Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Marine Detained Under Operation Vigilant Eagle For His Political Views Sues
stry_cat writes "You may remember the story of Brandon Raub, who was detained without due process over some Facebook posts he made. Now with the help of the Rutherford Institute, he is suing his captors. According to his complaint [PDF], his detention was part of a federal government program code-named 'Operation Vigilant Eagle,' which monitors military veterans with certain political views."
When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?
The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.
If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.
Just because a story has some connection to Facebook doesn't mean it's about technology.
This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.) that called for the mass incarceration / murder of anyone of middle eastern decent or membership of the second most popular religion in the world, right?
Ah, Irony. :)
On the one hand, such an operation can be justified in that persons with military training and radical political views make for a volatile and dangerous group: heightened aggression coupled with access to weapons and knowledge of weapon use, explosives, and demolition can lead to nasty results.
On the other hand, there are very few excuses the denying due process, and proactive observation is certainly not one of them.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Misleading headline is misleading, he was check into the mental health ward for an evaluation after acting like a nut. The fact that he has views that are generally only held by nutcases didn't help his case.
Guy is one of those conspiracy theory whack jobs that thinks societies refusal to consider his conspiracy theories makes him a political target. Sometimes when society thinks your ideas are crazy you just might be crazy.
So, the erosion of rights and the police nanny state will continue as it has been.
Please all-powerful government, do everything you can. Ass-rape me, incarcerate my neighbors, whatever it takes. Just protect me from the Indian, the commie, immigrant Latino, drug dealer, the brown guy that prays five times a day, the guy with shampoo at the airport, the four year old girl scared of the scanners, the crazy veteran, sharks, and lightning strikes.
By all means do not protect me from the transfer of wealth and jobs and power to fewer and fewer. I do not care of this country becomes a shell of rich elite surrounding a poor, ignorant populace. As long as I have TMZ and the lottery and reality TV, I will be a-ok.
Silence is a state of mime.
This goes all the way up to the top - Back in 09, the administration put out a report saying that veterans are terrorists...This was highly offensive and troubling to many, but it blew over - maybe this will bring this scandal back to the surface...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?
The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.
"Disagree" can cover quite a range; you make it sound like the "disagreement" is minor.
This situation sounds more complicated than "a minor disagreement."
If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.
So on the one hand it looks like it was worth investigating. On the other hand, it sounds like the authorities involved here will have some motivation to be better about following due process once the lawyers are done.
All in all it sounds like the checks & balances are working as planned in this situation.
Excerpts from http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/81243/
On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which "some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers" and the "great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government."
He said people may think he was going crazy, but a "civil war," the "Revolution" is coming.
"I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting."
On July 24, he said he was at a "great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle."
On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them.
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
On August 14, Raub wrote, "The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it."
On August 15, Raub wrote, "And they will say he said it to the NSA first."
Raub claimed the posts were simply song lyrics and political views.
When you quote the Bieber, you know "the man" will come down hard on you.
Had THE government done this under W, to all the folks talking about stringing Bush up, killing, doing the same to him that he is doing to XYZ, etc... You all would be having a heart attack. Free speech and all.
My how the tide has changed. Back then, it was an every American's unquestioned right to protest their disagreement with THE government. But now if you do it, you are a racist, traitor, etc...
Waffle much?
This is true to some extent for any taxpayer funded job. If you are a teacher you can be let go for your facebook page. If you are a politician you can be forced to resign for your tweets. Taxpayer funded jobs are not like private jobs. They come with strings.
In this light let look at this case. This guy is a retired Marine, which means that he volunteered to serve his country, follow the chain of command, and accepted a pay check to do so. He is 26-27 so he is probably still on active duty. He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.
Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
My understanding he is being treated with kid gloves. He was held in a mental facility, instead of being charged with treason. If he is suffering from PSTD this is a good thing. Many vets do not get the help they need, and listening for these cries for help is something that the government should be doing.
In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it. Everyone knows Twitter is where all the cool revolutionaries go. The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe. This is one of the few enumerated roles of government, and is why this kid did not have to go out and find a real job. In this case, he many only be crazy as opposed to someone who would go into Time Square a shoot a dozen people. In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing. If nothing else it is an example to kids that the military is not just playing soldier, it has some lifelong responsibilities.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The fact that the man has had military training does not justify any element of detention. Matter of fact being in the armed forces is sort of a proof that one is not nuts. They do not train the mentally ill.
So the military taught him to use a rifle and probably how to make small bombs or use small bombs. That means that he is equal to most boys raised on a farm. And farm boys do pretty well in hand to hand confrontations as well.
Many people sense that there is some sort of conspiracy. They try to grasp it and pick something to focus on like the Masons or the Illuminatti or some other organisation.
The sad part that there really is a conspiracy but it is sloppy and unorganised. For example protesting drones is all in season right now. All facts about drones are ignored. Drones save lives. Look at battle films. Recall Vietnam and the extensive use of Napalm that burned many innocents while trying to kill enemy soldiers. Drones can target very closely. We no longer have to bomb an entire city in hope of killing one or two enemy troops. Naturally our enemies scream loudly about drones as they know that drones do a great job. Our public is ignorant enough to belive the line that drones are murderous weapons.
If you read the article it does indeed sound like that, but you must also keep in mind the article has already re-contextualized his speech acts as threatening. For example the article says:
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
But previous Slashdotter comments pointed out this is part of a lyrics to a song:
Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads / Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive / My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing
Apart from this, he could have been writing fiction, writing in character, writing metaphorically, etc. That said, perhaps talking to him more would have been reasonable, but breaking down his door and arresting him for speech which has no specific, credible threats is not. He just sounds like half the people on Doomsday Preppers.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Even if he is mentally unstable, even if he is indeed guilty, the point here is that he was detained without due process.
If he even appeared to a law enforcement officer to be mentally unstable where his mental state might pose a danger to others or himself, the laws of most (all?) states allow law enforcement to force him to a mental hospital for detainment until doctors decide whether he is or is not actually that unstable.
DNRTFA, but if that's the route they took then he received all the due process he is allowed by law.
From this guy:
'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
Pretend it's your job to protect the public safety.. question -is he dangerous or isn't he? Seems to me common sense says that this is hyperbole or a manner of speaking in (angry) metaphor and he's not communicating a specific threat. It can't be counted a specific threat that you'd like to" take someone's head off :" or "fight a battle" or even "shoot" someone "I'd like to shoot him".. you know like that.
My family talked like that all the time and so did everyone around me. No one was getting any guns and everyone knew that.
If you're going to deal with the public you have to understand them when they speak. If you can't do that, then you don't belong in a job where you interact with the public.
You criminalizing everyone around you because YOU don't have a practical understanding of the people you're dealing with and jump at every shadow of a comment that strikes you as in any way suspicious is NOT an option.
YOU thinking about your career and deciding you'll play it safe by criminalizing someone's speech so that no one can say you didn't do your job later is NOT an option. Society isn't obligated in any way to make your job easy, or have their utterances pass your nervous Nellie test of political correctness.
I don't like this particular ex-Marine or what he said but at the same time, give me a break.
Sad, really.
This isn't news for nerds, this is extreme political pandering to drive ad revenue. This is editors being trolls to start a flame fest.
What the fuck is wrong with Slashdot these days? The forced polarization of the tech stories was bad enough.
In typical viral social media fashion this violence-threatening nutjob's has been turned into a hero.
Too bad kids today seem unable to read anything past the first 140 characters of what they read online.
So go ahead an vote me down as flamebait.
While his ramblings were obviously over the top, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he actually intended to commit any acts of violence. I've had coworkers/associates rant about wanting to nuke the middle east flat to get rid of all of the "towelheads/cameljockies", should they be arrested/committed for intent to perpetrate mass murder? The government has proven that they are incapable of "preventing terrorism", they haven't caught a single bona fide terrorist before they attacked. The only thing they have managed to do is intimidate & harass tens of thousands of innocent people and find a few hapless buffoons to con into "planning attacks" where the government supplies money, plans & encouragement.
Why on earth is 'crime' the top tag for this story?
According to his complaint he was monitored by Operation Vigilant Eagle. Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? Maybe he just talked about the upcoming revolution too much on social media and his friends called the cops?
There hardly needs to be some big scary government agency monitoring all social media. He just needs to post his plans in public.
I'm all for taking preventative steps to prevent disaster, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that pro-American Government nutjobs are getting a free pass for similarly "violent" speech.
Example: Palin is just as nutty, and I would argue that the phrase "don't retreat, reload" is a much more credible threat (or incitement) than any flowery talk about head-severing axes.
Has Ted Nugent been detained for his comments about being "either dead or arrested" if Obama was reelected? Because that's a much more credible threat than this. Has Palin been detained for spouting demented conspiracy theories and talking shit about "don't retreat, reload" ?
No, because those are jingoistic nutjobs. Pro-government nutjobs. This is *absolutely* a political issue, as proven by the selective enforcement.
Quit whining. You've been around long enough to know that there's been a strong libertarian/anti-gov streak on Slashdot for over a decade.
What's more interesting is that stuff that was once dismissed as crackpot conspiracy stuff is now getting traction as the US (both parties are complicit) is being shown to use propaganda programs and techniques on her citizens (all the misinformation that led to war(s), DARE/Antidrug, NSA programs, Rice's Bengazi talking points), shown to have a strong desire to skirt the law in order to "watch" people to "protect" us (warrant-less wiretaps, geo-tracking, hacking, camera systems, drones), shown to use public institutional power and resources to block dissenting opinions (see ballot-access and funding laws), use executive branch departments to silence political opponents (Bush did it too, but Obama's IRS stuff is a whole new level of sinister), and allow money-interests access to do essentially the same thing to private citizens (RIAA/MAFIAA/Cable companies/pharma/agribusiness/oil/etc)
Stuff like this guy in the OP is even more interesting because for some it's "OK" because it's "mental-illness". Who decided that? Just because the mob *thinks* he is, doesn't mean he is. If I yell "I'm gonna kill that guy" in my house, am I crazy, laughing, or just venting? Nobody knows.
Crime or mental illness - both (should) require a process to prove. Otherwise the government finds another way around those pesky warrants - just say "mental illness" and "protection" and you can take the troublemaker away...
Go look at what your average tea party supporters have to say and you'll easily find a similar level of vague violent threats. And you'll certainly see the same level of paranoid rantings You can essentially threaten to kill the president (see: Ted Nugent) and so long as you're a pro-American / pro-Republican nutjob (instead of an apparently left leaning nutjob like this guy), they not only won't arrest you but they'll let you attend a State of the Union address!
I'm all for taking reasonable, proactive steps against nutjobs, but not if there's a much stricter set of standards for leftwing nutjobs vs. rightwing.
IMHO, the biggest problem with democracy here in the US is the mistaken belief you have two choices.
While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views. Sure they won't win, but consider what happened when Nader got a ton of votes back during the Bush / Gore election - either the big parties will change their approach (as happened then) or the US will evolve to a multy party system.
The challenge is convincing a society bent in instant gratification that this doesn't 'waste' your vote - rather it is a strategic long term investment.
"Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
I'm posting the same basic reply over and over for this story, but only because people are using the same defense over and over and being moderated up for it.
Take a look at Ted Nugent. Pubically claimed he would be "either dead or in prison" if Obama was reelected. That is threat both of suicide and a threat of presidential assassination. Reaction: he was allowed to attend a state of the union address.
Take a look at Palin. Completely detached from reality, seriously delusional, tells followers "don't retreat, reload." What's a more credible threat/incitement: a public comment telling the favorite party of gun nuts to "reload" or a private FB wall post from a non-public figure quoting a song lyric about severing heads with an axe?
It's not about celebrity, either. Spend ten minutes reading typical Tea Party rantings and you will find similar vaguely threatening violent comments. The difference is, those are rightwing, pro-"real" America, jingoistic nutjobs. Whereas the content of this guy's posts make him sound like a leftwing nutjob.
I don't have a problem with treating this guy as a credible threat, but only if they do the same for at least a few hundred thousand of the worst, most violent-sounding Tea Partiers.
He is free to say anything he wants. He is not being punished for his speech but for threats which are conveyed by his speech.
"Give me all your money; I have a concealed weapon" is all one needs to do rob a bank. My example isn't even literally clear cut because there is no literal threat of violence - but most people would call that a crime.
Bradley Manning is being detained for his political views; because holding officials accountable by letting the voters know what they've been doing is too democratic for this authoritarian corporate plutocracy. Transparency is necessary for democracy to function; the "free press" alone is not enough (and our press is captured by the plutocracy as well.) This democracy has been a farce for over a generation; the Palestinians have a better democracy (it is a tool for placating the populace but it at least is more legitimate... and why not? it has no real power so it is allowed to be relatively functional.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If you don't think they were actual threats, why would you agree with detaining him? The thing is, if you classify these statements as mentally ill and potentially dangerous (and look around: the severing heads comment was actually a song quotation) then you also have to classify a good 15-25% of Tea Partiers as mentally ill and similarly dangerous. As I've posted elsewhere under this story, Ted Nugent is a fabulous example of this. Threatens suicide and presendential assassination in the same breath and no one hassles him in the least.
why do you think that a revolution of or including public speech would be successful? most americans believe in the two-party system. why would violence change that? unless you can point to some valid point (implicating most americans and pointing to your rhetoric), your revolution is against nothing but the american gun. vigilante justice offers no legal recourse. It is not a popular move. to say it favors a party to 911truthnews.com vs. U.S. generals is to say that some appellate jurisdiction to your vigilantism already agrees with you for a reason relevant to the case. If you can't use the law or the polls to state your case, you have no case. So, do I think he should be subjected to treatment which blocks the D2 receptor, serotonin receptors, and androgen receptors, or do I just think he should be sent to prison? since his revolution appears to be nothing more than the thrill of resisting authority, getting excited, or remembering hate, I want to say go ahead and give him a neuroleptic. soon enough he will realize what his mind is doing, that he has no appeal, and that his enemy is conjecture. If you still think of his actions as treason: why are his lawsuits against his captors and not his purported enemy? there is no good reason to take him seriously. he is not asking for justice. If you think his health is a concern to me or you: why would you say you ever did care about that? he obviously has friends who are an enemy to the U.S.A. presumably the only ones who were capable of expressing a viewpoint to him at the time he committed. it's a shame his opinion of them is now nothing more than a pack of cards: two of spades. ten of spades. ten of clubs. queen of clubs. the guillotine is nothing more than an optical illusion. to just say that's disgusting and move on would completely disregard his bad chess. it disregards his diagnosis. if you disregard his diagnosis why are we even talking about him in the first place.
UCMJ laws are not the same as non Military Justice and I think you have less rights.
He's an ex-marine. So civilian laws should apply.
But then it appears that Operation Vigilant Eagle is an FBI operation and isn't targeting military or ex-military individuals. So, threats are threats and nuts is nuts. Round 'em all up and let the justice system sort it out.
Have gnu, will travel.
Sounds like a common practice in east Berlin in the days of the USSR!
Nader is not a good example at all, as it's likely that had he not siphoned votes away from Gore, bush the lesser would never have been president, butterfly ballots and hanging chads notwithstanding.
And while my own politics may be somewhat closer to Nader (Though even Nader leaves a sour taste in my mouth on some issues.), Gore would sure as hell have been a damn sight better than the eight years of bush/cheney that we got out of that incident.
A better idea, I think, than shooting yourself in the foot and harming the country overall out of principle, as happenes in 2000; is a fundamental change in the structure of the government to eliminate the winner-take-all aspect of politics. Switching to something like a Westminster-style parliamentary system would be better, IMO. Such systems often require coalition governments to be formed and are better at forcing compromise and including the viewpoints of minority viewpoints that are completely marginalized in our current system in the US.
Imagine all the people...
AJ is going to have an orgasam on air as he should talking about this. I intend to make a bowl of jiffy pop and wear the resulting greasy aluminum foil wrapper on my head for TEMPEST protection against any government snooping.
The government only creates more real problems by undermining its own legitimacy by doing shit like this.
So, as a veteran I have to keep my political discourse on the liberal side, especially if I own firearms? I'd like my old country back now please. No, really..
Organization? You must be joking..
No, it's not likely. You're talking about a few thousand people who voted for Nader, vs 12 million democrats who voted for bush in florida. You can't pin the actions of a few thousand as more influential than the actions of 12 million. Stop promoting learned helplessness.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. People seem to forget the differences. The morons in office should be shot for treason on the lawn for constantly violating their oath of office. The joint chiefs should be ashamed for letting them and should be equally punished for violating their oath as well.
While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views.
The problem with that is there are a LOT of single-issue voters out there - people that will consider one issue to be WAY more important than all the others combined. For example, I know people that agreed with almost the entire platform for a candidate, but simply wouldn't vote for him/her because they differ from the candidate on (pick one) abortion/gun/gay rights. Some people are unable or unwilling to compromise. For the good of the country as a whole, I find this a little short-sighted and narrow-minded.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You can when the margin in Florida was only a little over five hundred votes. In point of fact, had any single third-party candidate chosen not to run, and had all of that candidate's votes gone to Gore, it would have tipped the election solidly to Gore.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Elian Gonzales
It is people like you we have to blame for W. Bush II in the form of Obama. You and the others who voted for Gore (yet another bought and paid for Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Obama type) siphoned votes away from Nader, and ensured that we would continue with the status quo. Worse, you say you agree with Nader more than Gore, yet still threw your vote away.
I bet you voted for Obama, and siphoned votes away from Cynthia McKenny. How do you like Bush II aka Obama? Except in many ways Obama is even worse-- summary executions is taking the criminality of the Bush years up a notch.
In the election with Bush and Gore, I voted for Nader, and if he wasn't on the ballot, I would have written in Osama Bin Ladin, Mickey Mouse or some such-- no way in hell voting for some bought and paid for tool like Obama, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Reagan, or Bush Jr.
I'd say most people would prefer to deport Muslims from the West, given the mass frequency in which they blow up people in Boston, NYC, and cutt off heads in London.
Lets face it, Muslims just can't and won't get along with anyone. Anywhere Muslims exist, they cut off heads, blow up, and kill those who are not Muslim: Boko Haram in Nigeria, Muslims in Pakistan to Christians and Muslims in Iran towards Bahais. Even Thais get their heads cut off in Southern Thailand by Muslims.
There is no reason for Westerners to rule, infringe, and colonize Muslim peoples. If they want to kill each other, practice polygamy, stone adulterers to death, and the like, let them do that as savages and primitives in their own lands. Let them "marry" as Mohammed did nine year old girls. In their own country. They should not be ruled by us ... but neither should they be in the West. Deporting the lot would massively improve the West.
No we can't all get along. Dawkins "selfish gene" theory implies that people will sacrifice for those who plausibly look like their fifth to seventh cousin removed. I might be very distantly related to the Nigerian Headchoppers, but I'm far closer to the victim. As a man, I understand that I am next. I can't submit and bear children to the conquerors.
This fits in with Putnam's finding the diversity increases mistrust and anger among even those of the same race. Put a bunch of people of near-alien DNA among you, let them posture and dominate, and make men of YOUR DNA submit and grovel, and that's a war waiting to happen. That is just science, evolution, and biology at work. This is beyond politics. A small minority of people who don't threaten the majority and have the same basic race (i.e. they're fairly close cousins, fifth to seventh) is not the same as dropping Nigerians into Londoners. No wonder they beheaded the guy, its utterly predictable. Its primal and PRIMATE.
Yes millions of people are Muslims. So too are millions cannibals, the governments of ECOWAS a number of years ago begged their citizens to refrain from killing and eating pygmies because it would not give them magical powers. The number of people who like a religion, politics, etc. has no bearing on their worthiness. Caesar, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mussolini, all had their mass followers. Most scientists thought Einstein was crazy. So what?
I find it ironic that the Goverment (no not really I don't) let a couple of Muslims who were hard-core jihadis who murdered three people on 9/11's anniversary plot and carry out the Boston bombings; even after the Russians and SAUDIS had warned they were dangerous, but locks up an ex-Marine because they don't like his politics. That is diversity for you -- hatred of one's own and fawning supplication and groveling of the Muslim/foreign/non-White.
With golf-course pussies like Scalia in the judiciary, freedom is always too dangerous.
Whoosh. Try comprehending what I originally said. You are now blaming 500 people who didn't vote the way you wanted, and not the millions of democrats who didn't vote the way you wanted. When things don't go your way, the largest causal group is who is responsible, not the smallest. The most responsible people (besides those republicans that were obviously going to vote for bush anyway) was the Democrats who voted for Bush, not the 3rd party people. Again, quit with the learned helplessness; you are completely fallacious.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That said, it would be easier to defend this case than to prosecute it.
Sorry, 200,000, not millions. So you can blame one group of 500 people for voting 3rd party, or you can blame FOUR HUNDRED groups of 500 Democrats who voted for bush. Yeah, it isn't a 3rd party issue, not mathematically.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Nader is not a good example at all, as it's likely that had he not siphoned votes away from Gore, bush the lesser would never have been president, butterfly ballots and hanging chads notwithstanding.
This is called the spoiler effect. Vote for Nader, Bush wins, vote for Perot, Clinton wins. It's the serious flaw of simple plurality voting where each voter gets one vote to cast for one candidate in a single pass election. It's the perfect voting system when there are exactly two choices and the most seriously flawed voting system for any greater number of choices. Any nation using it for their elections doesn't have a real democracy.
The Democrats and Republicans recognize that democracy, as practiced in the US, doesn't work under the current system, which is why they run primaries. In a properly functioning democracy, the two major parties could throw all of their candidates into the general election.
It's actually becoming inpossible to celebrate an innocent little Mithraitic Mystery during R&R. What is this, Monotheocracy? What about the usual devout god-idol fearing sacrifice or three to Moloch, on military grounds, on the harvest celebration?
All this social religious intolerance has really gone too far! Fortunately, even deep Wiccan crimonies are still observed and respected, in the intelligence and medical detachments.
I don't know about the rest of his postings, but seriously people, have some musical knowledge (or at least some human-being friends with musical knowledge!) That post from August 13th
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
is from the lyrics of a vancouver hip-hop band named Swollen Members , from their song Bring Me Down:
I'm far beyond the magic of a wand inside a wizard's fist
Sharper than the hand of Edward Scissor's, I'm a wiz at this
Hotter than the desert but I'm colder than a blizzard kid
Harder than a prison bid, with God I'm never hesitant
My business it isn't as amazin as it's ever been
As long as God allows me to be clever it will never end
Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads
Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive
My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/swollenmembers/bringmedown.html
I seriously remember this being covered on slashdot about three months ago, wasn't it?
Nearly every Green Party vote would likely have gone to Gore had Nader not run. So no, I am not blaming those 500 people who voted for Nader. I'm blaming Nader.
A good third-party candidate should seriously assess his/her chances of winning, and when it becomes clear that a win is not possible, should drop out of the race and allow those votes to go to the lesser of two evils. Any candidate who does not do that is reckless and irresponsible.
What Democrats who voted for Bush? Do you mean the ones who voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot design sucked? Yes, had that unfortunate event not occurred, it would have tipped the election. Nader doesn't automatically get a pass for his poor judgment merely because there were other mistakes that contributed to the problem. Every mistake of sufficient magnitude is equally responsible, because it doesn't matter how many votes you win by as long as you win.
To use an analogy, three people are standing around and see a girl get raped by an unarmed man, but do nothing. One of the witnesses has a sword, a second has a handgun, and a third has an M16/M203. Your argument is that the one with the machine gun is most to blame for not stopping the rape because he could have inflicted the most damage to the rapist. From the victim's perspective, however, all three are equally to blame because what matters is whether enough force was used to stop the rape from happening; the amount of additional force beyond that point does not change whether the girl got raped.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Here's one Starscream's been saving for you: http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/27/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-2-democrat-defections-to-bush-blue-dogs-bush-democrats-caused-gore-to-lose-fl/
The rape analogy really takes the cake, though. An extremely poor map of the real model.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This seems to have crossed a line from civil to criminal.
When process is denied and the constitution is denied --- dam I need to click post anon
It doesn't matter how many Democrats voted for Bush. It doesn't matter that there are multiple things that could have prevented the outcome. Every single one of those events is equally responsible for that outcome because the absence of any one of those events would have prevented that outcome. Therefore, Nader is just as much to blame as the Democrats who voted for Bush, and just as much to blame as the people who designed the ballot that caused some confused Democrats to accidentally vote for Buchanan, etc.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Saying the actions of a greater number of people is of equal responsibility of the actions of a lesser number of people is logical why?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
There is no such thing as an ex-Marine!!!
A single person (Nader) dropping out would likely have changed enough votes to matter. There's likely no single action by any single person that would have prevented those Democrats from voting for Bush.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You truly don't understand the situation. Those of us that vote 3rd party aren't doing so because suddenly there is ONE 3rd party candidate we like, we are doing so because we know there is no viable future of an America led by either Republicans or Democrats, and that to vote for either of those parties is the only true way to waste a vote - It is a vote to make the country worse (which Obama did, just like Bush(es), just like Reagan, and to a much lesser extent just like Clinton).
Our preferred candidate dropping out will just make us vote for a different 3rd party candidate.
And that's actually the exact story of how I voted in 2008.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Correct, Perot (stop laughing and listen) got over 20 million votes in one election, that was significant and the Reps and Dems both changed their platforms because of his having run.
Stop thinking we have a "TWO PARTY SYSTEM" we have MANY parties and you are free to vote for candidates in any of them or to run yourself. Go for it and vote out ALL INCUMBENTS!
There's likely no single action by any single person that would have prevented those Democrats from voting for Bush.
Gore would have only needed to win a couple hundred votes out of about 200,000 Democrats who swung to Bush.
Are you seriously arguing that there is no single action that one of the two major candidates could have taken that might have swayed 0.1% of swing-voting Democrats in Florida?
If so, you should probably hire yourself out as a political consultant, because campaigns would be interested to know that no matter what action they take, they can't influence even as many as 0.1% of swing voters in their own party.
A single person (Nader) dropping out would likely have changed enough votes to matter.
By the way, you also don't know this. If you went back in time, had Nader drop out months or even a year before the election, and then ran the entire campaign through again without Nader, do you seriously think that only a couple hundred voters in Florida would be affected?
Nader's presence as a candidate caused the major candidates to act in lots of different minor ways that they might not have otherwise -- staking out positions to agree with or contrast with Nader, deciding where to runs ads, where to visit, how much to spend, etc. in various places based on how Nader might affect the vote in some states.
Was Nader the top worry in either the Bush or Gore campaign? Probably not. But they were aware of him, and his presence influenced their actions. Given the small margin of error, I seriously doubt you could predict how things may have been different without Nader. That's a MAJOR change to the election.
On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain that Gore could have just campaigned a little harder, made a few different statements or promises to some Floridians, and managed to get a couple hundred Democrats not to defect from him... he probably could have done that with a single targeted campaign stop, if he knew ahead of time that it would matter.
You're advocating a relatively HUGE change to history, and you can't even guarantee what the outcome would have been otherwise. I'm pretty sure Gore had a multitude of incredibly tiny things he could have done that would have the same impact, had he known what it would come down to.
every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more.
Guns or politicians?
Because if it's the former, it won't do you any good.
^ looks like that finally stopped him :D
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com