Slashdot Mirror
Executive Order Grants US Gov't New Powers Over Communication Systems
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama has issued a new executive order: 'Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.' EPIC reports: 'The Executive Order grants new powers to the Department of Homeland Security, including the ability to collect certain public communications information. Under the Executive Order the White House has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.' A few key excerpts from the exec order: 'The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) [National Security/Emergency Preparedness] communications policies, programs, and capabilities. ... Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration; .... (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate."
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Yeah, Mr. O. - we can see your "transparent" government now :-(
Who needs "checks and balances"...
he already has. the black helicopters are in the air.
Because I'm not cranky or old, but the forefathers would've absolutely despised a measure such as this. It's more or less a Quartering Act on the communication network, giving them the right to seize for their own purposes in the state of an emergency.
Why does it always have to be black helicopters coming to get you?
We prefer the term African American helicopters, thank you very much.
Read the Exec, Order. This is not about monitoring specific communication, it's about maintaining the integrity of the communication network so that in the event of an emergency communication doesn't go down.
For those of us in NYC, we should remember core telephone, pager, and cellular infrastructure going down back on 9/11...circuit congestion was through the fucking roof, and someone is turning a "must make communications possible" into "BB is watching you."
The spin is disgusting, and the brainless will never actually read the executive order and understand it anyway. Da govment gona take my phone! Dey do this in E-jupt and Ly-bia. Fucking retards, the lot of you.
My civics may be a bit rusty but my understanding of executive orders is that they are used to further describe legislation that has been passed (i.e. laws) and outlines what federal officers (in the broad sense, not LEOs) are to do to execute the law.
From just the summary, this doesn't seem like this is the case. This seems like a sweeping "I want the ability to do this but not willing to pass it through congress."
Can anyone with more civics experience clarify this? Don't get me wrong: both sides have done this. But want to know how things "should" be.
We don't live in Shouldland.
The first thing that came to mind was a classic Cold War movie called Seven Days in May (1964). There was a shadowy group within the Pentagon called ECOMCON. Watched the movie and see if any parallels jump out at you.
The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Does giving the Department of Homeland Security affect this, by being able to collect information on it's citizens? Are people still able to peaceably protest when the minute details of their lives are in the government cloud?
"Maury, I am out of control. Yeah, I use drugs. I can do what I waunt, biatch! Yeah, I have sex, and I don't use protection! It's my hot body; I'll do what I waunt! I don't go to school and I kill people! What-evah! I'll do what I waunt!" - Eric Cartman
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
Have you heard of QoS? Do you get that there are ways to achieve the stated goal without seizure of a TV station or undersea cable or the like? And that this is already something implemented in the regional and nationwide EBS? Shit, you go nuts when the government has two departments with the same name (what a waste, fire them all!) but when they try to put something important like EBS under one roof, you have a conspiracy fit? Makes me glad I am not a politician. You know why they don't give a shit about what you think? It's because most of you (especially the vocal ones) are fucking nuts!
I thought the Federal government already had the power to pre-empt normal communications infrastructure in a time of national emergency. For example, pretty much every radio or TV station, as well as all cable systems, must be able to be activated to broadcast a message from the President. It's part of the EAS that's usually used for severe weather warnings. I thought that the government also had the authority to "commandeer" those facilities if necessary for communications
Isn't this more-or-less extending that same power to the internet? Talking about "continuity of government" sounds like "when we've been hit by a nuclear bomb, we're going to make sure we can communicate by whatever means necessary". You know, the cold-war era thinking about second strike capability and command and control and so on.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I agree with the past four or five administrations' policies. Anything that results in the collapse of New Rome can only be a good thing, for all but the uber-rich-uber-useless fascist elite. Good for the common American, good for everyone else on this planet who is sick of wars for profit and the negative-value media endemic to U.S. corporate lobbying.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Yahoo is currently running this Reuters article, in which we are told quite the assortment of lies about US spy agency operations. The spokesman expresses acute concern about respecting the privacy of US Citizens, and claims that US Spy Agencies do not spy on US Citizens except as absolutely needed for anti-terrorism operations. Wow, what a pack of lies!
I wish to, once again, remind readers about ECHELON, the UK/USA global signals intelligence system. We already know, from numerous leaks that have occurred over the years, that the USA intercepts all the electronic communications it can get at, regardless of whether or not it involves US citizens. We already know that the NSA avoids its prohibition on spying on US citizens by swapping data with non-US spy agencies that are allowed to spy on US citizens (e.g. MI6). So, please, don't be fooled by the outright lies and disinformation currently spewing from the marketing wing of US Cyber-command. They see everything, they examine everything.
Note that NSA et al can penetrate public key encryption via the QC system they have had online since the late 1990s, so any PKI-based cryptography tool is transparent to Five Eyes. I'd like to suggest one excellent truly open-source encryption tool which, while it is not perfect, probably renders your actual words opaque to ECHELON.
Well, I could sure use a few more checks...
Yes, but the paperwork says they were built in Hawaii.
Typical.. read the summary that is flat out wrong, and go ballistic... First it does not grant power over communications, as in all communications, it is for the governments own emergency communications.. second there is nothing about seizing anything... here it is read it for yourself.. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Please. This is supposed to be a post-race society, where they are simply helicopters, and it doesn't matter what color they are on the outside, or how big their rotors are, or whether they have sliding or swinging doors, or whether they like to mate with other helicopters of the same model or not... what matters is that they are all helicopters, valuable in their own right, and all equally capable of coming after you.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
won'd do you much good if you don't have a positive balance in your account...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I am sure many would express that parent's sentiment, regardless of this article or its summary.
So, is your suggestion to make the government less like Libya by letting it do whatever it damn well pleases, answering to no law or democracy?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Every time I think our President can't go any further in breaching civil liberties, he manages to do it again.
Obama is signing his own political death warrant.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Those showers? Would they be showers in Zyklon B? [This post is not subject to Godwin's Law, since it does not mention the H person]
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
Are you fucking high? He's just continuing the particular policies of George W. Bush and the general policies of every President since Reagan. The worst part about Obama is that he HASN'T changed anything.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Executive Order != legislation. The President cannot enact legislation. All an order can do is give certain organizations power that the President already holds. If he doesn't hold them already, he cannot designate them to another body, which means TFA is probably wildly exaggerating what the order actually means.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
...what? A conspiracy theory as the first comment? Well damn.
I always love coming in to these threads and seeing the internet tough-guy Libertarian/Survivalist bravado and lack of reading comprehension.
This order mostly pertains to emergency management and is directing the DHS to consolidate disaster communications and to appropriate civilian and commercial assets when necessary. You know, like during an emergency.
Which they already have the power to do.
Which isn't a conspiracy, because this is exactly the sort of thing that government does when force majeure is at work.
But hey, don't let me rain on your parade. The frothing at the mouth end-is-nigh rants are precious, as are the "Don't Tread On Me" breathless defenses of your individual liberties, which only seem to be important when Democrats are in office.
The Usurper
We've heard of QoS, but do you seriously think some self-important bureaucrat either has heard of it or gives a shit?
You have a point; this site is full of ranting, flaming assholes who freak out first and (maybe) find answers later. So, here's the document - http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-
For supporting and voting for this supreme ruler. And you thought Bush was bad, we are all so much better off now. Transparency, my ass!
All the new taxes^H^H^H^H, err mandates are gonna really hurt this middle class citizen.
Probably because the people who gave us "the warning" also told us that he's a secret muslim, a communist, going to put gramma on a death panel, etc. and should be ignored, completely.
As if Mitt Romney or any other Republican in government wouldn't do the same fucking thing...
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
Crap. I just ordered a new router. Why can't the Prez just buy one of his own instead of pinching mine?
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
No possible way this could go wrong. The government is always here to help us /sarcasm.
sudo make me a sandwich
He's doing a great job protecting us! I hope he uses the internet to hunt down each and everyone of you racist haters and turn you into the IRS! Or send you to Gitmo! Or just fuck you up!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
False dichotomy fallacy is fallacious.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
Yeah, they'll fuck us even more! Great message, there. Guess we'd better continue supporting the devil we know, huh?
Is this the best they could come up with in light of the poor showing of the Emergency Alert System during the national activation test a while back?
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
False dichotomy is false. Stop playing this like it is my team vs their team. There is one team there. You don't get a say, you don't get to play.
Upon a careful reading of the actual executive order, I find, in my humble opinion, that the order does none of things that are being ranted about. First, the bulk of the order are instructions to DHS to develop policies and procedures to ensure that communications will survive in the event of a national emergency. Second, it does allude to ensuring that federal needs will have priority during emergencies, a privilege the government already enjoys. Third, it carefully notes that the authority of the FCC is not being superseded by the order, and that the FCC has control over any communications channels that have been assigned to the federal government, i.e. DHS does not. Frankly, it reads as a get your act together directive, not a sweeping grab of new federal powers.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
If we are talking about real, water-based showers for cleaning people, I think that there are more than a few Internet denizens who would die of fright at the prospect.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
Dear President Obama,
Fuck You.
Boy are you going to be surprised when you read the rest of the stuff in the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
I suggest you start handing out "Fuck You"s to Richard Nixon
(his abuse of the law is the reason our first Emergencies Act was passed)
and then work you way up through Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
My gramma is a bitch! I wouldn't want her on a death panel - she'd be voting to kill everyone she saw!
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
1. Executive orders only affect those government departments and agencies that the President controls.
2. The President controls every department in the government.
3. The President can, and in the past has, issued any kind of executive order that he wants, in effect becoming rule by fiat, unless Congress countermands it by enacting legislation, which in the entire history of the country, has never been done.
Therefore
Executive Order = legislation
The country right now is full of people who don't actually know what the President has done, but are perfectly happy to listen to Fox News or otherwise make up their own stories about what he's done, and then hold him accountable for it. Look at the healthcare law - if you poll Republicans about the specific provisions of it , they're hugely in favor of it, but then when you ask them what they think of the President's healthcare law they're vehemently against it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I see your niave good intentions, and raise you a commerce clause.
As if there would be any doubt whatsoever about this being abused! Hah!
He didn't. He correctly stated that if "their guy" (as GGP put it) lost, "his guy" would have done the exact same abusive shit.
"Executive order grants US government new powers." Funny, I thought only the Constitution had that authority.
Then that is their own failing. Like him or not, let's give Obama hell for the things that he actually does, and not go apeshit over made up bullshit.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
The current administration only uses the parts of the constitution it likes. All others be damned.
Just wait....
On a positive note, they may be able to harness the energy of James Madison spinning in his grave.
Horse shit. That is all. All of this "radical socialist" stuff is pure grade-A horse manure. I'd go into details, but you won't believe me anyway. I'd tell you to look at the facts, since they stand for themselves, but you obviously haven't looked at them because you don't much care. I mean, you obviously aren't too bothered by the possibility of spouting off nonsense.
The scary thing is that you probably believe it, and thus your definition of even the political middle is closer to fascism than anything else.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
the question is WHEN and WHY do they do it. and the job for you is to base your opinion on those whens and whys, not base on your opinion on the fact that they can do this
for example, china will do it just to crush political dissent. invalid
the usa will do it to crush kiddie porn. valid. the usa might also do it to crush piracy. invalid. so THAT'S where oyu want to focus your criticism
but right now, your opinion just makes you look naive and ridiculous, you are not commenting intelligently on the issue. the basis for your opinion, a common invalid opinion, unfortunately, is that just because the government has this power, something is wrong. except that the government, any government, will always have this power. so that is why your opinion is invalid
you need to focus less on the fact that the police man has a gun at his side, and focus more on the procedures of his police department that say when it is valid for that police man to pick up his gun and shoot you
what you don't get, and never will get, is a police force who don't have guns
(this is not the time to point out the police forces in the world that don't actually carry guns. it's just an analogy, you don't dispel the usefulness of an analogy by being overly literal about it)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
roflcopters
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
How is that not "seizing" private resources?
No, they're Italian-American. That's why they make a wop wop wop noise.
While I don't like the idea of big brother, big brutha is way scarier. The first half is all scary but the end of it looks ok. These changes could be read as a means to ensure that say communications to utilities and services have the ability to stay up during say a huge network flood. As we move into a more electronically controlled world we have an increasing amount of things that absolutely can not be taken offline and it looks like this might be a way of addressing some of those issues.
http://interserver.net/
I needed help removing the death paneling from by basement.
The war on terror was lost perhaps at 9/11 when they let that happen and used it as an excuse for evil stuff until now.
You know all about 9/11 so you know that it wasn't treated like a criminal case but they did use it as an excuse to start wars.
Enabling^W Patriot Act, Schutzstaffel^W TSA, Gestapo^W Homeland Security, do we get a Night of the Long Knives too?
Shouldn't they be focusing on creating jobs, fixing the economy, reducing the deficit? Instead they are finding more ways to gain power and further control the people they are starving and milking, to fund the military establishment and their interest groups. No tinfoil needed...
Yes, you get to play, pick heads or tails.... and then state others don't get an opinion since they didn't pick either humpty or dumpty.
Heil Obama-Man!
Oh please, every president since Reagan has been an absolutist tyrant, and you can bet whoever is elected in 2012 will be even worse.
I think that in this case, Obama may be worse than 'whoever', simply because he will become a second term president. Second term presidents have nothing to loose if they go off the deep end because they can not be re-elected for a third term, so why play nice? Second term presidents really don't give a shit about anything other than making a complete power grab. (Although Obama has done pretty well in that department already)
Face it, our government is corrupt and the election process is so completely broken - It has been for decades. Effecting change simply by voting is no longer possible. From what I can see, there is really no difference between the various political parties anymore, only differences in their candidates 'pet projects'. You will never see a president who is actually 'for the people' anymore - they have all been bought off by the super-rich and mega-corporations. If an honest man (or woman) were to be elected who really was trying to help 'The Masses' and return freedoms and civil rights that have been stripped off over the last 60 years, they would be stone-walled by both the Senate and Congress.
I see people here and there speaking of a revolution, but I don't see it happening. Yet. Some of the smarter ones are waking up, but on the whole our nation is still full of people that are willing to go along with this crap - just so long as they can buy what they want to make themselves feel better. I really despise sheeple, nearly as much as our corrupt government.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Sensationalist and very wrong summary.
I don't expect much from slashdot as of late, but i expected better than this.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Maybe you should refresh yourself on executive orders - they are by definition law, and therefore are legislation without representation. They bypass congress. They have essentially unlimited power. They can only be overturned by the court system and the courts don't have to be informed about them if they are classified as national security. The only people that have to be informed about executive order in this case is the national security council. Oh, and yes, it is a given right to the President in the Constitution.
The summary is a troll...
Go to the Executive Order and search for seize. I read through the whole thing and I don't see anything about giving them the authority over private property. As others have said, it reads more of a "get your act together and sync up with the other departments in case of an emergency" directive..
Too bad we can't mark summaries as "Troll"
Whoosh.
Geez...and people were seriously worried about Bush Jr. trying to 'go imperial', grab power and stay president past his term.
Even he didn't go for a power grab THIS broad.
Seriously...the govt can take over private sector machines? What constitutes an emergency to trigger this takeover....emp? China cyber attack? Bad election returns?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Too many checks throw things out of balance.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
(his abuse of the law is the reason our first Emergencies Act was passed)
and then work you way up through Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr.
.
Fuck them too.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
What an amazing pile of horseshit. Who created the the DHS in the first place? Bush. Who set the US on this path to begin with? Bush.
The US was on the road to being a fascist country long before Obama, so spare everyone the pathetic "See!? It's all the damn liberals fault!" bullshit. Did you know that by the time Clinton was kicked out, the US was on the verge of becoming financially stable and was gaining respect in the eyes of the rest of the world? Then he got a blowjob from an intern, got fired, and then Bush came in and in one fell swoop he took the first US surplus in years and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, started several unnecessary wars, and calcified the country into a big mass of xenophobic hysteria.
What bothers me most is that Obama campaigned on the promise of undoing the damage Bush caused but once elected, he decided that he liked having such power and chose to stay the course instead.
Instead of smugly burying yourself in your little mudpool of myopic pseudo-conservative (and I stress pseudo-conservative because there is nothing conservative about it...) nonsense, maybe you should try looking at the reality of it:
The Democrats are not liberal, and haven't been for a long time.
The Republicans are not conservative, and haven't been for a long time.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have become (with a few exceptions) become corrupt bastards that are joyously marching the US into a fascist state.
Not magic. Logic, as you said.
Since I do not, in fact, have "a guy," nor could he know if I, or anyone else, did, he was clearly not addressing from a position of known fact. Combined with the implicit accusation/blame in his tone, and the fact that he ascribed possession ("your guy" instead of "this guy") betrayed that he has an alignment of his own in the race. Logic dictates that "his guy" is not the same as "the guy that won," otherwise he would have said "our guy" or, more likely, not said anything in the first place.
And since humans are a sick, twisted, and vile species that only become more so when put into position of power, it holds logically that "his guy" would have done the exact same thing, no matter WHO his guy is. And the post you responded to mentioned on specific "guy" by name because, regardless of whether he was the original poster's "guy" or not, he is, for all intents and purposes, the only one who is a credible rival for the current "guy's" spot.
FDR fucked us all. Reagan was late to the party.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
John Kerry wrote a significant amount of the Partriot Act, perhaps the majority of it. Things have changed over the past 30 years. In the 70s and into the 80s, the Republicans were the party that wanted government to tell you how to live your life, but these days it seems to be the democrats telling me what light bulb or shower head I can buy, trying to ban violent video games, outlawing toys in happy meals, and in general trying to force me to live a virtuous and sinless life.
I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4."
What do we need to do to clarify and severely limit Executive Orders? Constitutional amendment, or could congress pass a bill that would define this presidential power to specific limits?
No president should be using this to, in essence, "create legislation"....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge.
I truly do believe that.
both parties are evil incarnate but one is a little (just a little) less evil than the other and in vastly different ways.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country. repubs think just the opposite.
on that, alone, I will never ever vote R. those scumbags would do whatever they can to make this an american taliban country.
no matter what the D's do, they are not hell bent (heh) on turning us into a 'christian nation'. again, that, alone, is enough to keep me from supporting any R. and once you get people who think they have a god connection giving them permission to fuck you, OH BOY will they fuck you (and I'm not just talking about catholics and little boys...)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
When someone else posted it in a different forum. I read it again just now in case I missed something.
AFAICT, the order applies *only* to government operated communications infrastructure. I'm not sure, but I think it's within the Executive Branch's purview to manage and harden the communications infrastructure *that it already controls* It is the *Executive* branch after all? Who is supposed to do this? The Judicial branch?
You guys need to go outside and get some fresh air or something. Or maybe stop drinking so much coffee.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
My problem with executive orders is they are nearly impossible to over turn. The courts have been reluctant to over turn them and doing it via legislation is next to impossible. Since in order to do so you have to be able to override the President's veto of the legislation. It is kind of disturbing that a President, if he so desires, can very nearly rule by decree.
I dunno. I mean, we're seeing time, and time again how Obama is pushing for more Federal (and presidential) power concentration, and erosion of citizens'/states' rights and privacy.
He swapped his vote/position on the Telecommunications act awhile back...has shown nothing but support for Patriot act renewals, and now this.
Again, it bear saying: The definition of "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and over again...and expecting a different outcome.
I'm not a huge Romney fan....but while he is pretty much an unknown when it comes to these issues....we downright positively know how Obama and his administration treats and supports these issues.
I don't really see them repealing or even easing up on these types of issues and legislation on a 2nd term unrestricted by the need for re-election...do you?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If the corporate-owned news organs could no longer placate an angry public, they would definitely think it an emergency.
Meh. Every President at least as far back as JFK has issued Executive Orders like this, giving the President broad powers to seize all sorts of stuff should there ever be a "national emergency." It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
I'm not thrilled with Obama doing it, but let's not pretend this is some novel, new thing that previous Presidents wouldn't have dared.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
But that one is not necessarily the guy he supports. Whether he's more likely to win or not is irrelevant.
It's relevant in that it justifies using his name. But yes, I did cover that. 6000 years of recorded history is sufficient, I think, to conclude that no matter who the AC above supports, the outcome would have been largely the same.
"as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that."
I don't doubt you do believe that. The problem is it's 'O' that's done it... not a "republican". There's been more shenanigans from the "D"s (because they had total control for two years) with regards to both executive and legislative maneuvering than I can recall ever.
Is it because the Dems are bad? No. It's because they had total and supra majority control.
My vote for president as a rule of thumb is for the candidate who is of the OPPOSITE party of whoever controls congress. Some of our best and most productive years as a nation have been when the two branches are in opposite party control.
You are arguing now that mccain and sarah palin would have run the USA better. That is what you are arguing, just so we are clear.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
well, executive orders are there so that when necessary the president of the usa can act as the king of the usa.
it's not "without representation", it just happens that the representation is just one dude.
oh and the check system is that if he acts too much like a douchebag then someone of inner circle will just stab him, pretty much exactly like with kings(revolution discounted).
how sophisticated is that??
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
I just re-read section 5.2 (which deals with DHS) for the *third* time. I don't see that anywhere in the order. This is astroturfing, and not a very good example of it either.
Geez! The US government is already doing enough stupid/illegal/unethical things already. No need to fake up any more. Unless, of course, the goal is to discredit the Obama administration in advance of the election. I mean, it's one thing to say the the gov't is spying on *everyone*, killing civilians, wiping their asses with the bill of rights, etc, etc, etc. The problem is that this is nothing new -- the Republicans are just as guilty of all of these things as are the Democrats.
Whatever. Trolls are gonna troll.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge.
I truly do believe that.
Then I truly believe you are narrow minded.
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Hey, if you're going to misquote things, why stop there? Why not just use the quote:
It's all meant to be used only "during a crisis or emergency". "to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP [national security and emergency preparedness] communications under all circumstances".
I honestly don't see why this Executive Order was even necessary, considering the law can already commandeer vehicles in cases of reasonable necessity. If there is a crisis, it is your civic duty to assist if the authorities request it. How would communications equipment be any different?
Basically, it sounds like the Prez got sick of yet another issue that seemed to get stuck in congress, so he went ahead and passed it anyways.
Karma: NaN
But usually it only takes one check to balance it out. ;)
Check out my world simulator thingy.
No let's instead pretend that since it has happened before, we should downplay its current significance by citing the past.
Congress. Signed by a President. Not yet overruled by the SCOTUS
THIS is different. It is an Executive Order. Do you really not know the difference? Or are you so blinded by (D) good (R) bad ideology that you will simply make any excuse for this?
The Patriot Act was bad, but both parties voted pretty much lockstep with each other to do it. Blame the (D) and the (R) for that one. (313 yea in the house 98 yea in the senate). So quit blaming GWB for that, it was practically EVERYONE ;)
Can you see the difference now?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Which is quite logical and consistent. There may be parts of the legislation that are worthy and legitimate, and if you poll people on those parts, they will respond positively. But will that same person support a law that's over two thousand pages long, that no one in congress has actually read, that no one is quite certain what it will do? Well, it's pretty reasonable to say "Umm, no - I don't think I can get behind that."
But please, don't let a little rational, critical thinking stop your party bashing. It's great for mod points, after all.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Well, the way I see it...Biden cancels out Palin. Both are blathering idiots....
I'm just as worried about Biden being one step away from the Presidency as I would have been about Palin.
That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Frankly...looking back to that elections...likely the person to do the best would have been Hillary...out of all the serious contenders. We'd have her...and Bill in the shadows advising, and while I disagreed with MANY of Bill's beliefs and policies...he was for the most part a decent president and made some good decisions, and I think is MUCH sharper thinking than anyone we've been talking about here....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Obama judges people by how their face looks?
FC Closer
Given that the previous EOs long these lines never amounted to anything, why assume that this one will? Because Obama's an EVIL LIBRUL? Or what?
Check out my world simulator thingy.
That's true, but the fact of the matter is that the bill doesn't work without it. People never like the price tag on something. And other states have tried to implement the popular provisions without the mandate, and what happens is exactly what you'd expect - only risky folks get insurance, since everybody else can get it if they need it, and the costs are through the roof. Put simply, insurance works best with a large risk pool. I personally think that one single pool would be the largest of all, and thus cheapest per member, but the single-payer system got voted down.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Fair enough, even if I disagree (any important legislation is going to be verbose) but the objection wasn't that the law was too complex. The objections were over "death panels", or "socialized medicine" or what-have-you. None of which was in the bill, but that didn't stop people inventing reasons to dislike it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Since it is part of an amendment, we would have to amend the constitution to limit this power.
Politicians need checks from lobbyists to increase their balances.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
This is basically true of all executive orders. They augment the executive's implementation of laws passed by the legislature.
caritj.org
Too many pirated copies of "Snow White".
Pretty sure he's not a liberal...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate; How is that not "seizing" private resources?
First off, the government has *always* had the ability to pre-empt communications in the event of an emergency. Have you ever heard of "The Emergency Broadcast System?" This is nothing new. The order says nothing about seizing or shutting down communications. It talks about being able to marshal resources in the case of an interruption in government communications. Have you taken your halo-peridol today?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
If I only had mod points.
The problem isn't with which party is in charge, it's with how much whoever is in charge can do. I'm not calling for anarchy, but an awful lot of our problems stem from too much centralized control, not too little.
For those of you cheering the health care act's penalty, just think what you would say if the other side had exercised such power. For all of these executive orders, what if it were the other side? Just a hypothetical for you: now that Obama has successfully issued an executive order to DHS to not process certain illegal aliens, and that executive order has been defended by a large number of partisans, will those same partisans defend a Romney executive order that directs the IRS to simply not collect any penalties levied by the ACA? How about a Republican "tax" on abortion procedures? Would you be ok with that since you recognize the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual mandate as a tax under the taxing power of Congress? Would those pundits who cheered the decision still feel the same when its precedent is used on a subject contrary to their ideology? What about an individual mandate to purchase a gun or pay a penalty if you don't? After all, crime costs us just as much as those free riders at the emergency room. If you're worried about guns being used irresponsibly, we'll just create a mandate for all employers to provide safe gun ownership training and one hour a month at the shooting range. Feeling better about those ACA precedents yet?
Regardless of sides, the last 8 years have seen an unprecedented consolidation of power that can and will be abused by either side. The only fix is to get involved in your local politics and start getting people into office who will vote to cut back federal (and state) powers. The more demand there is for that kind of politician, the more of that kind of politician we will see. If you disagree with the Tea Party (who is for smaller government, but maybe not the parts you would like to see shrink), then get out and start your own movement (no, Occupy doesn't count - it's a failure as a political movement). No matter what, the future of America rests in its ability to walk back these power grabs and reestablish a constrained government with narrowly defined powers.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
No leftist agrees with this administration's policies. Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Meh. Every President at least as far back as JFK has issued Executive Orders like this, giving the President broad powers to seize all sorts of stuff should there ever be a "national emergency."
Eh, "every president at least as far back as JFK" was a president after the two great advances of hyperfederalism, i.e. reconstruction and the new deal. Nobody's pretending it's a new trend, but it's damn infuriating when every damn president, despite claiming to support either "small government" or "social liberties", marches right in line with his predecessor, pushing federal power an inch further. Obama is perhaps the most frustrating to today's youth, since he ran one of the more populist, throw-the-bums-out, real-change campaigns in recent memory. And of course, since it happened today, not 4 years ago.
It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
The former may be unclear, but the latter is completely clear.
There's certainly little constitutional need for them, as anything the executive has the power to authorize in advance, he has the power to authorize when needed. And while one might think that, by declaring his presumed powers beforehand, the President opens them to scrutiny that could result in them being declared unconstitutional and illegal (thus, that unchallenged E.O.s would be confirmed within the President's lawful power), this is just not the case -- until some act is taken pursuant to them which harms some state or citizen, nobody has standing to file suit, thus the courts cannot rule on it.
Regarding obedience, see Milgram's famous experiment on the subject; orders pursuant to these E.O.s will be obeyed by federal agents, exactly as any other orders (or the same orders, in the absence of the E.O.) would be, and nobody at your local ISP will stop the men in body armor and guns when they come through the door. (Note that obedience depends principally on the authority's immediacy, which is a huge part of why we have such long chains of command and so many layers of bureaucracy -- so each person is receiving an order from an immediate authority, not a voice from Washington. They will obey.)
This.
I just like to piss off the guy who gets annoyed when people use "This" ;-)
Better to be pissed off than pissed on, no? Unless you're into that kind of thing of course. :)
Go ahead. Mod me offtopic. I just couldn't resist.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I have to agree. I am pretty solidly Conservative/Libertarian, but I have to admit that Clinton was a pretty good President.
In hindsight, Hillary would have been better than Obama.
Also in hindsight EVERY SINGLE WORD of Obama's stellar speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 has turned out to be a LIE.
An executive order can be overtuned (in a maximum of 4 years) by the public with their votes. (kick the bastard out of office and replace him with a new scumbag).
Or by congress through the power of empeachment (tried twice, never succeeded completely).
This is mostly incorrect. Executive orders only allow the executive to exercise powers conferred upon it by some other source, such as directly by the constitution (such as in some situations involving national defense and commanding the military) or by laws passed by the legislature. Typically they allow the president to order federal agencies (which are [generally] part of the executive branch) to alter the manner in which they carry out the laws congress has asked them to execute. Congress may give the executive more or less freedom to choose how the law will be applied, but it must always be within the meaning of the language congress passed.
If you read the executive order in question here (I know, I know...), you will see that it at least claims to have been authorized by a number of laws, but particularly The Communications Act of 1934.
This means that not only can executive orders be overturned by the courts, they can also be effectively overturned by the legislature by altering the authorizing legislation, or they can be "overturned" by future presidents who can simply supersede them with new, incompatible executive orders.
caritj.org
Here's the actual EO. What's the money quote that shows the teeth of this order? Here is the best I found, but it doesn't seem too nefarious on the face of it.
Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: . . . (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
As if Mitt Romney or any other Republican in government wouldn't do the same fucking thing...
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
So, are you saying that the Democrats motto has changed from "Hope and Change" to "The Republicans Are Just As Bad As Us"?
True. He is center-right, or a "moderate" if you prefer.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
in a state of emergency, do you want the government to be able to function if necessary to defend the US population and assets? We all do, the catch to it is, the government can declare an emergency at any time and take over the communications grid to lock out non-sanctioned comms. It's a catch 22, you want them to be able to do this while at the same time not infringe upon your rights as well. You can't have both unless you want the government to spend billions on building an entirely private communications network.... oh wait.....
This is a very healthy way of thinking. Definitely insightful. Wish I had mod points today.
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
> I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country. repubs think just the opposite.
Translation: I personally think we have too many people who believe DIFFERENTLY than I do in this country. Repubs think the same.
Your beliefs are just as 'faith based' as the most diehard Pentecostal, Muslim or Scientologist but you, like them, have convinced yourself that yours in the Truth and therefore the others are False and it is therefore OK to suppress them.
It is fun being an Agnostic because I get to laugh at all of you equally. :)
Democrat delenda est
You can’t support the Fascisti and not expect Fascism!
We have to categorically state that there is no qualitative difference between FoxFiction, CNN, NPR and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! --- none will ever address the real issues --- it’s always political theater!
We still have to battle on voting rights because those who fought for it once, allowed themselves to either be overshadowed by the Fascisti, or to now support them. Please don’t mention to us the name of Andrew Young, who once took bribes from the BCCI, and worked for them as a consultant, and is now a member of the lobbyist group for the international super-rich, the Bretton Woods Committee (brettonwoods.org).
Please don’t mention to us the names of Rep. Conyers or Charlie Rangel; we recall meeting with them many, many years ago, when the Black Congressional Caucus was bribed (received heavy donations) to create and successfully lobby for the passage of the legislation which removed defense-related jobs from the prohibition list --- thereby allowing them to be offshored with the affiliated tax breaks for shipping those jobs out of the country, along with a chunk of the GDP.
In the present, the disingenuous Joe Biden, just prior to a national tour for campaign contributions, goes public with a positive pronouncement for Gay marriage, thus “causing” President Obama to do likewise --- and their contributions rose considerably as a result.
Simpleton Gaytards are ecstatic --- ignoring the fascist record of the Obama administration on due process, habeas corpus, and their Gestapo raids for preemptive arrests of activists.
Ignoring the Obama administration’s financial support in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Honduran government; ignoring their tacit support for the Saudi military incursion into Bahrain to shoot the protesters there; ignoring the abomination of the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers and obscene use of the Espionage Act in the subversion of democracy.
Support the Fascisti, and you have fascism!
Today Wall Street presents the electorate with the usual fascisti choices: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, assuring the continuation of the fascistic march to neoserfdom oblivion.
Only the most ignorant, the most simpleton, the most morally lazy, would embrace either of those depraved characters!
Highly paid propaganda specialists proclaim that America has made much progress as the latest Wall Street stooge in the presidency is only half-white instead of all-white, much like one retail brand claims to smell better than its competitor.
Negative! It stinks to those of us who refuse to support the Fascisti!
All politics have been reduced to one part branding giveaways to Wall Street (cap-and-trade for the oil companies and banks) as a positive for the public welfare or the environment, with the other side attacking it for nonsensical reasons (not the obvious and truthful ones).
Wall Street will now enjoy their second-tier bailout in the guise of a health insurance bill which ensures a one-half trillion dollar money flow --- but does nothing to increase access nor decrease costs, with the staged legal battle to ensure the Supreme Court’s decision to set the legal precedent for the privatization of taxation.
Vile cretins, claiming to be democrats and progressives, seek donations for ever more giveaways to Wall Street!
Democracy has long been lost --- the Fascisti have long since won.
The treason of the people is moot.
> Meh.
Exactly. Nothing to see here, move along. This is the sort of thing we kinda want the government doing. You don't want to do disaster planning on the fly, it really is better if this sort of thing has been thought through and precautions taken ahead of time. National defense is actually one of the powers delegated to the FedGov. And maintaining reliable communications across a nation as large as this one is, especially when including territories, under any imaginable scenario isn't a trivial problem.
A quick look at my posting history will tell ya I am no Obama fan, but this story just doesn't fire me up to an epic rant or do much of anything.
Democrat delenda est
Whatever do you mean, BUSyqtH? ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Because the US Army's Special Activity uses black helicopters, douchetard!
Yeah, especially since the summary turned out to be a lot of baseless hysteria, and the EO is actually about protecting our communications systems in the event of an emergency--not the government "seizing" them.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
The USA Patriot Act came from Congress, not the President. The President does not have the ability to force legislation through Congress.
This is an Executive Order, which comes from the President, not Congress.
Should have voted for President Maverick instead of President Hope & Change...
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama and Romney's campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Cited in the executive order: 47 U.S.C. 606 . (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/pdf/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.pdf). Congress passed legislation authorizing the president to do this in 1934.
caritj.org
> but I have to admit that Clinton was a pretty good President.
Look back at the first two years and imagine that extending out to eight and you wouldn't say that. It was Clinton tempered by the Newt that turned out pretty good. Either one was unstable by themself but somehow they made it work. In other words, we got lucky. Obama is proof that sort of thing can't be relied upon and that electing dysfunctional poster children of the Oprah Generation is a really bad idea. Not sure swinging the pendelum all the way to a straight laced ramrod up his butt boy scout like Romney is a good reaction to the problem but since that is the only choice remaining....
Democrat delenda est
Bush DID grab the power to spy on all communications in the U.S., without a warrant - remember that whole "Warrantless wiretapping" thing and "carnivore" that sorted through your e-mails and text messages. The difference is that Obama publishes his orders where they can be critiqued, and thus gives us a chance to object and bring suit to prevent it.
You'd think people would have longer memories.
Forgot my link to the authorizing legislation:
47 U.S.C. 606
PDF: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/pdf/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.pdf
HTML: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/html/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.htm
caritj.org
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Which is why I only clicked to the actual EO before commenting. I already knew what sort of breathless 'black helicopter' crap would await at the EPIC link. Amazing the vortex of stupid that can happen when Libertarians and the Left converge on an issue.
Democrat delenda est
Executive Orders are not law since they are not derived from legislation nor has an Executive Order ever been challenged in the USSC since the only organization which can challenge an Executive Order is the Congress. And there are no secret Executive Orders since they have to be published or they are not an order.
Yup. I'm always skeptical of this doom-and-gloom sort of crap, anyway. I went through all that with Bush, and somehow, the country survived. Unless Obama really is Satan incarnate (or a socialist Kenyan Muslim terrorist, I'm not sure which is worse), then there's not too much to worry about--at least nothing of the apocalyptic proportions people like the submitter would have us believe.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Why is it that people like you are perfectly happy to stomach a power grab contrary to the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, and excuse a circumvention of proper representation through Congress, by insisting that THIS President wont abuse it? Is it ignorance or denial that keeps you from reconciling that every future President and administration now has the same powers?
I don't particularly care if the guy in the oval office today is the most benevolant, magnanimous and righteous person to have ever graced this Earth (and I dont believe that for a second). Its his duty to understand that the office may not always be occupied by such an angelic human being, and granting that future President the ability to have dominion over the populace is grossly irresponsible at best, and in conflict with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Well, the way I see it...Biden cancels out Palin. Both are blathering idiots....
Nightmare scenario time - there's an unusual volcanic erruption that causes a cloud of particles to go up from the middle of Russia, or satellites and missile detection systems identify this as a possible ICBM launch on a massive scale. You are handed the football. Before you are two paths, in one, McCain is incapacitated and Palin is sitting in the oval office talking to generals and trying to figure out whether to counter-launch - the other scenerio is identical, but its Obama who is incappaciated and Biden is in the hot seat. Pick.
Crazy scenario that never happens? Actually, it almost did..
That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
McCain circa 2001, who was against invading Iraq, against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, against torture, etc... yea, that guy I would have been honored to vote for.
That was not the McCain who ran for President.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Ahh, the fallacy of buyers' remorse: What I got isn't what I expected, so what I didn't get must have been the better choice!
6 words to fix that flawed method:
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
I believe they call that being "hoisted by his own petard;" He scuttled his own campaign the moment he decided to join the fray.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
An executive order can be overtuned (in a maximum of 4 years) by the public with their votes. (kick the bastard out of office and replace him with a new scumbag).
So, when we voted Bush II out, all the B.S. executive powers he gave his office went with him?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Why do any of you actually believe that the President is "of the people or for the people"? It is NOT his job. The representation of the people is the House of representatives. Originally, the Senate was representation for the State government, the House was for the people, the President was for the enforcement of laws and the command of the military. This belief that the President is there for the people is amusing.
It's JEWS who control your Congress, and JEWS who are behind this - and all so that they can prevent people like me from telling people like YOU that it's JEWS who are behind it all. Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to deceive...
Your country is not a democracy, it is ruled by unelected Jews who decide EVERYTHING that happens. They control your entire media, they control your government, they run the Federal Reserve and most of the fraudulent, fractional reserve banks, i.e. they print money from nothing and then YOU have to pay it back with REAL labour and REAL assets, and they get your children to fight their wars for 'precious' Israel.
Had enough yet? Why don't you mod me down, like you idiots usually do... Soon you won't need to- because your unelected Jewish 'masters' will have taken over the entire internet and deleted the word 'Jew' from every website that uses it...
[I know. Don't feed the trolls. But this amuses me.]
As a life-long member of the International Jewish Conspiracy (yes, my dues are paid up), I can tell you that the annual reports don't bear out your claims. It all goes back to Yuri Avram Fooliscz, the administrator of our vast conspiracy in the 1970s. We were well on our way to total world domination when Yuri read 'Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. This convinced him (and that "Jews In Space" skit in "History of The World, Part I") that the best way to dominate the earth was from secret bases in the asteroid belt and a command and control center at a LaGrange point on the far side of the sun. Unfortunately, our Judo-nauts kept getting their peyas caught in the equipment on our spacecraft and this never really happened.
Ever since then, we've been wasting our power, money and influence to make this happen. So, instead of getting fat quarterly checks and a smug sense of self importance from ruling the world, all I get is a dreidel at Chanukkah. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Very true point. Clinton's Presidency was vastly improved by Newt.
You believe they are actually on different teams?
Have you seen "The Obama Deception" on youtube? I was going to type a long ass rant, but will save the trouble. Just watch that movie please.
Read this wonderful 2 thousand year old story. Then ask yourself why a majority of American's know more about Celebrities and Sports than they do about Politics. It is not a new story mind you, through history we have seen the same thing repeated over and over. It never ends well for the majority that get shammed by people in power.
There are so many indicators that we are in deep shit, yet very few will talk about them. These types of executive orders dismantling the constitution are not new, but recently they have been quite drastic. Corporate controlled media will not talk about them. I watch and listen to the "News", but can assure you that there is very little "News" to be found.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country. repubs think just the opposite.
on that, alone, I will never ever vote R. those scumbags would do whatever they can to make this an american taliban country.
no matter what the D's do, they are not hell bent (heh) on turning us into a 'christian nation'. again, that, alone, is enough to keep me from supporting any R. and once you get people who think they have a god connection giving them permission to fuck you, OH BOY will they fuck you (and I'm not just talking about catholics and little boys...)
The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledegook than the rest of the world put together.
-- Sir Peter Medawar
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
I don't know. 8 Years of GW Bush was proof enough for me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
And yet the polls of Americans asking specificly about personal mandate provision are overwhelmingly in opposition. The capstone that holds the whole thing up relies on something that the people (not just Repulicans) oppose.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/240002892
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
The Democrats know anything like this whether it's legislation or an Executive Order is going to simply give Republicans another club to beat them with, yet they still introduce these ridiculous, hard to read piece of shit edicts that piss everyone off. Anything that you need a logical brain to understand or more than 5 syllabels to explain won't be read, will be intentionally overblown in the press and will automatically be a commie plot of some kind. And the idiot masses will lap it up.
Obama's started multiple wars in other countries that are no threat to the United States (unlike Iraq)
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
Edit: fixed copy / paste fail
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
Uhm, what now? The only significant piece of drug policy I could find that came out of the FDR administration, The Marijuana Tax Act, was actually ruled UNconstitutional, despite being an exercise in taxing authority rather than drug law per se.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the existing carte blanche for drug prohibition currently wielded by the federal government, was signed into law by President Nixon.
Did you know that by the time Clinton was kicked out, the US was on the verge of becoming financially stable and was gaining respect in the eyes of the rest of the world? Then he got a blowjob from an intern, got fired,
Clinton served 8 years, both full terms. He was never "kicked out" or "fired"
That's fine, Bradley Manning has room in his cell for a buddy.
It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
It's only unclear to people who are incapable of reading 4,500 or so words OR people living in Washington, DC. Everyone else knows they're unconstitutional.
This space intentionally left blank.
It is stuff like this that makes it obvious the US is run by one party with two marketing departments.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
So....how's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
Well...I'm still "hoping" things will "change." But since both major political parties seem to be trying to one-up each other on the fascist dictator scale, I'm not holding my breath.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The USA Patriot Act came from Congress, not the President. The President does not have the ability to force legislation through Congress.
Then please tell me why the GOP calls it Obamacare. I've been saying this for a long time; it was Sen. Max Baucus (or rather, his aides) who wrote the health care bill. It should be called, if anything, Baucuscare.
But the GOP won't use that technically correct term because there's no built-in animosity in their based toward Sen. Baucus the way there is built-in animosity toward Obama.
:(){
If you think the D's are any less intrusive, any less offensive or any less evil than the R's, then you really haven't been paying attention for the last four years. Obama has only expanded upon the crap that Bush started.
The only substantial difference between D's and R's is the method they want to use to control you. D's want to control you financially so they can take care of everyone; R's want to dictate your morals. Neither is acceptable to a free man.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You mean "Attractive, Successful African American helicopters," I assume.
Besides, these days it's not helicopters they'll send.
It'll be killer drones.
I can see the fnords!
Bush did the same stuff. One party, two marketing teams. They throw us bones to fight over on gay issues but on important issues there is little difference.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Interesting. Because the individual mandate was originally a Republican concept, invented as an alternative to First Lady Hillary Clinton's proposal for universal coverage back in the 1990's. The idea was to provide a market-based alternative to single-payer medical care. Hypothetically, it's not a bad idea, especially if there are minimum standards for coverage and a non-profit, government supported "last chance" option in the market.
Who knows, it could have set a precedent as a new way to provide health care for all in industrialized countries, but burdened as it is now with exceptions and limitations to insure maximum profits for certain industries, along with all the ideology-driven politics and misinformation campaigns, it's doomed.
I can see the fnords!
How would Obama help to strengthen the middle class? And why? A strong middle class erodes any political group's power base, but the Democrats have set themselves up to be particularly susceptible. Growing entitlements effectively taxes and inflates the middle class into extinction. Furthermore, there is no logical path to get from "all-powerful central government" to "people who are empowered." How can an agenda that dissolves individual sovereignty bring power back to the people? It's a fallacy.
Maybe you "dunno" but eight years of Bush pretty much drove the point home that Repubs are statists--in the name of freedom, of course. There's really no need to pretend that we don't know that a Republican administration would have achieved more erasure of civil liberties as they relate to telecom. Repubs are against gov't unless it is trying to involve itself in your pants or ensure your false sense of security through authoritarianism. That said, no one should be surprised by this executive order. Gov't seeks to control. President Romney, should that fuckwit win in 2012, won't rescind this order, will pile onto it, and will eagerly sign any new, over-the-top PATRIOT Act additions (for Jesus, the children, or whatever). The president after that, no matter which party, will do the same.
You can see this error - not knowing what our President has done - even in your own post.
Obama didn't write the ACA. That was Senator Max Baucus and his aides.
:(){
I don't know. 8 Years of GW Bush was proof enough for me.
How convenient of you to forget Lieberman and all the other democrats who backed him up. Nobody can do this alone. The population should take a good look in the mirror as their enablers. But noooooo...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yet who is financing their efforts?
Wait, you believe that the EBS has the rights to seize property? Um, no it does not! They must have access to communications channels, but it does not have the right to seize property.
Where this is very different, is that now a department (at least 2 actually, the wording for who actually has authority is rather abstract) need no warrant and no legal judgement in order to seize property. There are zero definitions of what defines "communications", so servers, phones, buildings, homes, automobiles, etc.. can all be subject. There is no definition for continuity of executive communications, so the wording (while not seemingly nefarious) is extremely vague.
And of course if you don't like it, you have the last paragraph telling you to go pound sand up your ass and that it's for your own good. At least this is consistent with most executive orders.
(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Only for certain values of 'liberal' and 'democracy.'
I can see the fnords!
You know what they say: Once you go black (helicopters), you never go back (to your wife and kids).
Considering that the presidency is a ceremonial position, it really doesn't matter who they put in front of the camera. McCain and Palin would follow orders just like everyone else.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Precisely. It doesn't matter what the facts are, the country holds the President accountable. I know the Congress is the body that makes and passes laws, but either most people don't, or they don't care.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Since when does "use" mean "seize"? Putting out a press release is using privately owned communications resources.
(copied from my other post)
That's true, but the fact of the matter is that the bill doesn't work without it. People never like the price tag on something. And other states have tried to implement the popular provisions without the mandate, and what happens is exactly what you'd expect - only risky folks get insurance, since everybody else can get it if they need it, and the costs are through the roof. Put simply, insurance works best with a large risk pool. I personally think that one single pool would be the largest of all, and thus cheapest per member, but the single-payer system got voted down.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
he already has. the black drones are in the air.
FTFY
Will draft for food...
What about in this election where no one party controls the whole of Congress?
I wish I had mod points --- I am 100% in agreement with you. Very well written.
Shock - I'm in agreement with an AC!
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
I don't know. 8 Years of GW Bush was proof enough for me.
How convenient of you to forget Lieberman and all the other democrats who backed him up. Nobody can do this alone. The population should take a good look in the mirror as their enablers. But noooooo...
I'm not letting those guys off the hook. the OP was saying that there was no proof that Obama would be better than Romney. I elucidated. All the other hangers on (Lieberman included) help fuck us over too. But we can't get rid of those folks (have you looked at the record of incumbent advantage for re-election in both houses of Congress?) unless we catch them with cold cash in the freezer (a democrat) or tapping toes in an airport bathroom with a cop (a republican).
In any case, your point is, while an interesting and valid one, wholly tangential to the topic at hand. Thanks for playing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Nice fancy talk there, but it amounts to little more than fanboiism. I've been watching this back and forth since Eisenhower. The OP is correct. And we can get rid of them by voting for somebody else. But everybody's afraid to take a chance. We are the cause and solution to all our problems.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And our current rush in before election and changed his vote to support this action, in spite of his earlier speeches against said communication intrusions by the feds....Obama still supports and is behind these acts.
I agree...you'd think people had LONGER memories...and broader ones too that reach beyond party lines to see that this president is as bad as the previous one in every form and fashion.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
This is why I tell my friends I think the Democrats and Republicans are working together. The goal is for the Republicans to look so outrageous and scary that Obama can do outrageous and scary things and still look like the better option. McCain and Palin played their role well, making Obama look like a hero while he signed off on everything the rich and powerful wanted. Now Romney is playing his role well, and Obama continues to sign off on everything the rich and powerful want.
They think Obama's past 4 years has been about strengthening the middle class, and they want 4 more years of it. War is peace, y'know.
In interviews, Jesse Ventura compares politics, specifically Republicans vs Democrats, as a lot like his former pro wrestling days. On stage they pretend to hate each other and they fight, but it's all choreographed for maximum entertainment (or, for politics, to make people think they have a say) and at the end of the night, they change back into their civilian clothes and go out drinking together.
In the US, I'm coming to think that speech is "free speech" because it has no value, and that countries that squash speech do so because it's still powerful. After all, if voting could change anything, it'd be illegal.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Nice fancy talk there, but it amounts to little more than fanboiism. I've been watching this back and forth since Eisenhower. The OP is correct. And we can get rid of them by voting for somebody else. But everybody's afraid to take a chance. We are the cause and solution to all our problems.
Fanboiism? Please. Read some of my other posts on this thread.
In any case, I did vote for somebody else. Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Look what that got me.
You are under the common delusion that we actually have a chance to affect our national government. Until we get the money sewer out of our political system, our strings are going to be pulled by the super-rich, big corporations and other moneyed interests. The saddest part is that those empowered to change the system are the folks who derive lots of benefit from it.
Government is not the problem. Corruption, cronyism and bad governance is the problem.
Oh, and I've got your fanboi right here, bud.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
And exactly what has he done so far to promote the middle class? Hmm....I see he's wanting to cut the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K....but that isn't going to boost the middle class (in fact, if said couple is running a small business, and it is set up to have business income, etc fall through on personal taxes...it will likely hit them worse).
So far, I've not seen numbers that show Obamacare will help the middle class any...if anything in a few years it might hit them again.
I hear Obama extolling the virtues of raising the middle class...but I see very little action and no specific ideas being put forth. Please enlighten me on all the things he has done and has specifically laid out that will raise the middle class.
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That's a good question. I'd lean on the "Senate is stronger" of the two houses side -- so if that looks like it's swapping to the "R"s I'll probably vote for myself or a 3rd candidate for pres. I can't see myself voting for Obama after all the shenanigans. Too many Czars -- too many executive orders, too many bogus" recess appointments and a complete lack of willingness to work with the other party after mid-term elections slapped him down. THAT stuff (the doubling down on persevered power grabs that obviously people don't like) freaks me out as someone who believes in the separation of power.
I was happy that Clinton was in office when congress Reps took control of congress. I was happy Bush was in office when the Dems took over congress. Both instances stopped some pretty whacked spending plans and actually got *SOME* reforms pushed through -- and the system worked the way it was DESIGNED to -- SLOW AND DELIBERATE AND FILLED WITH COMPROMISE.
If we end up with Obama for another 4 years, I hope to god we have a strong republican house and senate. One willing to push for constitutional challenges on executive orders -- and that maybe -- just MAYBE -- he'll tilt right and COMPROMISE if TWO elections put a more conservative slant to our legislature.
How about "no one said zero government"? Who could want "zero government"? I'd like to see half as much government - then lets see whether things are better or worse and do a binary search from there. But then, I'm a geek.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Take away from the rich until everyone is equal and do this via total government control. It's been tried already in USSR, China and a few other countries that chose this ideology. And yes, you Obama fans will argue that the other guys just didn't implement it well - WAKE UP - if you divide all the wealth equally amongst all people we'll all be poor, there will be noone to give you a job exept for the govrnment.
Which is the problem. Both parties are devout Statist parties, leaving people are not particularly as pro-State, or who are anti-State, out of representation. Basically, no matter who is elected, they will never represent us; ergo, taxation without representation.
And yes, while one candidate or another may rescind something here or there, on the whole, they're still coming out ahead. When you look at the political issues presented as decisive in today's press, don't you get the feeling that they're making mountains out of molehills? That the problems they should be focusing on they are in total agreement on the solution, and its one that none of the masses actually thinks is more than mirrors and smoke?
I am John Hurt.
There in lies the problem. While one would like to believe that the military is always at the top of their game when it comes to disseminating illegal orders, in the case of a major event, would they still have the wherewithal to adequately consider the ramifications of their actions? Remember, authoritarians always seek to expand their power base during moments of conflict, and once achieved, they rarely give it up.
I am John Hurt.
I just can't follow this reasoning. "Republicans ... telling you that you can't use birth control" and "You're upset because the government is "forcing" you to buy a particular kind of light bulb? Grow up.".
Birth control is legal. There was a recent debate over whether employers could be forced to buy insurance that provides coverage for birth control. There has been no debate on actually outlawing birth control recenty (are you stil stuck in "30 years ago'?).
OTOH, traditional 100W incandescent bulbs are in fact phasing out starting October.
One party used to try to ban stuff, the other sucessfully bans stuff, and that has really changed from 30 years ago. Don't be so blinded by "my side is always right" that you miss the changing landscape. Both parties now have a history of trying to meddle in my daily life - screw em all, give no one that kind of power!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Eberyone would eliminate evrything but the program they like, naturally, which is why we get nowhere. We can't cut the "service the debt" portion of the budget. If we cut everything else by half, we'd barely have a balanced budget. It pretty much has to be everything, or eventual collapse. Yes, even that one program you really like.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So? Note the phrase "American parents" in that. His parents were American citizens at the time Mitt was born and he was born on US soil. The Natural Born clause does not require that the parents be themselves born here, only that they be Citizens at the time. At the time I don't think the concept of dual citizenship existed so if the parents were citizens the child couldn't have any other loyalties. The better question mark is Rubio: there is some debate as to when his parents achieved US Citizenship.
There is a good question of how George Romney was qualified to run in 1964 but his candidacy was so brief that apparently no real oppo research was initiated against him so the subject never came up. But even then, both parents were American Citizens with undivided loyalty even if the child was born while abroad. We have already enshrined the notion that being born outside the strictly defined territory of the US can be acceptable when by unamious decree of Congress it was determined that Senator McCain was qualified for the office even though he was born at a U.S. Navy facility located on foreign soil. None were willing to publicly dispute that the offspring of a U.S. Naval Officer on active duty service to the United States qualifies regardless of where born but it does put the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
Democrat delenda est
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Well, I can understand his confusion. They are becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
You still got it backwards, and just can't admit facts. And, for your further edification, It is the public that rewards corruption, cronyism and bad governance (usually for a perceived piece of the action) that is the problem. Until you make the first step, you are doomed to eternal suffering and angst.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But we can't get rid of those folks . . . unless we catch them with cold cash in the freezer (a democrat)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your party nominated William Jefferson in the 2008 primary after he was indicted. It took the Republicans and Independents and Others to kick him out in the general election, and even then by less than 3 points.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
You still got it backwards, and just can't admit facts. And, for your further edification, It is the public that rewards corruption, cronyism and bad governance (usually for a perceived piece of the action) that is the problem. Until you make the first step, you are doomed to eternal suffering and angst.
Clearly I'm wearing the blinders of ignorance. Because the rivers of filthy lucre in our political system is clearly my fault. I regularly write to my representatives to make sure they're getting enough money from special interests. Especially those that hold positions that directly contradict my beliefs and notions of fairness and ethics.
Please enlighten me to those "facts" I can't admit. I am but a humble learner a your wizened feet, learned one! Please free me from the shackles of ignorance and the tyranny of self-deception.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I'm tired of the two parties picking the most milktoast of candidates or worse, picking the most radical because "he is not Bush".
My wish, is really simple. It is for people to get out of the (D) bad, (R) good (or visa versa) mentality and realize that there are some good ideas on both sides of the isle .
What I wish we had, was a real discourse on ideas, not ideology.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But we can't get rid of those folks . . . unless we catch them with cold cash in the freezer (a democrat)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your party nominated William Jefferson in the 2008 primary after he was indicted. It took the Republicans and Independents and Others to kick him out in the general election, and even then by less than 3 points.
And Marion Berry (another democrat) while he was Mayor of DC, was caught smoking crack in a hotel room with a hooker. He was convicted, served his time and was then re-elected Mayor of DC. Your point?
Oh, and thank you so very much for telling me who my political party was. I didn't know. Seeing as you're so much more knowledgeable than I am about my thoughts and philosophy, why don't you come over to the house to play with my kids and fuck my wife too? Not my party, jackass. As has been pointed out many times, there's only one party -- the party beholden to the monied interests.
I wonder how far I can get with that jar of change on my fridge?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The OP comment wasn't about whether GWB was good or bad, it was that things would be clearly worse with him as President vs. Obama. I'm just trying to figure out what the difference between the two is.
Bush:
*Started two wars (Iraq, Afghanistan)
*Huge deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Obama:
*Kept up the wars, and added a few more military campaigns
*Huge(r) deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Help me out here. What is the big difference between the two?
Wow... sensitive much?
You said you voted for both Gore and Kerry. If you are not a Democrat, you are at least supporting them by your voting record. When was the last time you didn't vote Democrat?
Anyways, the point is that we can't get rid of them* even if we catch them with bribe money in the freezer or a crack whore in the motel room. I'm actually reinforcing your point, but you appear to be too busy defending yourself from perceived slights on the internet to actually read a post.
*Or at least, the blind public who vote along party lines won't get rid of them.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
As a conservative, I see this oppositely: hte stuff Democrats want to regulate affetc no one but me, but the "private" life decisions the Republicans want to control (well, wanted to 30 years ago, now they most want people to just shut up about it all) affect society as a whole.
Funny how intelligent people with differing values come to different conclusions from the same data, isn't it? So, either let the other side regulate all the stuff you think they have no business regulating, or reject totalitarianism (becuase that's where increasing power gets us), and decide government can have less power over our daily lives again, and see how that goes?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"One should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered" - LBJ
Ironic, given who it came from, but a lesson to learn anyway.
Stop Koolaid Politics
"Don't even introduce the tools of tyrrany," he said, knowing nobody was listening.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact? Given he's done exactly nothing to help the middle class and lots to do drastic harm to them, your position is extremely weak.
To wit: Deficits and debt on a scale the world has never seen with no end in sight, exploding entitlement programs with never ending commitments and nothing but a desire to further expand them. Exactly how does that help the "middle class"? Who do you think is going to be paying for this or are you just assuming that we'll just soak the rich for all of it?
Hope and Change my ass.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
They think Obama's past 4 years has been about strengthening the middle class, and they want 4 more years of it. War is peace, y'know.
QFT.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Help me out here. What is the big difference between the two?
Why I prefer Obama:
Supports marriage equality (half-heartedly at least)
Ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Recognizes that immigrants make this country a better place
Was willing to at least tackle health care reform, even if the result wasn't wonderful
Energy policy not as successful as GWB (probably the most successful policy* of GWB's administration)
Doesn't pander (as much) to his political base (unlike another presidential candidate I can think of) with downright dotty campaign rhetoric
[those are enough for me, but here's a less serious one]
Doesn't have a Sith lord for a VP as his predecessor did
I have plenty of issues with the Obama administration, with Congress (both houses) and with our corrupt political system. As my father used to say, "I treat politicians with the contempt they deserve."
*GWB Energy policy: Line the pockets of the energy companies
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Kerry wrote NONE of the PATRIOT act.
Funny, he claimed that he wrote several sections on his 2004 election campaign website, and was proud of that fact: no "soft on terrorism" candidate, no siree.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Wow... sensitive much?
You said you voted for both Gore and Kerry. If you are not a Democrat, you are at least supporting them by your voting record. When was the last time you didn't vote Democrat?
Anyways, the point is that we can't get rid of them* even if we catch them with bribe money in the freezer or a crack whore in the motel room. I'm actually reinforcing your point, but you appear to be too busy defending yourself from perceived slights on the internet to actually read a post.
*Or at least, the blind public who vote along party lines won't get rid of them.
I voted for Gore and Kerry because their opponent was clearly unqualified the first time and even more so the second time. That's not to say that either Gore or Kerry were any great shakes either, but were clearly the better choice over Dubya and Darth Cheney.
In any case, perhaps I did overreact a bit. My apologies. You're still welcome to come over and fuck my wife (if I had one). I really dislike many of the political choices I've had to make over the years, but until we have full public funding of elections (with free airtime for candidates) and zero contributions to candidates or parties (all monies for elections managed, disbursed and audited by an impartial NGO), we will continue to see this race to the bottom. It disgusts me.
Just to clarify, you raised my dander by suggesting that those thrice-damned corrupt scumbags (of both parties) feeding at the lobbyists trough were somehow affiliated with me. I take umbrage to that. Again, my apologies if I was rude.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It's time for a reboot of at least one of the parties a' la what happened to the Whigs back ages back. (For those that don't know their history, the Republican party spun out of the Whigs for very much the same style/sort of situation we see today with things...).
Right now, they're just flip sides of the same corroded coin.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How can you possibly compare limiting birth control with limiting inefficient lighting? One of these things is a substantial infringement on your ability to choose how to live your life. The other is minor technology change with an inconsequential effect on your life. To compare the two is nonsense.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
rather than Corporations that are able to do whatever the hell they want becuase no one has the power to stop them including the government,
And yet the Corporations gain most of their power through their control of the government. Weaken the Government and you weaken the big corporations rely on it for everything from direct subsidies to protection from foreign competitors to regulations that place a disproportionate burden on smaller domestic competitors to laws that keep us from exercising our rights of ownership of our electronic devices.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
He did? I thought he was impeached... Oooooh, my bad. I missed the aquittal. FYI for anyone else reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Better yet why not call it Romneycare since it was based on the plan he advocated for in Mass? Or Heritagefoundationcare since Romneycare was based on a plan they advocated for? Oh yeah, cause then the conservatives would have to admit this plan they claim to hate so much was their own idea and they only oppose it now for partisan reasons.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You sure are one to play the victim card. When did you learn to feel so helpless? What the hell is the matter with you people? The door is open and you refuse to walk through.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
From the EO:
So government communication takes precedence over all other kinds of communication.
They can "seize" when this new "committee" decides it's necessary.
He also revokes Reagan's EO which says this:
That EO says the government must maintain its own facilities, and outlines war powers and non-war emergency powers, but says the government has to make sure its own crap works in emergencies. This new order says the new "committee" has the authority to ensure that private communications assets work in emergencies so that the government can seize them when such an emergency is declared. The committee also has the authority to decide when such an emergency exists.
No tinfoil required, to see this as another power grab.
My teacher in Bible college told the class that story. I'm surprised that it was that old. I guess that I wasn't paying attention.
Thanks for sharing.
testing out my trending skills
India yields a larger harvest, and the US is following closely behind.
testing out my trending skills
There is going to be over a billion dollars spent on each side of the Presidential race this year. Those donations by JP Morgan, Google, etc.. are pennies in comparison.
You likely don't know very many of the people that are really buying our elections. A few of them get caught in the spotlight from time to time, but not many. (Sheldon Adelson, Koch Brothers, etc..)
Of course many of those individuals do benefit from loser restrictions on places like JP Morgan, because they may have 10's of billions invested. But some of these rich donors have been very candid about having strong ideologies that are driving their donations. The probable increase in their fortunes is a side benefit for some of them.
And don't get me started on Supreme Court Justices attending events that are obviously political strategy conferences... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/koch-brothers-funds-secretive-gathering
People need to wake up. I'm honestly unsure even where to begin in combating this level of near fascism and corruption.
"The republicans in the senate have made confirming appointments nearly impossible and have confirmed fewer of Obama's appointees than any other previous senate."
Really? The senate had a supra majority on Obama's side and could push ANYTHING through for a healthy chunk of the "last 4 years".
The president needs to be able to control all communications in order to stop the counter-revolution after he takes over. That would be a reason enough under this executive order to take control of the country's communications systems. Fait accompli. We lose.
You sure are one to play the victim card. When did you learn to feel so helpless? What the hell is the matter with you people? The door is open and you refuse to walk through.
Not so good recognizing the sarcasm, eh? sigh.
I don't walk through your door because you make no valid arguments as to why I should. Perhaps you should try some. Then again, that would require some actual work form you rather than just trolling.
If you actually have something useful to say, I'll listen. Heck I might even be persuaded. I suspect that rather than holding your own beliefs (except the one where you're always right) strongly, you just blather on reciting someone else's talking points.
Have a lovely evening.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I heartly agree!!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"The definition of "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and over again...and expecting a different outcome."
Actually, that's the definition of operant conditioning.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
My wife immigrated to this country by following a tortuous process involving countless INS office visits and hours of waiting, interviews, telephone book sized application submissions in which one un-dotted 'i' could get the whole process derailed, and my parents and myself having to pledge our assets and future income if something should go wrong and she ended up unable to support herself.
Obama and liberals want to give a free entry ticket to people who have no respect for the laws of this country as evidenced by their willingness to enter it illegally. But I am supposed to believe they will "make this country a better place?" You really must be borderline sociopathic to be so unable to empathize with the position of those who immigrate legally and to be unable to understand how deeply disrespectful and mocking of their legitimate efforts it is to coddle illegal immigrants.
Unless of course you are willing to publicly declare right here and now that anyone has the right to enter your house at any time and start making themselves a meal with the contents of your refrigerator, and offer up your address, then you're nothing but a bloody hypocrite.
When the pricetag is a surrender of rights the people should always be in opposition. Even if they think they are getting a great deal they arent, and they are choosing a loss of freedom not just for themselves but for all later generations.
The people oppose single payer because they understand that it is giving up choice. While a single payer system may give choice to some it inherently takes choice from others. When you govern by taking freedom from one to give to another you have deviated from the purpose of the Constitution. The irony is that you have tried to address inequality by dictating exactly that, and it frightens me that so many people seem completely ignorant to the fact.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
They were. Way to stay informed, average American voter.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The "head" is the government, plain and simple. The fact is that crime has been committed, and the government is committed to ensuring it doesn't get punished. As long as that continues we are a kleptocracy. The OWS morons were whining at the banks. Well who let those banks continue to exist? The free market? A free market would have all the primarly broker dealer's CEOs standing on Wall St. with "will work for food" signs! The ones that didn't get sent to the slammer, that is. This, this, is the truth, if you can handle it: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=208374
True. He is center-right, or a "moderate" if you prefer.
That's a European term. In the US, we call that 'godless, heathen communist'.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Do you seriously think that in any situation that could reasonably be described as a "national emergency", any US administration *wouldn't* take control over privately owned infrastructure?
In the event of something like a coordinated cyberattack (like what we, or perhaps the Israelis, did against Iran, but possibly worse), in the absence of previously established policies security officials would simply make up what they're allowed to do as they go along. If the effects were severe enough, these officials would do this with the enthusiastic support of the public.
Personally, I think it is sounder government to make the claims about what you are allowed to do *before* the emergency comes up, giving people who disagree with you a chance to have at it. It'd be easy for an administration to claim it'd never do something like this, because it'd know damn well that all those assurances would go out the window the instant the electorate felt threatened.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree with most of what you said. The big problems that have arose, I think, have been in the federal government taking away state's powers for really bad reason and even no reasons at all. It has been a utter disaster in most all cases and yet they have no intention of returning power to the states. That's why the spin machines of BOTH political parties made sure to try their hardest to get the "crazy" label attached to Ron Paul. Maybe not all things Paul would do if he ever got in would be the best, some might be a disaster. But how much worse is that then what we have now?
I have to laugh every election year, or lead ups too, that we have people decreeing for change, for different out comes, yet the guy that has different ideas then the same old that has gotten us where we are is disregarded in favor of people that tow the same lines, year after year.
What would it take to get a government (and president) in the US that actually respects the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of ordinary Americans?
Or is the US so far gone that nothing can ever fix it?
They are now only wanting to keep the cuts for under 250k for a year. Just enough to get through the election. That one is a goner too.
Honestly though, look at how much Obamacare is going to cost. We have to get the money from somewhere, even if it means oppressing every class income. I think it's all a bunch of crap, but if your going to play give everyone freebies, then you really should jack the taxes up. Then maybe people will vote against the freebies.
I mean, really shouldn't that be the way it works? If the government spends massively, shouldn't they tax massively? If the taxes are to oppressive to the populace then they will revolt at the polls, and government will contract. Spending on deficit is just an artificial temporary anomaly, and it hides the taxes in future problems instead of just facing them now.
I agree with this. Personally I prefer a democrat president and a republican controlled house and senate like we had with clinton/newt. Those guys hated each other but they forced each other into a balanced budget, something we haven't had since.
You know, I actually do believe in a two party system, because even in countries where there are multiple parties, they still just all gang up and make a two party leading system with a majority and a back bench in play. However, I find myself leaning more and more heavily libertarian. I mean, I don't do drugs, but fuck it you can if you want. I don't use hookers, but if someone wants to make money with their crotch, whatever.
I mean if we had a strong libertarian party I don't think we would see schools shut down, the borders dissolved, and the military dismantled, or some of the other more zany libertarian stuff, but I think it would however go a long ways to push to shit that just makes sense. At least we would have some folks that would stand up and make other politicans look stupid for trying to legislate right wing morality, or liberal ethics.
My wife immigrated to this country by following a tortuous process involving countless INS office visits and hours of waiting, interviews, telephone book sized application submissions in which one un-dotted 'i' could get the whole process derailed, and my parents and myself having to pledge our assets and future income if something should go wrong and she ended up unable to support herself.
Good for you and your wife. I hope that you have very happy lives with many years of joy together!
Obama and liberals want to give a free entry ticket to people who have no respect for the laws of this country as evidenced by their willingness to enter it illegally. But I am supposed to believe they will "make this country a better place?" You really must be borderline sociopathic to be so unable to empathize with the position of those who immigrate legally and to be unable to understand how deeply disrespectful and mocking of their legitimate efforts it is to coddle illegal immigrants.
Please, believe what you want. Say what you want. Disagree with me. That's one of the great things about the US.
I don't tell you what to believe. I told you what I think. If you decide that makes me a borderline sociopath, that's your prerogative. For myself, I'll allow medical professionals to diagnose me, should that become necessary.
I do empathize with immigrants. My father emigrated to the US. Both of my mother's parents were immigrants. I think immigration is one of the best things this country has going for it.
Unless of course you are willing to publicly declare right here and now that anyone has the right to enter your house at any time and start making themselves a meal with the contents of your refrigerator, and offer up your address, then you're nothing but a bloody hypocrite.
Hey. that's actually a pretty good straw man. Very nice. Keep working on that and someday, someone might actually bite.
I'm a little confused. I expressed the opinion that Obama believes that immigration (I didn't specify what sort of immigration, so I feel I'm justified in thinking you're projecting) is good for this country. I assume you believe so too, otherwise your wife wouldn't be with you right now. How did you get from "Immigration is good" to "You're a borderline sociopath"? If I had to guess, I'd say that your experience with the INS/ICE was stressful and traumatic. That sucks. It shouldn't have to be that way. However, it seems to me that by redirecting your ire at me, you're just avoiding the real source of your pain. Perhaps you should see a therapist.
I wish you and your wife the best of luck for long and happy lives together! Hopefully, your insurance covers mental health treatment. Have a great night!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I'd say from the available evidence that Obama is most likely a communist/socialist with Muslim roots in much the way that most American socialists have Christian roots. But communism is a religion (albiet a godless one) so you can't really be one AND a theist. Not a terrorist but sympathetic to their goals and like most of the professional left seem enamored with violent anti-liberal thugs to the point of making excuses for their violent means of achieving their ends. Because in their secret hearts they lack only the public support to use violent means themselves.
He wasn't born in Kenya but unless the reason for hiding the birth cert is to hide a dark family secret, he is not a Natural Born Citizen in the sense of the requirement to be POTUS. Being born in HI makes him an American Citizen but it requires both parents to be a citizen at the time of birth to qualify as Natural Born and BHO Sr. was not and was never known to have even contemplated naturalization.
For a guy who just wrote about "breathless 'black helicopter' crap" two comment above, you are very hypocritical.
And exactly what has he done so far to promote the middle class? Hmm....I see he's wanting to cut the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K....but that isn't going to boost the middle class (in fact, if said couple is running a small business, and it is set up to have business income, etc fall through on personal taxes...it will likely hit them worse).
Vast majority of middle class families do not earn $250k+.
So far, I've not seen numbers that show Obamacare will help the middle class any...if anything in a few years it might hit them again.
Obamacare will help everyone with "pre-existing conditions" and not enough money to pay for a full treatment - which, again, covers vast majority of middle class as well.
Your beliefs are just as 'faith based' as the most diehard Pentecostal, Muslim or Scientologist but you, like them, have convinced yourself that yours in the Truth and therefore the others are False and it is therefore OK to suppress them.
Says the guy with the sig "democrat delenda est".
By the way, not all beliefs are created equal. Last I checked, you guys bombed one country into stone age over their belief that you are all infidels and as such should die or convert. Funny how you didn't respect that belief... I wonder why that is so.
If you think making $250k/yr is middle class, it shows that you're out of touch with reality.
"MIddle Class" means "above poverty" and "below wealthy", and generally means for a family of 4 you're making between 40k and 120k. 120k-250k could be considered upper upper middle class, but 250k is definitely lower upper class.
We're talking taxable income here as well, not gross income. Business owners have lots of tax deductions, so if they're making 250k of taxable income, they're way above middle class.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
You forget that the president has very limited powers in what he can do. Primarily, a president affects change by proposing legislation, but he needs a congress that will approve it.
Even in the first 2 years, when the democrats controlled both the house and senate, it was difficult to get things done because the Senate republicans would filibuster almost everything.
I have no doubt Obama would LIKE to help the middle class, I just doubt he can get it done with a congress hell bent on blocking everything he tries to do.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I'm sorry, I have all the proof I need. It's called, judging the republicans based on their actions over the last 4 years.
Obstructing the functioning of the government, even to the point of bankrupting it is enough proof I need that the current crop of republicans have no interest in improving things.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
might want to do that because... its bad?
how about if someone held a gun to your head and threatened to pull the trigger if the situation became dire enough to them? is that okay? i mean, its nothing to worry about until they pull the trigger, right?
by the way, "LIBRUL" wasnt in my spellcheck. was that a typo or are you comically as childish as those youre trying to portray as childish?
False dichotomy is false. Stop playing this like it is my team vs their team. There is one team there. You don't get a say, you don't get to play.
Not a false dichotomy. It is a TRUE dichotomy. There are only two (real) choices on the ballet every four years.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
By listening to Fox News.
You forget that the president has very limited powers in what he can do. Primarily, a president affects change by proposing legislation, but he needs a congress that will approve it.
Even in the first 2 years, when the democrats controlled both the house and senate, it was difficult to get things done because the Senate republicans would filibuster almost everything.
I have no doubt Obama would LIKE to help the middle class, I just doubt he can get it done with a congress hell bent on blocking everything he tries to do.
I'm not forgetting it at all. Sometimes it seems I'm one of the few people I know that remember it no matter who is in the White House. That said, not a single thing proposed nor enacted would help the middle class and nearly every single thing would severely hurt them in the long run.
One cannot blame the Republicans for Obama's economically destructive agenda.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Really? not a single thing? You mean 1) Jobs act that will put many middle class workers back to work 2) Affordable Care Act that will lower the cost of insurance on workers with pre-existing conditions 3) Extending the bush tax cuts on the middle class 4) Stimulus plans that helped put more money in the middle classes hands...
And that's just off the top of my head, there's much much more.. I think you are confused about this.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The wording is subtle but there, I had to read the EO a few times to figure out where they got that statement. I'm to lazy to dig at the moment, but it's the part where it mentions using civilian property. In essence, "use civilian property" requires it to be seized. Such is the way of wording in Politics and Law, often vague or intentionally misleading.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Obama is going to be strengthening the bank accounts of the 1%, while limiting our rights. The middle class is being raped and plundered by the corporations. And Obama is helping them.
Be seeing you...
The wording is subtle but there, I had to read the EO a few times to figure out where they got that statement. I'm to lazy to dig at the moment, but it's the part where it mentions using civilian property. In essence, "use civilian property" requires it to be seized. Such is the way of wording in Politics and Law, often vague or intentionally misleading.
And I thought I was paranoid!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I'm not sure it's being paranoid, maybe how the OT phrased it would be alarmist. Vague and misleading are nothing new when it comes to Law or Politics. I would agree with you that the wording is not as nefarious as the OT hints at it being. With that said, I think given everything going on in the US a dose healthy skepticism is a good thing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
What makes you think that there wouldn't be other options in a single payer system? The NHS in the UK covers everybody, but some people pay out of pocket for better/faster care. Same with Medicare, some elderly people go "above and beyond" Medicare. Nobody's suggesting preventing that. There's no loss of choice in a single-payer system, except that taxes go up marginally to pay for it (substantially less than insurance costs are currently). But that's not a loss of freedom; it's actually why we have the Constitution (that explicitly grants power to tax) instead of the Articles of Confederation (which didn't, and thus didn't work). We wouldn't let people duck the tax because universal healthcare benefits everybody, even if it's not directly used. Same as universal education; assuming you can see through even one level of indirection, it's obvious that everybody in society is better off if everybody is educated.
Forgive me for slipping into opinion - but your attitude is very typical of contemporary politics. That is, a lot of high rhetoric about freedoms and the "surrender of rights" and so on, despite the fact that there's no such impingement. People are very loud about things they don't care to actually know anything about, which wouldn't be a problem except that people believe them. I'm not saying this is you, but you did go and write your whole "but freedom!" post on top of the false assumption that people would actually be prevented from doing something.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
It's hilarious that you think everybody but Fox News is left-wing. All it really shows is that you consider the real moderate to be some extremist position way the hell on the left somewhere. On an international stage, and even an American stage of about 20 years ago, Obama is a moderate Republican. It's only in the current warped, neo-Fascist political landscape of even the last 6 years or so that Obama is a liberal, and only in the fevered ramblings of Rush Limbaugh and the like that he's anywhere near a socialist
Would today's Republicans vote for Reagan? Probably not. Look at what they did to Romney in the primary, and even Massachusetts Romney was more conservative than Reagan (despite passing Romneycare, which admittedly Reagan probably wouldn't have done).
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact?
Normally when a sentance begins "I think" it is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. So, no, I don't actually need any citation to state my own opinion.
Now, if you want reasons for why I hold that opinion: (1) saving the American auto industry (still one of the largest employers of the middle class); (2) challenging china on dumping, currency inflation and import tarrifs placed on American goods; (3) Restructuring student loans to both allow more loans to be issued at lower cost to the government and to the borrowers; (4) increased spending on transportation and infrastructure projects (jobs now, useful commerce later); (5) multiple tax cuts he passed for the middle class; (6) opposition to further cuts for the wealthiest Americas who a, do not need them, and b, will not spend their savings if taxes are cut - the proceeds of which strengthen the Federal budget, including Medicare and Medicaid (Social security is separately supported and funded and is not on the Federal budget).
To put the issue into historical context, this has been standard procedure since 1861. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln ordered the War Department to seize the (privately owned and operated) telegraph offices in Washington and other cities. Military officers were installed in each office to censor private communication, to ensure the secrecy of military communication, and to make sure that military traffic had priority.
I can certainly imagine circumstances in the modern era where a President would want to take similar actions.
However, I am an adamant foe of the use of such powers in peacetime, and an adamant foe of the continual, indefinite, undeclared state of war that has been imposed on us and the rest of the world by the Bush and Obama administrations over the past decade.
A government takeover will hurt everyone long term.
No, a private, corporate takeover - like what we have now - is what hurts everyone long term.
Our government currently spends as much per capita on health care as most other nations with universal health care. And then we the citizens end up paying about as much AGAIN out of our pocket. We're paying twice as much for health care that's not as good as the others are receiving. So your claim that "government takeover of health care hurts everyone long term" not only lacks evidence, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
And besides, this is hardly a government takeover. A government takeover would be single payer Medicare for EVERYONE. Forcing people to buy private insurance is about as far from government takeover as you can get; it's hard to believe that you're not being facetious or trolling.
Single payer is the way to go. Why? Bulk discounts for one (you know, like the kind of bulk discounts that the Republicans refused to write into Medicare Part D). Reduced administrative overhead, because there will be one system, you won't need a stack of forms to fill out, you won't have hospitals fighting insurance companies, etc.
:(){
Oh, and to address the total red herring about using the official name, my problem isn't that they aren't using PPACA.
My problem is that they SHOULD call it Baucuscare. But they aren't. And you know why; because everybody knows they hate Obama, and nobody knows who Sen. Max Baucus is. Calling it Baucuscare isn't going to get the base all riled up.
:(){
If all the occupiers that were else where, even the violent ones out in Oakland California, all went to Washington then maybe they could have done something. Instead they chose to be fragmented all over the country to the point that no one cared. In the end all they did was cause various small businesses to close down due to them camping in front of the shops scaring away customers.
They won't admit it but in the end they did more harm then good. Their so called "leader" should also be investigated. Hundreds of thousands if not a few million dollars were donated and only some of it was spent to buy care products and handed out to the occupiers. Who knows where the rest went to.
A goernment that has the power to do the one has the ower to do the other. If you give the government that power with the hope that they won't turn around and use it for something important to you, you are indeed a fool.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Really? not a single thing? You mean 1) Jobs act that will put many middle class workers back to work 2) Affordable Care Act that will lower the cost of insurance on workers with pre-existing conditions 3) Extending the bush tax cuts on the middle class 4) Stimulus plans that helped put more money in the middle classes hands...
And that's just off the top of my head, there's much much more.. I think you are confused about this.
1) Government jobs for the most part. Which are only a drag on the economy and a net loss over all. This is harm, not helping. 2) It will likely lead to the destruction of the private insurance industry as we know it. Leading to single payer and all the suck and fail that is. At the risk of repeating others, Welcome to the Department of Health, run by the DMV. Also, I'm fairly sure that the collapse of government finances likely to result from this boondongle will impact the middle class far more than those evil Rich Guys. More harm and not help. 3) Only true if you agree with Obama's definition of the "rich" starting at 250,000 a year and only for the next year anyway. It's a campaign trick and nothing else. Besides, taxes will have to sky rocket to pay for ACA and save medicare/medicaid from collapse. 4) The stimulus has not been proven to do a damned thing except run the debt ever higher.
I'm not confused at all. You're just seeing benefits where none exist and blind to the costs of providing all those "benefits".
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
No. We have to raise revenue and keep spending down. Raising taxes is historically a pretty ineffective way to raise revenue. Having a booming economy is a veyr effective way to raise revenue. But regardless, we need to stop spending more than we actually have in revenues. If raising taxes or doing somehting else actually works, only then should we consider that increased revenue as real.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There are I think 10 titles to the Patriot act. It's been 8 years. I remember he wrote 3+ of them. That's a significant amount, perhaps a majority depending on the "+", though he was not the sponser of the bill. It's hard to search through the wayback machine, and you can do your own homework, but dismissing a statement as "BS" just becuase you don't agree with only makes you look like an ass.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What the hell are you smoking? The Jobs act was for government projects, that are performed by private contractors. Roads are not built by government employees. They are built by private construction companies. Middle class workers. Workers that are currently out of jobs.
The ACA will not destroy insurance companies. Notice that insurance companies have not been complaining about the ACA. If anything, it brings them a LOT of new business. Even in England, and other countries with socialized medicine, there are still private insurance companies for people that want higher end care, so even in the unlikely event of a single payer system, private insurance would not go away.
Yes, if you make $250k of taxable income, you are rich. No ifs ands or buts. You may not be super rich, but you are in the top 2%. If you still find yourself living paycheck to paycheck with that kind of salary, then you don't know how to manage your finances. Middle class is basically in the range of $50k-150k. I'd consider someone making $200k to be on the lower end of the upper class.
And yes, the stimulus has been proven over and over to have prevented the complete collapse of the economy and turned around the economy almost immediately. It's been slow growth since then, but it sure beats hemmoraging 750k jobs a month as we were before the stimulus.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact?
Normally when a sentance begins "I think" it is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. So, no, I don't actually need any citation to state my own opinion.
Now, if you want reasons for why I hold that opinion: (1) saving the American auto industry (still one of the largest employers of the middle class); (2) challenging china on dumping, currency inflation and import tarrifs placed on American goods; (3) Restructuring student loans to both allow more loans to be issued at lower cost to the government and to the borrowers; (4) increased spending on transportation and infrastructure projects (jobs now, useful commerce later); (5) multiple tax cuts he passed for the middle class; (6) opposition to further cuts for the wealthiest Americas who a, do not need them, and b, will not spend their savings if taxes are cut - the proceeds of which strengthen the Federal budget, including Medicare and Medicaid (Social security is separately supported and funded and is not on the Federal budget).
1) If by saving you mean nationalizing instead of letting losers fail. Then yes. If by saving you mean turning over those companies to Obama's Union pals, then yes. If we constantly allow companies to make their losses public, as long as their big enough, then nothing will ever improve. They should have been allowed to die so that others who don't need such bailouts, Ford for instance, can take their place.
2) Might be a good thing, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the "middle class".
3) Because more debt is awesome! That'll be great as tuition costs continue to rise out of control. Funny how that started about the same time that cheap(ish) government loans for every random kid to go to college became available. Coincidence I'm sure.
4) This would be more debt and more problems that we're just pushing on to future generations. If our grandkids don't string us up for the crap we're pushing down on them we'll all be lucky.
5) They are (no counting ones that were already in place)? While you're at it, don't forget to mention all the new taxes brought in recently too.
6) Tax cuts are good. If you think we can tax our way to prosperity, no matter who is paying them, then we've got a core disagreement with the way you see reality. The government doesn't, on a whole, produce anything. It is a drag on the parts of the economy that actually does produce things. If you believe that the solution to our problems is "tax the rich" or anything resembling that, then you've got a serious problem right there. As to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, these programs as they stand are going to bankrupt us regardless of how high we run the tax rate or what else we cut. It doesn't matter that SS is separately funded and "not on the Federal budget". It still has to be paid for and it still creates drag on the over all economy.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I dunno. I mean, we're seeing time, and time again how Obama is pushing for more Federal (and presidential) power concentration, and erosion of citizens'/states' rights and privacy.
He swapped his vote/position on the Telecommunications act awhile back...has shown nothing but support for Patriot act renewals, and now this.
Again, it bear saying: The definition of "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and over again...and expecting a different outcome.
I'm not a huge Romney fan....but while he is pretty much an unknown when it comes to these issues....we downright positively know how Obama and his administration treats and supports these issues.
I don't really see them repealing or even easing up on these types of issues and legislation on a 2nd term unrestricted by the need for re-election...do you?
Obama is one smart cookie. If he is moving legislation in this direction, then the reasons are obvious. The USA spy agency has determined that the American Infrastructure is frail, has no alternate backbone if it goes down, and that too much of the "traffic of significance" is encrypted and they can't find the decryption algorithm or keys to do the decryption and snooping.
So, a best offense is a good defense. If things get tough, such as interference with electric utilities, with train signaling, etc, etc, then there is a need to pull the plug or plug the ones doing the mischief.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
As an outsider of the USA looking in, I concur. In Canada, spending for elections has ceilings, and corporate spending is not allowed. Individual contributions to parties are how funding is raised. No billionaires buying a presidency.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
It's important to note what the executive order does *not* say, as opposed to what it does say.
At least when a Dem screws ya they'll at least put on a condom and ask if it was good for you too. When a GOPer screws you they'll sodomize you with a wire brush as foreplay and scream at you for being such a pussy when you start crying about it hurting so much.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
Cauterize the wound.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives.
The middle class is still disappearing under Obama, and he is now forcing us to buy a product from businesses. Repeat after me: There is no goddamn difference between voting D or R.
rather than Corporations that are able to do whatever the hell they want becuase no one has the power to stop them including the government,
And yet the Corporations gain most of their power through their control of the government. Weaken the Government and you weaken the big corporations rely on it for everything from direct subsidies to protection from foreign competitors to regulations that place a disproportionate burden on smaller domestic competitors to laws that keep us from exercising our rights of ownership of our electronic devices.
No, weaken corporate America's stranglehold on government. Stop giving corps greater rights than those granted individuals. Take away corporate personhood. Pierce the veil of protection given to corporations.
I'm a fool? Who is the one spouting ridiculous slippery slope arguments about how light bulb regulations will lead to abortion bans?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Tax cuts are good.
That's ideology not policy. Taxes are necessary. In fact, taxes on high income earners incetivises investment - realizing an investment, e.g. by selling shares in a company you started, is taxable as income - so when income taxes are low you can easily move into and out of the market without penalty. As a result, wealth people tend to invest more when taxes are higher -- like they were during the post WWII periord -- in that time taxes on income over $1 million was 99%. And yet, companies got larger and people kept trying to make more wealth, the rich invested in and grew companies, because that was the only way to grow their wealth AND avoid taxation. Or we can try your way -- oh wait -- we have since the end of the second Clinton administration. How's that working out for you?
As to government investment not producing anything: a short list of the products of government investment: Plastics, rocketry, satellites, the cure for polio, computers, the internet, the modern interstate highway system, railroads, the oil and gas industry, the 30year fixed rate mortgage, a free Europe, I could go on literally for pages. The United States government has a tremendously successful track record.
As to your government motors argument -- it's bullshit. It's based on the concept that a government *loan* is a government *handout* which isn't the case. Like with the bank bailouts, the auto industry is well on its way to repaying those loans. TARP is close to turning a profit - just like the FDIC does most of the time its called on to step in and dissolve a bank, just like the U.S. Government did when it interceded and bought up all the S&L assets back in the 80s. You are railing against a grand tradition of what it means to live in this country. We pull together, and we make it work.
On Social Security you are, again, in defiance of reality. Social Security was modified in the 80s to prepare for the baby boomers. It has a massive trust fund built up which is NOT NECESSARY for its normal operation, it exists specifically to be emptied by the baby boomers. That's why its there. It is not "going bankrupt" it is functioning as designed. This is the law Regan signed. You also apparently do not know that the law provides that when the money runs out then the payments are reduced to match current income from SSI taxes -- which is currently projected to be around 75% of present payments - once the baby boomers die off (and they will) the pool of recipients goes down and the payments return to normal -- in fact the trust fund will begin to refill. The "crisis" of social security is invented by the political elite and the wealthy to justify a crackdown on a self-funding program for the middle class that is complicated enough to be susceptible to misrepresentation. They're just flat out lies.
5) They are (no counting ones that were already in place)? While you're at it, don't forget to mention all the new taxes brought in recently too.
one of many links you could google. Now your turn -- where is your evidence that Obama /raised/ your taxes?
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
OR as a good friend used to put it, "The Democrats will screw things up, but the Republicans will do it faster."
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Not at all. What did I just speak of that isn't a firm matter of record? Not a conspiracy theory, not secret knowledge known only to the select, open source information available to all.... but furiously ignored by most because to look would require action.
Read Mr. Obama's written works. Sure he had a lot of help from ghost writers but the contents can certainly be taken as representing how he wants to be viewed. He gives the game away but nobody actually read either of his books, they just bought them and displayed them to be seen as 'hip' and 'informed.' Now read a few more very public sources of information. Go read some of the history of his parents, both what is in Jr.s books and elsewhere. Dad was thrown out of a socialist (proudly, avowedly socialist) government in Kenya for being too extreme. Not extreme as in capitialist running dog lackey of the colonialists, the other extreme. Saying Mom was just a crazy hippy fellow traveller would be an understatement. The white grandparents were at least fellow travellers and lets not forget card carrying Frank Marshal Davis, the substitute father figure/mentor.
Obama himself writes about being proud of hanging with the marxists, hippies, etc. so as not to be seen as a 'sellout.' Uh huh. So not a communist. And yes in-godamned-deed he was a paidup member of the New Party. And 'Rev' Wright was part of an unholy trinity of himself, a socialist pretending to be a protestant minister, Phlager pretending to be a priest and Farakan pretending to be a muslim. Go read Wright's holy book: hint, it ain't the Holy Bible it is by a Professor Cone. A bit hard to find the actual books about now but plenty of excerpts online to give ya the flavor.
As for being muslim to communist, again go to the words of Mr. Obama himself and the few bit of paper trail we have. He was enrolled in school to receive religious training as a muslim by his stepfather. The only known religious instruction he received as a child was that. As an adult we know of no conversion to another traditional religious sort of faith, thus I feel justified in assuming he is still a communist. Again, Rev. Wright doesn't count as Christian. Have you read that 'church's' statement of principles? I have. It mentions 'Africa' many times, to zero for Jesus. Call me crazy but I haven't seen a Christian church that managed to skip the whole Christ part.
Democrat delenda est
because one of them will. They are just testing the waters.
If we can all agree these orders are bad, lets stop the partisan bickering.
No, weaken corporate America's stranglehold on government.
That's the problem, the government is made up of people. Hand any group of people a large amount of power and they will become corrupt. If it's not with the corporations, it will be trade unions/guilds, or banks/financial houses, or churches, or foreign governments/interests, or whoever/whatever fills the power-vacuum left by the corporations.
As long as they have the "good" of their power to sell, there will always be buyers, and as long as humans are human, there will always be those in government anxious to sell. That's the reason for a weak central government. The principle of keeping the central government relatively weak is not some ideological thought-exercise, it's the best way discovered so far to deal with the very practical reality that people that have power will abuse it. You just don't give them much, and then watch them like a hawk.
It's because the US abandoned this basic principle that we face many of the dire problems that we do today. We sat back, fat and happy, feeding at the public/government trough, and let them expand and expand their programs, their taxes and debt, and their powers for decades. Now we either fix it or face collapse in the very near future. We are not immune to the same thing that's happening in Greece, and we are on the same path.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So, agreeing with the "+5 Insightful" OP gets me a "-1 Troll"?
How strange.
Or not, seeing as this is /.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Note to AC: When you can't compromise enough to even coax 2 senator to flip -- and lose even one of your OWN, maybe... just MAYBE your legislation is too extreme.