
Republican just means no monarch, nothing to do with democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
How the hell can you have both Socialist (people owning the means of production) and Fascist (corporations owning the means of production) in the same sentence. They are opposites and the fascists hate the socialists and the socialists hate the fascists.
Personally I like socialist ideas like co-ops, credit unions and small businesses, ideally working in a capitalist manner.
I don't like fascist ideas like huge business that is not answerable to anyone, owns the government and does its best to remove freedoms like the freedom to deal with who you like in a capitalist manner.
Capitalism works best with a lot of small players instead of a couple of large players who usually own the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The Constitution is not the effective law of the land in the US anymore. Our leaders have stated that they have what Ms. Pelosi calls "essentially unlimited" power, and they express shock when asked what constitutional authority they have for their actions. They do not believe themselves bound in any important way by the Constitution. Maybe they think they can't outright kill citizens, but they do think they can take anything they want anytime they want. The government's actions make more sense if you read them that way.
The question is whether the Supreme Court is still willing to strike down blatantly illegal acts, or whether it's now owned by the "living Constitution" crowd that thinks the document is meaningless. (Based on recent case law, they're split about 4.5-4.5 on that point.) We're going to see that by 2014 or sooner because of the illegal, unprecedented federal health care mandate.
Revive the Constitution.
I love this assumption. Not EVERYONE who is AGAINST what Obama is doing supported what Bush did. I was just as unhappy with his bullshit as you are.
You, sir, can eat a whole bag of dicks. Politics is not a two party zero sum game, as much as fuckheads like you want it to be.
Why should we care about international agreements that we aren't a part of?
You Americans have the beginnings of civil war on your hands... I'm not kidding: the raping and pillaging of your nation is beginning to bite even ordinary people in the ass. When that happens all it will take is for some kook to fire a potshot at Ferdinand and watch it snowball from there. This'll be interesting, first time of a civil war with a nation that has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your military should just sequester them?
Shh.
"Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority?"
Replace the words healthcare reform with ACTA and reread that. Do you still like what you said? The argument that you made for one is the same that I could make for the other.
I believe that Congress met the Constitutional mandate for declaring war against Iraq. Congress overwhelmingly passed the bill authorizing the use of force. The Constitution never says what Congress must do in order to declare war.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That won't be a problem, they'll just say that this isn't a Treaty. They'll call it something else. You watch and see if I'm right.
almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program
Australia's intelligence agency didn't think so. And if something is so obvious that OUR intelligence agency picked up on it, what's the excuse for the rest of you?
When did this happen? A formal declaration of war was never voted unless I missed something. I do remember in 2002 there was an authorization of force for any party connected to 9/11 but it has long been established that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Please enlighten me if I'm incorrect.
The problem with us is that we let the fox watch the hen house. ( nice ross perot like comment huh) we go through the trouble of a revolution to make a free state, then set up a constitution to limit the power of government. Great idea..BUT WAIT..then we let the GOVERNMENT set up indoctrination centers...oops i mean schools that teach all of our children what the fucking constitution means...Well gee wiz wally what kind of a good job do you think those same government workers are gonna do on teching kids about limiting their powers? ONLY by taking back education( we have made great inroads lately with charter schools) will we take back the hearts and minds of the people and make america truly free again.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
So. Implemented over the objections of the majority, using powers not granted to the federal government in its charter. So what government act can't be justified under this logic?
I'd rather live in a banana republic, where the people in charge are busy enriching themselves, than have to deal with a government that thinks it knows what's best for its citizens despite their wishes.
Well founded on deliberate lies, you mean.
Really? So there are some 6+ billion people out there just waiting to help straighten out US government excess? Right. There are plenty out there who armchair politic from their non-US recliners. Not nearly so many who can, or even will, help. The GP is right about being one of 300 million.
Well.. yeah. Every choice you make costs you something. If the US government-backed policies don't pass your logic gate, tell 'em off. If its more important to have the US market available for your products, then perhaps your country needs to fix its domestic economy issues so as to support the political structure that suits you.
Ah.. from "well sure, if I'm willing to go to jail" to "do things that will get you sent to jail." Not only that, but massive destruction and murder are your suggestions. Brilliant!
Yeah.. I'm sure if the GP sent out a call for help, he'd get credible responses. After all, he is a citizen! and has money and influence! Other Americans will listens to him, for sure! Except that 300 million other Americans have basically the same ability to voice their opinions on the net, and the ones who have real political pull don't need non-US political advice.
The last bit, however, is fairly amusing. Europeans left Europe to escape European problems, rather than sticking around to solve them. And now their descendants are the problem being inflicted on Europe (and elsewhere).
More likely the Constitution will be found to be anti-ACTA.
Not the AC.
"Rethugs", how clever.
Yup, a its about as clever as calling Obama "0". Pot meet kettle.
Not at all. The "0" moniker fits Obama perfectly. Zero good ideas, zero patriotism, zero executive experience...the list goes on and on. Republicans, on the other hand, just aren't known for "thuggish" behavior. Look at how civil the tea party demonstrations have been, for instance. (Granted, they're not all Republicans at those, but the majority probably are.)
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
This isn't actually true. There was some among the Founders who obviously thought that requiring a simple majority of citizens to pass laws and bills was a bad idea. This is why we're a representative democracy and not a straight democracy. Often times the electorate isn't informed or educated enough to make some decisions (treaties, wars, and such), and sometimes elected representatives are forced to make unpopular decisions for the common good , our system allows for this.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
To be clear, I wasn't advocating pure democracy. I was pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of the "Democrat" party in not respecting the will of the people.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll [newsweek.com], showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
I've seen several polls with widely varying numbers. I've seem single polls on the issue with wildly varing numbers depending on how the question is asked. Which poll do we go by? I know the answer, the one you like and that supports your political tilt. This is true for everyone. I haven't actually seen a well sampled bill (i.e. not on a blag, or news site) that has the opponents of the bill representing a meaningful majority over those that supported it. Generally the percentages work up around 42% in favor, and 46% against (which is about the same margin as most of our elections, incidentally). In these cases things become tricky, since can you really crap on the will of 42% of the electorate to make 46% happy? And of these, probably 90% of each camp don't care strongly, leaving 10% of the population who have very strong opinions and a deep love of waggling their tongues.
Nice job of pulling some statistics out of your nether regions. There's not been a single major poll that shows a majority favor 0care. Gallup, by the way, is particularly respected.
You're also off base as far as your estimate that only 10% have strong opinions. Rasmussen (who's been the most accurate on recent elections) finds that 73% of voters have strong opinions about the President for instance. 30% strongly approve, while 43% strongly disapprove.
. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actually observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
You managed to make a nice fallacy, and completely ignore the point. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't make it right. If I get some democrats, and some republicans, to agree that we should burn the Constitution does it make it more r
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
You obviously did not read what I wrote, or didn't understand what I wrote. You apparently think that an international document signed by a U.S. president becomes Constitutionally protected. It doers not. It requires ratification by 2/3 of Senate.
You also seem to be under the impression that I sit on the U.S. Supreme Court! Send your complaints to SCOTUS not me.
We can't argue about my opinions unless you actually read and understand what I wrote.
Yes actually, I think they're directly comparable. Both think they have a right to push their choice on others, even where the rules and voters wishes may directly say otherwise.
As for the Iraqi-9/11 link, the evidence against Saddam/Iraq was too convenient - it had been clear that Bush was trying to link them to 9/11 from the beginning. Even before the US/UK fabrications were made clear there was never any international agreement on this evidence. The rest of the world was rightfully skeptical because even if this out-of-the-blue evidence was true, and that looked really unlikely, there was still no evidence of an imminent threat and even if there was, the sanctions in place were expected to be enough.
Nope, the only people who fell for this were those blinded by fear/rage/revenge, in other words you and some of your countrymen.
Meanwhile, Guantanamo is still operational, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still raging, nobody has been punished for the wiretapping, allowing torture, etc...
Only the very naive think Obama is one of the worst. The rest of the world can see he's business as usual. Your partisan nonsense hides this and prevents us getting something better.
America, and most of the problems of the third world in Africa and Asia originated out of European colonialism.
It's not how the government is supposed to work according to the Constitution but Obama doesn't seem to care. He seems more interested in making marks in future history books than following the oath he took when he was sworn into office. I can't say his predecessor was any different. Too many politicians and not enough legislators. The sad thing is, I'm not sure we can fix it.
Wish you hadn't posted as AC. I'd like to friend you.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
I know it has nothing to do with democracy (which is rule of the masses, which is what we don't have or want).
Also, I'd agrue that Saudi Arabia is a monarchical theocracy.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
They needed 60 votes not 67 votes. And that was to overturn a filibuster. For the reconciliation stuff, they only needed 51 votes.
it doesn't seem to go against Google's "future" business interests. Google wants to become everyone's gateway to the net.
ACTA and similar law hands control over to the content holders. Google is not a content holder, but merely a gateway, which can be replaced by another gateway with better access to content, like Microsoft.
Ultimately ACTA requires closer monitoring of people's internet usage and that is that Google is all about.
The ISPs have better access to that data. Who will bother with Google when they can get better usage data from the ISPs? Certainly not government.
Most of the non-corporate lobbying groups have single issues and rarely get involved in matters outside of whatever they have a chip on their shoulder about. The others mostly dont have the money or resources to do anything.
Most corporations are politically single issue too. And a lot of those non-corporate groups are pretty wealthy.
The Constitution does not specify what a declaration of war looks like. It merely says that Congress shall have power to declare war. What is the authorization to use force against Iraq except for a declaration of war?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You are not thinking about what "the mob" actually is. This is the major problem I have with apathy: It spreads. It is a common propaganda tactic to simply make the individual feel that his or her participation in society makes no difference, so they might as well take what comes and try to live through it, rather than to change it. Especially in this day and age, when people are glued to TVs and computer screens, isolated by mp3 players, cell phones, and PDAs - people become more susceptible to assuming that the artificial portrayal of public opinion is true, without much to contradict it. They asume more people are acting as sheep than are, accept it as the unchangable reality of the world, and thus don't bother to discuss these issues with others, for fear of social disapproval. The nature of the internet is that it can be a faceless institution. This can be positive, however this can also be used to generate false public opinion, because you do not know if that person who commented on a news story, for example, is working professionally for a political organization or other related entity, or if it actually is a real person expressing their opinion.
All societies, even collectivist tyrannies, are made up of acting or non-acting individuals, but nonetheless indivuals with the capacity to act. How "the herd" is led depends on the momentum and availability of information directed at each individual, not whom is giving it. The government does not have a monopoly on this principle, they just have a louder potential voice. It is something of a lie to say that the people will naturally be drawn toward the direction of tyranny, as they can also be led toward the direction of liberty. Humans have a natural tendancy to desire what is beneficial, which is why tyranny has to be hidden in order to take hold, or sold as necessary to assure the safety of the individuals in society.
In the past several years, I have personally seen a monumental awakening to the libertarian principles long forgotten in American culture. For the first time in ages, people from all ages and all walks of life can agree to some extent what our ills are, and show the willingness to take action in changing them. With the election of Obama, even though dishonestly won by false promises, this shows even further. Liberty is popular, tyranny is not. Luckily his cult of personality didn't last very long, and many people learned to pay closer attention to the issues at hand, rather than the rhetoric (there will always be others). This is mostly due to the work of individuals working little by little, person by person, to change the minds of the few away from collectivist tyranny, and toward individual libertarianism. In turn, those people, should they choose to act, do the same, and the momentum continues to grow and branch out until the people as "the herd", by the efforts of individuals as parts of the whole, has a louder voice than the government.
In other words, everyone has the capacity to contribute in society, and should. Run for political office. How can one expect the government to act libertarian when there are no libertarians in it? Talk to friends and neighbors about issues that really matter, rather than video games, sports, or TV. Entertainment is fine, but what good is it if you're living in a giant penal colony? One person doing something about it can make the difference between democracy, and tyranny, as all social systems are the sum of their parts.
If all of the good people leave the country, what will be left? Imagine that: The largest military in the world, without any libertarian leaning individuals to be seen. You wouldn't be safe anywhere my friend, as the bomber drones would be headed to a country near you, with Xe to clean out the rest.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
Define good. There are a lot of things you will probably think good, that I would think to be terrible mistakes, and, obviously, visa versa. This is well and fine, and there is room for both. When someone claims that there is only room for their version of "good" then I worry.
Good often follows subjective political ideologies.
You should meditate on your tagline for a while... LOL
I have. Country doesn't mean people who subscribe to the same line as I do. Country doesn't mean only people who agree with me. Country does not mean only the rich, or only the poor. Country does not mean only bankers, or overseers of the military-industrial complex. Country does not mean tea party folk or progressives. Nor republican or democrat. It does not mean socialist or sociopathic free marketeer. Country means ALL of these, and the land, and the people, and the various cultures contained therein, and all of the resulting conflicts.
This is as much my country, and its destiny is as much mine, as it is yours.
Country far transcends whether or whether not you want government controlled health care.
Anything done to restrain 0's out of control spending is "good for America". His fiscal policies are literally insane.
And who isn't? And no, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or biting off your nose to spite your face, is NOT good for America. The right wing of Congress sitting around with their fingers in their ears screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!" is not healthy for anything.
Perhaps the people on the Right could promote cutting some of the biggest bloat in the budget, military spending, or subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels. Perhaps they would find that competitive tariffs would raise money and bring jobs... Perhaps they would realize that our two wars are really nothing but big bonfires for throwing money at. The republicans could do something USEFUL. Not doing anything isn't useful.
Oh, pork is only pork when it isn't our pork.
Your expectations vary quite a bit from mine. ;-)
When was the last time a president (or congress critter) didn't go back on all their promises, or generally screw the American people for a handful of rich and powerful interests? Not in the last eight years, not in the last sixteen, not in the last... oh hell, Jimmy Carter? Ineffectual but at least he was the last uncorrupted president. Before him? FDR? Maybe Eisenhower.
Obama is a joke, but so was the contenders. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich (though I would have voted for Paul is I was a registered Republican, both actually believed in something).
It's sure not. "Reasoned debate" is about identifying good or bad ideas, and then calling a spade a spade, so to speak.
Good to whom, and bad for whom? I personally think that socialized health care would be really good for America. You don't. We could quibble all day over it, in fact, we as a people have been quibbling over it nonstop for years with no actual resolution in sight.
I think that redirecting 50% of miliary spending to social services and education would be the one of the greatest moves made in recent history. You might absolutely hate the idea. I think that corporations should be regulated to shit to keep them from harming real people (their only roll should be the total benefit of society, not just a handful of people at the detriment of society). I think we should abandon oil and coal as quick as possible. I think... etc... You get the idea, and you probably completely disagree with me on several, if not all, of these issues.
Who gets to say which is good or bad? These issues are not like those of math, logic, or physics where we can quickly disprove one through controlled experiment or
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Also, I'd agrue that Saudi Arabia is a monarchical theocracy.
No arguing about that, still the United Kingdom is also a monarchical theocracy and a representative democracy whereas Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchical theocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Agreed on both points.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
That's all I have to say on the topic.
Ohhh, a last word. I see.
You're very quick to sign me up for these things.
No, quick to explain that if you want sanity you can't just move - not only is no government great, but the crap the USA is pushing will follow you. If you want it to end you won't get results by hiding elsewhere and hoping the treaty can't find you.
How about you show us all how it's done?
Well, I assume you've expressed your displeasure and not had your concerns addressed by your representatives...
You're also presuming that pursuing this goal is most important thing for someone (in this case, me) to pursue.
It's important enough you'd consider moving half the world away from friends and family. I guess you do this lightly?
[...] whether or not me spending my life [...]
You get vacations.
[...] fighting for IP issues [...]
Well, I'd think a government that is able to impose laws/treaties against the popular will of the people would be a problem in one more than one area...
Your indoctrination centers aren't at third reich levels, overworked, underpaid teachers won't do a good job on anything, especially indoctrination.
"Do you have any idea what exactly are required to impeach someone? "
I'm sure he does; Clinton was impeached.
You wrote that you wish Bush's signature on the Copenhagen Treaty made it automatic law, without needing approval by the People's Senate.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I assume this peoples Senate is some political body in the Peoples Republic of China. Had you been from the U.S. you would never have used such a term.
A declaration of war must specify a specific party with a specific criteria for victory. With the authorization of force specifying the parties involved in 9/11 Iraq was not contained within this declaration. So unless there was another one, all actions in Iraq were not sanctioned by congress.
I thought the role of a president is to insure that a majority house in both congress and senate does not do something to undermine the rights of the minority, where majority and minority are the citizens of the USA. He is a safeguard, who could defer a bill or return it for reconsideration. But then he can suggest new laws, and leave it to congress and the senate to evaluate and if warranted, introduce them. If you ask most Canadians, I believe that they would say, USA democracy is going down the tubes. It is no longer government by the people for the people, but government by big business for big business. Its time to wake up, peasants, and become proactive in the running of your lives by your "lobbyists".
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Apparently the president is dictating that America should sign a treaty that directly violates the constitution. Checks and balances would normally kick in....but no. There is something fundamentally wrong with our society(US) at the moment. I just hope we snap out of it before we go over the falls. I fear I might already feel that moment when you adjust to the sensation of gravity fading away.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
Define good.
There's the rub, isn't it? For me, I strongly believe in personal freedom and limited government. Those are the things that made America what it is, and to deviate much from them is to "remake America" as a much worse place to live and excel.
So, for me the 0 idiocracy is anathema.
There are a lot of things you will probably think good, that I would think to be terrible mistakes, and, obviously, visa versa.
Which doesn't recognize that the choices are not "equally good". This seems to be the concept with which you have trouble.
This is well and fine, and there is room for both.
Nope, this is a misconception on your part.
Often the choices are mutually exclusive and a decision must be made.
When someone claims that there is only room for their version of "good" then I worry.
Like I said, a misconception. For instance, if healthcare is in fact nationalized, it will drastically reduce the quality of healthcare in America.
You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Good often follows subjective political ideologies.
No. You're forgetting that there is objective reality. For instance, millions of people starving to death or losing their homes is "bad". The opposite is "good".
It's quite possible to identify "good" versus "bad" in virtually all cases, if you look hard enough.
You should meditate on your tagline for a while... LOL
I have. Country doesn't mean people who subscribe to the same line as I do. Country doesn't mean only people who agree with me. Country does not mean only the rich, or only the poor. Country does not mean only bankers, or overseers of the military-industrial complex. Country does not mean tea party folk or progressives. Nor republican or democrat. It does not mean socialist or sociopathic free marketeer. Country means ALL of these, and the land, and the people, and the various cultures contained therein, and all of the resulting conflicts.
This is as much my country, and its destiny is as much mine, as it is yours.
Country far transcends whether or whether not you want government controlled health care.
Nice job missing the point. I was referring to the 'defend his country against his government' part. The (Federal) government is the issue, and the biggest danger to a sane existence.
Anything done to restrain 0's out of control spending is "good for America". His fiscal policies are literally insane.
And who isn't?
Me, and lots of other folk. What 0 is doing is qualitatively different than GWB or other earler Presidents. It absolutely won't work in the long run, and even in the short run America may lose its AAA credit rating for the first time ever.
And no, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or biting off your nose to spite your face, is NOT good for America.
Nice strawman.
The right wing of Congress sitting around with their fingers in their ears screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!" is not healthy for anything.
You should pay more attention, that's not what they're doing. It's just that 0 has given up on bipartisanship and he's getting what he deserves for doing so. Republicans had many constructive ideas for healthcare reform, such as tort reform, but the Dems would have none of it.
You spoke of compromise, but 0 seems to not be a fan.
Perhaps the people on the Right could promote cutting some of the biggest bloat in the budget, military spending, or subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels. Pe
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
There was an authorization to use force against Iraq passed by Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution In my opinion, this resolution meets the Constitutional requirement that Congress declare war.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
This seems pretty explicit to me. I do not understand what the administration's argument is here. And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause. It's as if this isn't the standing issue here. Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote?
DingDingDing! We have a winner. These arguments around "it's a republic", "representatives need to listen to the people" are merely bitching about a result. The only way to discuss these things is on their straight merits. Then we can talk about whether the political process that achieved the outcome was correct.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Which doesn't recognize that the choices are not "equally good". This seems to be the concept with which you have trouble.
Don't have trouble with it, I just accept ambiguity and accept the fact that there is always a very strong probability that I (or any other person) might be wrong, no matter how convinced I am otherwise.
There is a difference between the ability to assign truth value to the statements; "Obama's healthcare plan is bad" and "the moon is made of cheese". On is a subjective value judgment whose truth depends on the speaker, and the second is empirical and can be independently evaluated and proven or disproven.
No. You're forgetting that there is objective reality. For instance, millions of people starving to death or losing their homes is "bad". The opposite is "good"
I agree with your statement, obviously, but it isn't that simple. There is no way to objectively prove that one is bad and the other is good. We can reduce these judgement down to first principles, but all of these principles are wholly subjective, in cases of bad and good. We, and most of the western world, share a lot of principles, and thus most people we talk to would agree with us that one case (starvation of millions) is bad, while the other (nonstarvation) is good, this still does not make it an objective statement. It is nothing but a sociologically informed moral judgement.
There have been people who have argued that mass starvation can be good, and who have managed to find millions of supporters who agree with them (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and a whole slew of leaders from history).
I am not arguing relativism here. Most people would agree that enforcing mass starvation is a bad thing, and the first principles derived from the formulation are much stronger than others.
But when it comes to things like socialized health care, this gets shaky. You can cite x to the contrary, and I can point at Finland. Etc... There is no end to this debate. I can't disprove your position, nor you mine. This is where the line is, the solution is something that makes all of us slightly happy, but doesn't make a large portion of any camp unhappy. If you got your way, you would be imposing your view on a large portion of society, just like your complaining that the "other side" did to you.
For instance, if healthcare is in fact nationalized, it will drastically reduce the quality of healthcare in America.
But I can point to many countries where it hasn't. Actually I can point to more countries with better healthcare than us with a socialized aspect, than I can to ones with without.
See this chart from National Geographic for example.
Nice job missing the point. I was referring to the 'defend his country against his government' part. The (Federal) government is the issue, and the biggest danger to a sane existence.
Yes and no. Would you rather live in a place like Somalia where there is no government or regulations? Government exist to serve the people. It can reach into excess, but it also can be a great force of good. Often it is both. The roll of the vigilant patriot is to maximize the good aspects while minimalistic the bad.
I view state governments, and local governments as an equal threat to the federal government. The smaller the government, the more likely it is that crazed minorities will be over-represented. I don't agree with Reagan, obviously, some government is a good thing, no government is a very bad thing.
Government should provide benefit to the governed. We disagree on the scope.
To me the government disenfranchising the poor is as big of a plight as any other. Or letting corporation do what they want to harm others for profit. The government turning a blind eye on the suffering of its citizens is something that we should fight against.
You should pay more attention, that's not what they're doing. It's just that 0
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Sure...before that you need to give back personal responsibility, self respect, and "take back" the entire media first.
Good luck. People want it this way. They are stupid and deserve to suffer. The few can always find ways around things...thats what power is.
A single informative mod is still too much.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Really? So there are some 6+ billion people out there just waiting to help straighten out US government excess?
Many of whom already realize that they'll have to deal with the USA one way or another.
Yeah.. I'm sure if the GP sent out a call for help, he'd get credible responses.
Asking for what? Someone to solve his problem, unlikely. People to participate in port blockades and such around the world timed to coincide with his actions, etc, to put more economic weight behind them, likely.
The GP is right about being one of 300 million.
If we're talking only those willing to be inconvenienced then it's closer to 300 of those.
But this isn't just some local issue. The USA using treaties to force ruinous and stupid policies on the rest of the world will eventually touch everyone.
If he whines about poor zoning rules he's likely on his own, if he asks for help in ensuring better elections or protecting threatened voters he'd get it.
If its more important to have the US market available for your products, then perhaps your country needs to fix its domestic economy issues so as to support the political structure that suits you.
In other words: "If you don't want to be taxed, tariffed, and blockaded, merely force everyone in your country to live by these new laws."
Ah.. from "well sure, if I'm willing to go to jail" to "do things that will get you sent to jail."
From? To? No, just pointing out that the same penalties exist everywhere but he's at the source - the RIAA is lobbying his government, his government is threatening mine and by extension me. If he leaves he gains no safety, or choice, but merely loses whatever power he has.
Not only that, but massive destruction and murder are your suggestions. Brilliant!
To get your country back they seem like a perfectly fair, and small, price. Imagine how King George would have described the war for American independence?
Usually when politicians get hung for vote fraud it's treated as just and reasonable punishment for treason, not murder. And yes, you might find it an essential step to getting honest government, bastards rarely get voted out.
You're killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq, destroying so much it's unbelievable, and you're whining because I point out that you'll need to fight for change... Dumping some tea(DVDs?) in the harbour? Burning an office building? These are massive destruction? Your failure of scale amuses me. That doesn't even approach what they spend lobbying in a year.