Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Spy Panel Is Loaded With Insiders
schwit1 writes "After a public backlash to government spying, President Barack Obama called for an independent group to review the vast surveillance programs that allow the collections of phone and email records.
The members of the review group are:
Richard Clarke, the chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council for Clinton who later worked for Republican President George W. Bush
Michael Morell, Obama's former deputy CIA director
Geoffrey Stone, law professor who has raised money for Obama and spearheads a committee hoping to build Obama's presidential library in Chicago
Cass Sunstein, law professor and administrator of information and regulatory affairs for Obama
Peter Swire, a former Office of Management and Budget privacy director for Clinton
'At the end of the day, a task force led by Gen. Clapper full of insiders – and not directed to look at the extensive abuse – will never get at the bottom of the unconstitutional spying,' said Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group. The panel's meetings are closed after Clapper exempted it from the U.S. Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would have required it to keep the public informed and hold open meetings, for 'reasons of national security,' according to a statement from the group sent from Clapper's office. 'While we are exempt from the FACA, we are conducting this review as openly and transparently as possible.'"
Richard Clarke, the chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council for Clinton who later worked for Republican President George W. Bush
Michael Morell, Obama's former deputy CIA director
Geoffrey Stone, law professor who has raised money for Obama and spearheads a committee hoping to build Obama's presidential library in Chicago
Cass Sunstein, law professor and administrator of information and regulatory affairs for Obama
Peter Swire, a former Office of Management and Budget privacy director for Clinton
'At the end of the day, a task force led by Gen. Clapper full of insiders – and not directed to look at the extensive abuse – will never get at the bottom of the unconstitutional spying,' said Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group. The panel's meetings are closed after Clapper exempted it from the U.S. Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would have required it to keep the public informed and hold open meetings, for 'reasons of national security,' according to a statement from the group sent from Clapper's office. 'While we are exempt from the FACA, we are conducting this review as openly and transparently as possible.'"
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Apparently some expected something different...
BIG BROTHERS will never change it self.
Change does not come from within.
Real change must be made from the outside.
All the insiders - the careered politicians, the careered bureaucrats, the careered leeches who bled the public dry - will not change their ways.
If we are to have a REAL CHANGE we must make sure that NONE OF THEM remain inside the government.
Any less than that will be hot air, as usual.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The Volokh Conspiracy had some interesting comments in August: Geoffrey Stone Added to NSA Surveillance Review Committee
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Because we can trust him to get at the bottom of all this !!
Now that the government is shut down, does that mean the domestic spying program is also?
And while I'm at it, would it be unpatriotic of me to suggest that the government shutdown may be a tactful diversion from the domestic spying program? Snowden's Sunday leak was largely ignored Sunday by the major news networks in favor of the impeding shutdown.
I would rather see a panel consisting of a deaf mute, a quadriplegic, a rabbi, an ACLU lawyer, and Joe Plumber.
They would accomplish more than the panel that Obama put together.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
President Barack Obama called for an independent group to review the vast surveillance programs that allow the collections of phone and email records. The members of the review group are:
... Doesn't matter. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house. If you work for the government, you can't really be expected to provide an impartial audit of government activities. The end. The only time Congress appoints actual outsiders is when the majority party is able to excert enough power to get them appointed. Of course, this is heavily politicalized as well -- they don't appoint people without knowing what their answer will be.
This is dinner theatre for one.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The watchers themselves, of course. And by the fifth amendment (they like the respect amendments when it serves to their pourposes), they won't incriminate themselves, so the outcome is predictable. Seems that the "ideological crusade" is in this side too.
Okay, how will the group meet if it's furlough time?
Kriston
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
And you seriously think Herr Romney would have done any better or different? Plus, most of those draconian policies were put forth during the Retard Dubya's reign by his evil cronies.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
Hey, at least neither one of them were christians.
Br'er Fox done got hisself on the jury to find out what's happenin' in that darn chicken coop.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The problem being that 50+% of Americans actually believe Obummer's bullshit about "Hope and Change" and elected him after his first disastrous term. Romney would have been equally as terrible, but I was never saying he should have been voted in either. It really is sad that Dubya the Retard may no longer be going down in history as the president of all time.
I mean they could have conducted the review without even telling the public that it was happening. If that's not openness and transparency in action I don't know what is.
It just seems that no-one in the government is at odds with the NSA spying program. The idea was always to have checks and balances in the system so that if things spiraled out of control, there would always be counter-forces that would set it right.
However, the white house, senate, supreme courts etc doesn't seem to care. They're all acting like it is no big deal and we should forget about it (or maybe that is how the media is portraying it).
Though on the other hand, this kind of social interaction data is a goldmine for sociologists and social psychologists to industrial psychologists. It could really be the killer technology that drives the next generation of marketing and advertising. Social networking is the fusion of sociology and computer science.
This is especially a goldmine if election candidates can understand and measure how people are deciding to vote. Before it was just spend billions of dollars on a blanket advertising scheme. But, what if they can really get feedback and data on how people are deciding to cast their votes.
Why doesn't the NSF find ways to anonymize the data and use it for scientific research and make everything open.
After social networking, this could be next big thing. Non-survey based measurement and quantification of what people are doing and thinking and how ideas are spreading and problems they are facing.
It's not cool, but sort of expected. In order to get enough information that can be pieced together conclusively, the members of the panel probably need the highest levels of security clearance. There probably aren't that many people who qualify for that job.
I've been told the "non-essential employees" that are affected make up 25% of the federal payroll, most publicly visible customer-service type jobs. All the bureaucrats are "essential" and won't be going anywhere.
Where you wrote "the white house" my eyes read "the white noise". Poor vision or insightful pupils?
The problem being that 50+% of Americans actually believe Obummer's bullshit about "Hope and Change"
Except that wasn't the case at all. Most of the people I know who voted for Obummer the second time around were quite sick of his bullshit.
The Republicans simply had to run anyone electable, anyone fucking at all to win.
Instead, we had fifty shades of religious insanity, a man confusing the White House with a pizza joint, and the very icon of "that sort of evil capitalist the Democrats are always going on about - holy shit, they do exist!".
Even with the stupidity of the Republican party - Romney had a chance. But he couldn't stop running his fucking mouth, spewing shit that should not be spoken by any politician seeking election.
Magic fucking underpants aren't going to save you when you directly insult massive fucking swaths of the voting public.
This is such a bad joke it's not even funny.
It's time for the third American revolution.
Most of the people I know who voted for Obummer the second time around were quite sick of his bullshit.
And people wonder why we get shitty people elected to political office. If you're tired of their bullshit YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING FOR THEM!
It's the only logical conclusion these folks will come to.
Obama just want to fuck everybody and shit on the U.S.A.
When I worked in support, the management began taking a drift towards the overly authoritarian side. I don't think they wanted to face up to it though. One particularly absurd thing they did was place a suggestion box next to the desk where all the managers sat. What was wrong with that? It was transparent. Yep. Anybody who put a suggestion in there would be seen putting it in, and the fold size or color of the paper would be matched up with the face, subconsciously or otherwise.
This panel is about as useful as that suggestion box. It's transparency, authoritarian style.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Mike Morrell is a former career CIA guy. He was responsible for the daily president briefings and I believe he was the one to inform President Bush of 9/11. Very experienced and definitely spooky. His secrets have secrets! He would probably be a very awesome guy to meet. Definitely not Obama's unless you hold presidential turnover against him.
"Network penetration is network engineering, in reverse."
First "put in 3 letter abbreviation here" kinda screws everyone. The goverment investigates; Lets use some really biased people, and hope it turns out ok. Btw, the investigation is secret... so shhh! No reason to worry.
Media picks the president and it picked Obama. It is as simple as that. People vote like they are told. MSNBC for example did not have a single positive story about Romney or a single negative story about Obama in the final weeks before the election (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/press_release_7). Something like that is expected of MSNBC but the likes of ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo etc etc weren't far behind.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
and we should be surprised why?
So you're advocating violent regime change then?
Why do I get both the urge to infinitely face-palm AND the mental image of Frau Farbissina doing her "Lies! ALL LIES!" line?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
WTF, did someone genuinely else expect anything else to happen?
Well, the Republicans did themselves no favors. The economy had just been destroyed by Wall Street fraud, and the culprits brazenly waved their fistfuls of bailout cash at the public.
Who do the Republicans put up for their Presidential candidate? Mr. Wall Street
Had they presented a down-to-earth, moderate candidate for the election, the Republicans would have won it by a landslide.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I hate both political parties, too damn many politicians.
Obama has done a number of things I can't stand.
Most of his attempts at things I do support were blocked by rabid republicans that would do anything to get rid of Obama.
Yes, I hate both parties and pretty much all politicians, but the head of the republican party deserve a special kind of hell. (Even a bunch of their own party see their leaders a rabid psychotics intent on destroying this country in their vain and pointless attempt to eliminate or marginalize the president. Too bad so many people are so easily fooled by their antics, or so forgetful they can't remember what those nutjobs did/said last week. Heck, maybe they're getting hypnotized by rush, I don't know, but it's not good.)
All in all, I'm sick of the politics, the politicians, and the stupid sycophants that repeat the political spin as if it were gospel instead of the poorly wrought scam it is. I just with everyone would shut up about this and start trying to act like rational caring adults. (Fat chance, but I can still dream.)
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
You've picked an ironic day to spout that sort of nonsense. Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party. There are plenty of difference between the two parties in terms of goals and policies. One thing they largely agree on is that allowing Americans to be killed in large numbers by terrorists is a bad thing. As a result President Obama has largely continued President Bush's counter-terrorism policies, but gone in very different directions with domestic policy. (Although it must be recognized that the differences in outlook have resulted in far fewer attempts to capture and interrogate terrorists due to the legal messiness that the Obama administration has helped create. As a result, they simply kill terrorists and lose the intelligence data.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
What the FUCK has happened to this country?
Hey, at least neither one of them were christians.
To add anything else to the above quote will be a travesty.
So I'll say " Amen to it, brother ! "
I think a large part of the problem is the primary voting system. A would-be presidential candidate first has to appeal to the extremists in their own party before they have a chance to try to appeal to the general public.
I have a proposal to fix this.
Step 1: To be on the presidential ballot, you must have reached some threshold number of votes in the primaries. This threshold should be set so that there will be about 4 to 6 presidential candidates. (Primaries are not party-based. All presidential hopefuls appear on the one ballot.)
Step 2: Voters rank the presidential candidates in their order of preference. These preferences are processed by a Condorcet method. This ensures that if one candidate would win a two candidate election against any other candidate, they are elected.
With 4 to 6 candidates, there is room for at least two from each main party, plus the occasional independent/minor party candidate. The Condorcet voting encourages moderates rather than extremists. (In turn, this will encourage the selection of moderates in the primaries.) It also gives independents a decent chance.
(Note: I am not a US citizen, nor am I living there.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
If you're tired of their bullshit YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING FOR THEM!
Give us an option of" I AM VOTING AGAINST ALL THE SCUMBAGS " on your ballot ticket, then.
Or else, who the fuck are we supposed to vote for ?? Most of us already know that those appearing on our ballot tickets are scumbags.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
So you're advocating violent regime change then?
So you're saying violence is the only way to effect change from the outside? I don't know about that, certainly not clear to me that's what GP was getting at. Seems to me what you guys need is a third, fourth, fifth major political party with half a chance of, if not winning any election, at least offset the current status quo.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
The people who own the media pick the president... please get it right...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
That's due to the insanity of the tea-party faction of R. He has to say all kinds of crazy things that he believes and will do in office in order to get past the R primaries, just so the people that WILL vote in the primaries will pick him.
It's the ones with the bat-shit crazy ideas that can be counted on to drive to the voting station and actually vote.
Regular R voters spread their votes between the candidates, and it's the wack jobs that push one candidate over the top.
Hell, that's what is happening right now in Congress. A couple of fringe R congressmen are pushing a radical agenda and have managed to shut down the gov't over it. Regular R congressmen are afraid that if they don't go along with the insanity, the next election, all the wack jobs come out of the woodwork in their constituency and vote a really crazy person in.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Or else, who the fuck are we supposed to vote for ?? Most of us already know that those appearing on our ballot tickets are scumbags.
Please explain why you consider either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to be "scumbags". Both seem to me to be people of high integrity. Gary got my vote last year, and Jill got my respect. If neither of them got your vote, maybe you should consider that people like you are the root of the problem.
Media picks the president and it picked Obama
The media hated Bush, and he got elected. Twice.
You're not disagreeing with me, you're just saying that one right-wing religious crazy party has slightly different policies from the other right-wing religious crazy party.
The winners make the rules, so any party that doesn't have a chance of winning is a waste of time and effort.
Media picks the president and it picked Obama. It is as simple as that. People vote like they are told. MSNBC for example did not have a single positive story about Romney or a single negative story about Obama in the final weeks before the election (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/press_release_7). Something like that is expected of MSNBC but the likes of ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo etc etc weren't far behind.
Sounds like the typical right wing propaganda you are promoting.. What about Bush? I did'nt hear or see the media/press publicly try to destroy him! And they didn't even bother to figure out why we rushed to start a war with a country (Iraq) that had no noticeable ties to terrorism. Yet every other country surrounding Iraq had ties to terrorist groups, and the media/press didn't bother to mention this until after most of the country had already been questioning the move to go to war! They are a corporation they want money and ratings and they keep the public in a zombie like daze until Snowden comes along, and before Snowden there were several internet based media outlets warning of the NSA's overreaching programs.
The Media/Press are responsible for the shit going on with all parties. Why? Because they continue to promote this by allowing this pigs to sit in front of cameras CSPAN for one, then they make sure they call every outlet to do interviews after the fact to continue to promote there systematic destruction of the country over ego.
And god forbid you grow any balls and ask them which companies/orgs., are buying them off, while they're so worried about the "average Joe" or upper middle class getting screwed out of there money. they are sell outs, do as I say, not as I do, or ignore all the money I am making from my position while helping to only screw you over. They use phrases like "too much government" "too much tax", but you never hear them say about regulations, stock market, housing, credit cards, banks, and these companies continue to move ahead with no real regulation. They type of crap that has hurt the upper middle class, who seem to have no control over themselves either.
The winners make the rules, so any party that doesn't have a chance of winning is a waste of time and effort.
I disagree. Even if other parties have -- at first -- no real chance of winning, having them at all might still make clear just exactly how similar the current major parties are.
When Ds and Rs agree on something that's a sure sign it is against most peoples' interests. I think that developing a wider frame of reference would make that more obvious.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
My oh my...
This ignorant tool right here hates the tea party so much that he has invented a fantasy world where Romney was cow-towing to the tea-party.
You know who tea party folks voted for? They wrote in "Ron Paul."
I know where you got this complete fantasy view too... the ignorant shit you just spit out came right out of the mouth of Rachel Maddow.
Here is an idea.. when you don't know what you are talking about, which is always the case when all you really have to say is to repeat what some ultra-left-wing opinion-head on an ultra-left-wing cable news network said, then dont fucking talk.
While you are at it, stop watching MSNBC entirely. 85% of their airtime is opinion instead of facts. Source: Pew Research.
Dont even bother denying that thats where you got this shit..
"His name was James Damore."
That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
Ah, the gift of making people buy something that they couldn't afford.... or face a fine which they also cannot afford.
"His name was James Damore."
Real change must be made from the outside.
Outside of what? The government? The human race? The universe? Where is this "outside"?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm waiting for the GP to respond with something along the lines of "blah blah you wasted your vote blah blah you acted as a spoiler" ... and when millions of people think that way, there's no chance of any third party candidate gaining any traction. The real problem here are apathy, excuses, and herd mentality. People don't vote on issues, hell they hardly understand what issues are at stake with any particular candidate. On the whole, people tend to vote for the political equivalent of their favorite sports team. So we get what we get, which is a horrible mess.
I have no idea how to to fix this, aside from watching things get so bad that people are rioting in the streets in every major city in the nation, and subsequently saying something like "well now, now that you all seem to care about what's happening since you can no longer ignore its direct effect on a massive number of peoples' lives, your own included, how about we figure this out."
Write failed: Broken pipe
People vote like they are told.
What, and you blame the media for that? I hope you're not one of those people who say video games have no effect on children...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Republicans are hired "red noses" to drive just enough people to the democrats (who play "rope-a-dope") to barely win or lose an election. It presents a nice moving target to prevent fixing blame on one or the other, and the illusion of opposition. Gene Okerlund and Ronny Piper (They Live is a documentary!!) should be calling the play-by-play. We reward this behavior with our votes. They drive the markets up and down a tiny bit with these little "crises", and their friends make billions overnight. What incentive is there for them to do anything different? What a great scam!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Obvious agent provocateur is obvious.
... Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party. ...
It's not a gift, it's them doing their job.
Be seeing you...
A bigger thing would be for people to start getting FOIA of politicians' communications from that lockbox for use in lawsuits trying to follow the money. All the dirty laundry and proof of utter corruption in government, whether it is RIAA or defense contractors or insider trading, all of the communications not written on cocktail napkins has been sucked up by the total information awareness. It is time we started using it to get something constructive done. Besides slapping down proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the next two useful services the NSA could provide are transparency of all communications with politicians (or at minimum, providing in response to a demand for a query on their database by an FOIA), and of course offering secure data center services including backup and VOIP, since they do that already. No hackers are going to get into your stuff if it's in Utah.
Jill Stein.
The panel's meetings are closed after Clapper exempted it from the U.S. Federal Advisory Committee Act ... for 'reasons of national security,'
Congratulations Mr Clapper, I vote for a round of applause. Why is everyone being spied on? OH! that's right:
for 'reasons of national security,'
Almost forgot for a second.
You know, the internet is about the people, not the governments. Stop complaining about the governments collecting information and start collecting information about the government. If they do it, it's got to be ok. After all, every threat to the US population for the last 50 years has been specifically caused by the government. Couldn't spying on the government be considered national security?
Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.
AC
Maybe you could help me, then. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack? Communist governments protect their citizens, so I know the idea isn't unknown on the Left.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So what happens when those who are uninsured get hurt? Who pays for their medical care. Here in the bay area they go to county health. the reason why we have the affordable care act is because it gets really expensive to treated idiots who put themselves at risk. I see it everyday at the grocery store I work at. The people using large recurring amounts of public resources are the the ones who don't realize that they could or should be paying for these services themselves. Instead of taking care of themselves, they buy the shitiest food possible and have more kids when they have been on foodstamps for years. UN fortunately, it is hard to force someone to act in their own best interest.
If you're tired of their bullshit YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING FOR THEM!
Give us an option of" I AM VOTING AGAINST ALL THE SCUMBAGS " on your ballot ticket, then.
Or else, who the fuck are we supposed to vote for ?? Most of us already know that those appearing on our ballot tickets are scumbags.
Well spoil your ballot ticket and don't vote. That way you're still using your right to vote but letting them know you don't want either option.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So what happens when those who are uninsured get hurt?
Before? They get a bill that they cannot afford.
Now? They get a bill that they cannot afford, plus a fine that they cannot afford.
Have you actually thought about the phrase "cannot afford" and what it means? It means "can't pay even if they wanted to."
You have this grand dream where everyone gets health care... and your solution is to give everyone health care.. the problem is that not everyone can afford health care.. and you don't have a solution.. but you have that dream.. and that dream must be acted on.. even if the solution doesnt achieve it, and actually hurts people. Who cares if people get hurt.. its the dream man.. the dream...!!
"His name was James Damore."
You know the really scary part though? Put Mitt next to almost any of the other contenders for the republican nomination and he looked incredibly moderate. A huge chunk of the party thinks that swinging further and further right is how they'll win elections and it simply doesn't work at the national level or in moderate or left leaning states.
How on earth can you ask that. Here is a better question. Which country has been involved in nearly every war since WW2? Hint it ain't communist.
So what happens when those who are uninsured get hurt?
Before? They get a bill that they cannot afford. Now? They get a bill that they cannot afford, plus a fine that they cannot afford.
So you do realize we are talking about a $95 fine right. Shit, that is a little more than double my co-pay for a single visit to Kaiser on a state law enforcement health plan.
If they were outsiders, they'd never be cooperated with and some would merely claim they are against the USA.
As insiders, if they DO find a problem and make it plain, they can't be accused of fabricating that.
It depends on what they do.
Bend over backwards to be thorough? Good move.
Go through the motions? Bad.
Let them know.
I'm sure a great country like the USA can explode the record of Belgium to be without government.
Come on, it's only a question of time, only 539 days left.
They did it, they survived it.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
You've picked an ironic day to spout that sort of nonsense. Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want any "gift" I have to pay for.
the problem is that not everyone can afford health care
You do realise that in Australia a 1.5% levy on income tax covers the cost of a "free" health system for all Australians (taxpayer or otherwise), our system also has significantly better medical outcomes than the US system. For a family of four that works out to close to 1/10th of what an American pays for similar cover. In fact you guys already pay a similar per-capita amount on health through your taxes. With the better economies of scale you have in the US that should easily be enough to ensure nobody goes bankrupt due to medical expenses (which is the real point of any health insurance scheme). Why the hell do you (or your employer) then need to go and pay another 9X that amount to a private middle man?
Oh, and lets not blame it on the doctor's hourly rates, our home grown doctors still drive around in nice cars and live in the "leafy avenue" part of town.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's disheartening what some 'murcans think is left-wing. Sorry, ultra-left-wing. If only :)
So is what you are saying is that Mitt Romney was a viable candidate if it wasn't for his personality... and his record? So pretty much, Mitt Romney was in fact completely hopeless as a candidate, and despite that: the MSM force fed him to the public as the "most electable" candidate. Meanwhile, the best performing candidate of the first several primaries was sand-bagged by the media as "un-electable" despite being almost universally well-liked in personality, with a record that was unmatched in both consistency and principle. The voting public including yourself ate this narrative hook line and sinker. There were as a group so unaware of their own brainwashing that it is frequently the case that their selective memory of the Republican primary completely excludes this candidate as a contender when they lament the lack of being presented with any good alternatives to Mittens.
You were effortlessly led by the nose in to buying in to the narrative that the candidate that best appealed to swing voters was un-electable, and you fell for it! Just like people believed the banks when they said the events of 2008 were unforeseeable. The same candidate who was excluded from consideration in voters minds based on libel, slander, and lies of omission spent most of his 2007 presidential campaign warning that precisely such a collapse was inevitable while every other candidate was on stage wasting time debating flag burning and gays in the military.
No you weren't dealt a shitty hand. Fuck you and your self pity. You had a choice and your denial of this fact exposes how you greeted this opportunity. You had nothing to lose by voting for Ron Paul, and this goes double for dis-satisfied democrats who were unpleased with Obama but were too lazy to register as Republicans in 2011 and hedge their bets. Any party that nominates John McCain & Mitt Romney over Ron Paul deserves to lose as many elections as necessary to fade from relevancy and be replaced by a more capable 3rd party. You have officially jumped the shark when your party stands for running up deficits on pointless wars and then deliberately losing elections for the next 8 years so the blame for the economic impact of those deficits lands on a black man's shoulders.
If you honestly thought the GOP party leadership wanted a 2008 or 2012 victory you're obviously one of the plebes they sent on a fools errand by asking you to vote for their pathetic psuedo-candidate. It was hilarious watching people completely oblivious to how unelectable Mitt Romney was blindly toil away on his campaign which was doomed before it started as if he had a snowballs chance of winning. He was never intended to do anything but lose and if you were so blinded by hatred for Obama that this obvious fact escaped your observation then I hope you invested significant resources in his campaign.
FYI, by late 2011 Ron Paul polled the worst of any politician among Tea Party voters. This is ironic because he is essentially the father of the Tea Party, at least back before it got hijacked by neo-cons. The Tea Party was essentially founded by Ron Paul supporters. Then a bunch of Neo-cons tried to wash their hands of the Bush administration by throwing stones in a glass house and adding the word "RINO" to their vocabulary. Those neoconservative hacks started listening to Glenn Beck(I like to call him "the parasite") and putting on powdered wigs and pretending like they were fiscal conservatives back when it was underground. Hijacked by morons just as effectively as the far left managed to hijack occupy wall street by turning city parks in to homeless shelters/public toilets.
Australia has something called "double dissolution" where, to fit the US system, both the Senate and Congress would be dismissed in entirety and an election for all seats would take place.
You should look into that.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You don't actually believe that I don't choose who to vote for; you were just told that that was the anti-establishment line by the fringe media, so you repeat it.
But what sort of idiot would have interpreted the President's words to mean a panel made of people from outside government, without security clearances? He clearly meant people not currently inside the programs, who are already known and trusted by the government. Like, duh.
The funny part is that people who can't even understand the basics of the conversation are trying to call it out and blather on about how much wiser and more worldly they are.
How will that be counted?
Well, Huntsman was pretty moderate wasn't he ? The problem with the republicans is that there's a sizeable chunk of the party that's run by tea-party/neo-con/ultra-religious nutbags who will sink any moderate (IE sane) candidate put forth.
So get a crazy person or copy a crazy person: This is leadership in the USA? At least with the former, the public can only blame themselves. With the latter, it's another politician chasing job perks and saying he still makes a difference.
That would be the Senate and the House of Representatives. "Congress" is both houses together. It's a common mistake that even Congressmen themselves make. Senators are members of Congress, too.
We hear "Congress and the Senate" from every reporter, news anchor, news writer, commentator and man on the street. But they're all wrong.
Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose.
Had they presented a down-to-earth, moderate candidate for the election, the Republicans would have won it by a landslide.
And that's why they didn't do that. If they had, they might have won. Instead they did everything they could to throw the election. Gotta follow the script.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Change does not come from within. Real change must be made from the outside.
Correct, and here's how to do it: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article Five Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, the real problem should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
If you didn't think Obama was one stupid S.O.B. before, you can see he is one now or you are just a retarded toadie.
He honestly didn't think anyone would notice he stacked the "independent group" with his "yes" men.
He really thought we would buy it. He thinks we're stupid.
Well fuck that stupid nigger! We got cotton fields that need tending, give that boy something meaningful to do that is within his skill set.
This ignorant tool right here hates the tea party so much that he has invented a fantasy world where Romney was cow-towing to the tea-party.
Mittens did enough that they didn't oppose him, but was put in a position where he couldn't attract enough non-aligned voters (the Dems have some demographic advantages there for a whole host of reasons, many of which are linked to Republican policies over the past few decades). OTOH, the effect of the tea party faction appears to be stronger in the process of selection of congressmen, where it has had the effect of producing a cadre of extremists who appear totally unable to compromise at all. Since making government work at all always requires compromise, the rest is really unsurprising.
Let's be clear, the Dems have their own extremists. The difference? They're not running the show; the party lets them yap, but doesn't let them control the candidate selection process. The only thing propping the Republicans up at national level right now are the placements of boundaries between districts, and there's been a lot of accusation of gerrymandering there; it's notable because the un-gerrymander-able boundaries of the states lead to clear Democrat advantage.
The problem the Republicans have is that an extremists response to failure tends to be to insist on more extremism, on more purity, while trying to force out anyone who might oppose them. This can lock the whole party into a vicious cycle and may take a generation to shake. (There was an equivalent problem in the UK with the Labour party through the late 1970s and early 1980s, except that was left-wing extremists, and it forced the party out of power for 18 years.)
I hope the Republicans get their shit together and behave like adults once again soon, even though I have never been fond of their political positions.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Cass personifies the insanity and sheer paranoia of the modern ruling class, most typified by this recent piece:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/could-bowling-leagues-and-the-pta-breed-nazis-.html
He interprets all social organization of white people as ultimately leading to Nazis. Yes, bowling leagues are the predecessors of the NSDAP.
He actually advocates the government monitor these institutions.
Now we know why this surveillance system is in place.
Australia has something called "double dissolution" where, to fit the US system, both the Senate and Congress would be dismissed in entirety and an election for all seats would take place.
You should look into that.
America used to use a quaint old system. It involved tar, feathers, and being run out of town on a rail.
Maybe we should revive it.
Change does not come from within. Real change must be made from the outside.
Correct, and here's how to do it: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article Five Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, the real problem should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
I am quite willing to sign up for this. But not everything wrong with US government can be laid at the feet of corporations. Some corporations do benefit from the current state of affairs, it is true. And some are greatly inconvenienced. By even if you wrote corporations out of the equation entirely, the real mover here is power and the people with the power are merely getting some of their funding from corporate sources. Getting their campaigns financed by other means wouldn't change the people behind it.
I've said before that money is not speech, it's just a bigger megaphone. The last election demonstrated quite handily that even the largest war chest is no guarantee that those grimy worthless little voters won't pick someone else. So, while pulling the money plug is a worthwhile effort, don't expect it to solve all problems.
A party cannot effect change from the outside, since parties are inherently "inside."
There is only one practical, workable, currently-running project to peacefully overhaul the system from the outside. Read the brief "transition" section of this page to understand the basic idea: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page
And then join us and help build our only practical hope for freedom from totalitarianism: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Participate#Join_the_list_server
I see no better option anywhere in this thread (or anywhere else).
If you're tired of their bullshit YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING FOR THEM!
Give us an option of" I AM VOTING AGAINST ALL THE SCUMBAGS " on your ballot ticket, then.
Or else, who the fuck are we supposed to vote for ?? Most of us already know that those appearing on our ballot tickets are scumbags.
Write in someone. Write in Mickey Mouse, if you really want to get the point across. Just don't stay home and get ignored, and for FSM's sake DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE BASED ON A SINGLE/NARROW ISSUE! We need a government that can function full-spectrum, not bicker back and forth on things that may be important to individuals but are distractions from what's important for the country.
Its sad watching this play out...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's the message I try to put out as well. Too bad most people can't understand we don't actually have a "two party system".
As for myself, I voted for Jill Stein, even though I oppose most of the Green Party platform. She was willing to be arrested to uphold democracy, protesting the first debate between Romney and Obama for not including all national candidates. So even though I don't agree with the Green Party on much, some things are more important than my personal beliefs.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The winners make the rules, so any party that doesn't have a chance of winning is a waste of time and effort.
Not in a democracy.
The majority makes the rules, and as is currently the case in Belgium, the biggest political party does not need to be part of that majority.
Consider Dems 45%, repubs, 45%, third party 10%. Any law, budget or ... can now be approved by any of the 3 combinations: Dem + rep or dem + third or rep + third. No single party can block things
If they are appointed by the government, they are insiders, plain and simple. There is no way that government can magically achieve non-bias against itself. There are elections and appointments (and other options like hereditary titles in some nations), but they are all in some way influenced by the government. An independent man, appointed to a panel by the government, is by definition no longer "independent."
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The United States of America.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way. Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I work for the government of the USA. No truer words were ever spoken than the previous post. The only way to fix this mess is to execute the departments. This monster arose because we "fixed" Admiral Poindexters "Total Information Awareness" program. So we fixed it. It got even more intrusive and more completely out of hand and we went deeper into that abyss where freedom dies.
Just for the record. The spying extend is this far and make no excuses for it it is total.
(1) It includes 100% recording transcription and were appropriate translation of nearly every language for scanning by automated "Bots" which is done of all Phone Calls by all means. All scanned in real time.
(2) It includes 100% of all financial activities such as banking, purchaces and even down to the line items on the charges you make at the store. All Scanned and correlated by bots in real time.
(3) It includes every public records transation you make as well. All scanned and correlated by bots in real time
(4) It now includes all US and probably all foreign computer generated Medical Records all scanned and correlated by bots in real time.
The NSA has been responsible for placing Micro-Code back door technology in all the major CPU devices that operates below the bios level causing them to have access to all computers beyond password lockouts. This allows, as it becomes known and it is published now, access to all
(3) It includes all patterns of transactions you make including sending of photos, emails, SMS, and MMS. All Scanned and correlated by Bots
The NSA is responsible for generating:
(1) Micro-code access below bios level into all the major CPU chips giving them access without password to your computer and giving them the ability to impersonate you and giving this capacity to any party who knows about it as well. This is now published publically and as a result the NSA is responsible for holing the security of every computer on earth. This makes them cause and accomplace to identity theft.
(2) Micro-code access to the random number generator of your CPU giving them access to your PGP and other code in a deterministic way rendering all of your banking and other identity based transactions insecure and making the NSA the causal agent of all Identity Theft. Others are mere opportunists who happen by and use their entry "holes" or "back doors".
This makes the NSA the biggest criminal agency in the world. Make no mistake the US Constitution is very clear about the rights of people to be secure in their person place and effects. Do your effects stop being yours because they are managed or housed in other locations outside your house? Does your car become property of your employer when you park it in his parking lot? Does your money become property of the bank when you deposit it? Then throw out the legaleze bull crap and get with the understanding that the NSA is a Criminal Organization and it should be prosecuted for its crimes. It is responsible for us having no security. It forced this condition on us so it could do unlimited spying easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
TL;DR - http://i.qkme.me/3tlhy1.jpg
.
A panel of telephone marketers would have accomplished more than that.
Incorrect.
If a third party gets a single percent of the votes and the difference between the two major parties are less than a percent then neither party can ignore the third party in the next election since their voters are enough to secure a victory.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America.
I'm going to have to sort of ... uhh ... disagree with you there.
There's a big difference that actually matters: One of those rich right-wing religious parties believes that government cannot function properly. Not just that it doesn't function properly (any idiot can see that that's at least partially true), but that there is absolutely no way to make it so that government agencies do their job efficiently and well. That kind of belief means that when they're in charge, they think it's a good idea to put the head of the Arabian Horse Association in charge of emergency management: Sure, they might screw things up, but that won't make things any worse for real people, right?
By contrast, the other party at least wants government to do their job properly, so for the very same role of heading up emergency management they'll put in people like the current guy, who had started as a firefighter and paramedic and worked his way up to running emergency management for Florida. In other words, somebody who was at least reasonably qualified to do the job.
TL;DR;: Republicans believe government can't work. When in office, they try to prove their point.
I am officially gone from
Wait, how is repeateing failed republican policies a "different direction"? Obamacare is Romneycare, which is making a small set of very rich people richer at the expense of the folks who work for a living. It has nothing to do with affordable or care. Amnesty? A failed Bush policy. The War on Drugs? Failed right-wing conspiracy to control what people do in their bedrooms.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And look at the other candidates who actually led Mr Romney at some point in the race:
- Newt Gingrich, who among other things divorced his wife in the hospital because he wanted to marry someone prettier that he had been banging on the side, at exactly the same time he was leading the effort to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a little action on the side.
- Herman Cain, who, as far as I can tell, had no clue what the job of President of the United States actually entailed.
- Rick Santorum, who's a religious nutjob.
- Michelle Bachmann. Ditto.
- Rick Perry, who seemed surprised at the idea that naming your family's country estate "N*****head" was seen as racist. Also, given his last job, and given how much recent success the country had had with former Texas governors being in charge, Obama would have had an easy win.
- Ron Paul, who has some really great ideas, and some really lousy ones. We tried things like bank-issued currency, and stopped because those practices caused all kinds of problems.
And who didn't ever come close to winning? Jon Huntsman, the candidate that the Obama people were actually worried about, because he's a moderate good-governance-get-things-done politician who had previously been a successful and highly popular governor in his state, and was saying sensible things on the campaign trail.
I am officially gone from
In related news, after a spate of attacks, a local farm is having a meeting to investigate hen house security. So far the illustrious A.J. Fox, C.M. Fox, D.S. Fox, D.S. Fox Jr and Melvin K. Fox the third have all been selected to serve on the panel. Mr Wile E. Coyote has been asked to participate but is currently indisposed after a rocket accident.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Yes he is. The US believes violence or money are the only two ways to solve any problem.
They cannot use money in this instance since all the money has been funnelled to the people operating the puppet government's strings while the people were sleeping.
Another more sensible way is to create a democratic movement. I don't know, maybe occupy some public spaces to get some attention called to the problems via passive resistance.
Surely america would get behind that?
Oh wait...
You seem to be confused as to what "right wing" and "left wing" really mean. Right wing, in its most extreme form, would be anarchy, i.e, no government. Left wing, in it's most extreme form, would be a dictatorship, or an all powerful government. Very few Republicans or Democrats in Congress are interested in lesser government; they merely want more power to do what they want. So in reality, both Romney and Obama, and the vast majority of Congress are left wing.
Which brings up an excellent point- passing free health care in and of itself is not making healthcare in America any cheaper as a whole, it's just making the wealthier people pay for more of it. It does nothing to address *why* healthcare is so expensive in the United States. And until it does, universal healthcare will be a much bigger burden than it should be.
I'm surely not advocating faggots like you
It's great that you're willing to sign the WOLF-PAC petition, because money in politics does far more damage than you may think. Sure, democracy is a messy business even in the best of times, but it's always preferable to an authoritarian regime.
Corporate influence on our politicians should always be limited to prevent corruption, but right now very little limits that influence at all. This affects both parties, because 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins the election, while most have found that getting their money from a small number of big donors is much more effective than getting it from many small ones. But that kind of money always comes with strings attached, which is exactly why Congress has such a low approval rating these days: they spend virtually all their time trying to keep their donors happy -- not their actual constituents.
Don't get me wrong here: we will always need corporations, because usually they are a force for good. For most things in our lives, we depend on the goods and services they produce. But certain rules need to apply to them lest things get out of hand. After all, they should serve us and not vice versa.
Of course, that's not how the corporations see it, for in the end the only thing that motivates them is profit. That's why to some extent all of them continue to bend and break the rules (pollution, money laundering, monopolistic practices, etc. etc.) whenever they think the benefits outweigh the costs. One of the tasks of government is to keep after them and make sure those costs (e.g. fines) always outweigh the benefits, but unfortunately it seems that Congress is no longer very effective at this. In fact, all they seem to be interested in is deregulation. Gee, I wonder why...
That'd be Cass Sunstein.
Why does the tinfoil make typing and grammar so difficult?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Jill Stein.
So which of both parties isn't a right-wing religious crazy party, according to you?
The problem with a mob is that they physically reflect the community they derive from.
In Washington, the folks most likely to be run out of town would be reformers and muckrakers.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
This is proof that we should have more black presidents. Anything to motivate journalists into doing their jobs.
Got to love that Hope and Change bullshit.
That is changing the subject. If you can, please list some countries that don't care if you come in to the country and attack its citizens - that will do nothing to stop you? Would even the Greens do that? The communists won't.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, but apparently a sympathetic media will save you from the fallout for insulting millions of people who "cling to guns or religion."
Any panel that has Richard Clarke on it is worthy of respect.
t's the ones with the bat-shit crazy ideas
Yeah!
Bat-shit crazy ideas like the government should not be able to:
Be involved in every last fucking detail of our lives
Print money like it's cheap Las Vegas sex ad paper.
Spend money like it's toilet paper.
Use the IRS as a political weapon.
Fund Terrorists, especially when they say explicitly that they hate you and will come after you.
Tax you to breath (exhale).
Ignore their Constitutional requirement to pass a budget.
Crazy shit like that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Dems think your should be killed by the Healthcare system now.
I don't agree with he green party on much either but they seem much less likely to take rights away than the Ds or Rs so they get my vote over them. My 2012 ballot was basically all greens or libertarians with one very libertarian leaning republican whom I knew well. What is needed is for Jesse Ventura to be on someone's ticket as the VP. He would crash the VP debate much like he did in the Minnesota Governors debate and would get noticed even if the man is a self obsessed douche.
Time to offend someone
If we could just get the other half of Americans to actually pay federal income tax instead of getting money back (as in refundable credits).
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Did YOU sign up? Will you give up your employer benefits and use Obamacare?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm starting to think that would have been an advantage for us. Plus they guy has a master's in computer science, so he's not likely to go full retard on tech issues. And he had a rags-to-riches story coming from poor Jim Crow Tennessee. Just think, we could have had a real black president instead of one who was rasied white and has no family history as slaves.
The Dems think so highly of government, they believe it should be in charge of everything and everyone.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But what sort of idiot would have interpreted the President's words to mean a panel made of people from outside government, without security clearances? He clearly meant people not currently inside the programs, who are already known and trusted by the government. Like, duh.
The funny part is that people who can't even understand the basics of the conversation are trying to call it out and blather on about how much wiser and more worldly they are.
+100
The two things are different. Video games are fantasy, while most people believe the media tells them the truth (whatever it is they watch/read).
Well there's the USA where the government takes an ever growing percentage of our economy to pay for overgrown military-industrial and surveillance-industrial complexes that make us less safe every day, would that work for you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
I doubt anyone has any problems with a country trying to protect itself, but when doing so infringes upon people's rights or costs too much money for too little gain, any free country should reject such a 'solution.' You do not want a free country, as you have made clear.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
urine idjit
$95 OR 1% of income, whichever is greater...
AND that is the first year, goes up after that...
Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are what is relevant, not left or right. It is silly to say that they're left wing based on the fact that they want more and more power; they're just authoritarians, and that has little to do with being left wing.
Richard Clarke, the chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council for Clinton who later worked for Republican President George W. Bush
Sure glad -that- was cleared up! Let me help with the rest.
Richard Clarke, the chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council for Democrat Clinton who later worked for Republican President George W. Bush
Michael Morell, Democrat Obama's former deputy CIA director
Geoffrey Stone, law professor who has raised money for Democrat Obama and spearheads a committee hoping to build Democrat Obama's presidential library in Chicago
Cass Sunstein, law professor and administrator of information and regulatory affairs for Democrat Obama
Peter Swire, a former Office of Management and Budget privacy director for Democrat Clinton
You can disagree but you're wrong. When Perot made a reasonable showing in 1992, the R/D party changed the rules to virtually eliminate third parties from all future televised debates. At the national level, there is no means for someone outside the R/D power structure to get elected.
Maybe if Occupy had actually occupied PUBLIC property, they would have helped.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'd way rather ride the Cain train than have this guy in office. He was the only potential candidate that wasn't a career politician.
Lets ask a bunch of spies if spying is a good idea.
Lets ask a bunch of bankers if deregulation of the banks is a good idea.
Lets ask a bunch of automakers if removing safety testing of cars is a good idea.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
To restore freedom the national security apparatus should be dismantled. NSA, CIA, HSA, military - shut them all down.
This would be great for the economy in the long run. In the short run religious insanes might take advantage, however local or in some cases state or national police can and should handle these incidents. Crazy people who do not fear death can cause damage, however they are inherently self-limiting. Freedom is for the brave.
The savings to govenrment would allow us to fund the entire national government without income taxes. Debt payments and payback can be funded by import duties on foreign governments controlled by religions. Such duties would cut off the religious terrorists at the root and generally improve the planet.
Obama's committee will never consider this. We need a new committee to implement this plan.
Verbum caro factum est
The problem being that 50+% of Americans actually believe Obummer's bullshit about "Hope and Change" and elected him after his first disastrous term. Romney would have been equally as terrible, but I was never saying he should have been voted in either. It really is sad that Dubya the Retard may no longer be going down in history as the president of all time.
You mean Carter.
The problem with eliminating corporations is that it also prevents entrepreneurs from opening businesses without losing their home and life savings to the first guy who "slips on the floor".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Not the best example of healthcare, Australia's system doesn't appear to be sustainable. Its been increasing in cost by $10 billion per year pretty consistently over the past several years. Thats an increase of $430 for every man, woman & child in the country per year. The government seems to be pushing citizens to buy private health coverage probably in the hopes of eventually weaning people off of the government program, which appears to be strained.
'Nouf said.
Wolf-pac has about 27k signatures. Check out http://www.movetoamend.org/ - they are much further along and seem to have a much more comprehensive program.
Cheap storage VM.
I'm waiting for the GP to respond with something along the lines of "blah blah you wasted your vote blah blah you acted as a spoiler" ... and when millions of people think that way, there's no chance of any third party candidate gaining any traction. The real problem here are apathy, excuses, and herd mentality.
Sorry, but that's just not true. In the real world, casting one's vote for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of getting elected is a waste of that vote. I am a well-informed voter and will always vote such that my vote counts for as much as possible. The only way that will change is if (yes, we're dreaming here) we switched the electoral process to some form of "instant runoff" process, wherein I could "safely" vote for the candidate I felt best represented my interests, knowing that if his/her bid failed, my vote would then be re-cast for my next choice, and so on.
Sorry, those aren't designated Free Speech Zones. (No, I'm not kidding).
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
Let's avoid the argument as to whether he was really conservative. Why did he have to be moderate? Obama is not moderate. He is for bigger government. That is a fact! That is what he ran on in both elections. He didn't look to loosen regulations or reduce government influence in the economy. He didn't close Gitmo, cut taxes, or cut spending. How about, instead of running two "moderates", we have two DIFFERENT GUYS?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Which camp are you with? The one who expects the uninsured to die in the streets because they can't afford care or the one which expects hospitals to treat the uninsured and pass the cost onto people with insurance?
Many people can't afford car insurance, but most people don't seem to have a problem with that "individual mandate". If you drive a car you WILL eventually get into an accident and need insurance. If you are alive you WILL eventually get sick and need insurance.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
Bush sent us a check... (still wish he was in prison...)
Cheap storage VM.
That's the problem when someone says "But a strong enough third party would FORCE the Democrats and Republicans to change their platforms/behavior." It ignores how power-obsessed the Democrat/Republican parties are and that THEY make the rules for how politics works. A third party won't magically spring up with 57% of the vote. It'll start small. Perot did very well but got under 20%. So the Democrats and Republicans worked together... to essentially ban third parties. They can exist but rules are put in place making it hard for them to take off. If, in the next election, another third party made a strong showing, you can bet that more rules would be put into place to knock the third party down. At best, the Democrats and/or Republicans might make some token effort to address the reason for the third party's rise, but only enough to quiet people down a bit and make them forget about voting third party.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Richard Clark has shown himself to be a good man. He was regularly trotted out during the Bush years to decry what was going on. I see his name at the top of the list as a good thing.
Agreed. I would have love to have voted for Huntsman. I even contributed to his campaign.
Administration saw this as a great opportunity to start cutting checks to some old friends.
Reasonable people can disagree over, say, whether the federal government ought to be engaged in any kind of emergency management at all. That's not the thrust of the argument: My point is that once the politicians have decided to do emergency management at the federal level, you want that job to be done competently. You can decide, at a later date, that you don't want it done at all, but nobody benefits from having it done badly.
I am officially gone from
If I recall correctly, Obamacare's vote was divided by party lines. The only way it passed was by courting independent seats into joining the democrats. Courting independent seats means you need to offer them some red meat to bring them to your side. A third party doesn't necessarily need to win a presidency or a congressional to have weight in politics. Even failed campaigns split evenly between Dem Repub can be upset by a third party which the 2 big parties will need to coax over to their side. Adjusting your platform to invite votes from a third party that holds 5% of the vote makes a difference when Dem and Repub can only come up with with 46% each.
Think about what the GOP was like before the Tea Party rose up. The tea party didn't rise up as a separate class, it got absorbed. Sure there was some bluster about rejecting all incumbents and running separately, but that went away pretty quickly and they became part of the GOP. But in the meantime, the Tea Party minority has enough marginal power to swing the larger GOP party itself over towards their side of the political spectrum, resulting in a massive shift to the right and the current shutdown battle. There isn't a battle between the Democratic and Republican parties, there isn't even a discussion going on between them. All of the battles are taking place within the GOP party between the Tea Party faction and the traditional GOP officeholders. Even moderate GOP politicians who have not lost their seats, are forced to move their platforms to the right to avoid getting a primary challenge to the right.
Basically, third party voters don't even need to win elections to make a difference.
Well, my bumper sticker says "Cthulu / Dagon - Why vote for the lesser evil".
So there..
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So much idiocy in one post. Where to begin. Bush clearly didn't give a shit about large numbers of Americans dying, as he sent hundreds of thousands of the poor bastards to Iraq and Afghanistan, in actions which have caused untold outrage and therefore increase in support of terrorists who wish to strike the US. A double-fail for saving American lives. Obama, by continuing the US's disgraceful support of Israel, has ensured hatred towards the US continues unabated, again a massive failure of saving American lives. And as for "lost intelligence"? Well, you don't get useful intelligence from terrorists by interrogating or torturing them - you gain intelligence from work in the field. You might get a titbit here and there from interrogation, but it's so unreliable and expensive to double-check it's pointless. Complaining that Obama has made it harder to kidnap people on a hunch and subject them to torture or interrogation for years without counsel or trial is hardly something to complain about - if your intelligence agencies rely on that behaviour to conduct their business, they're either terribly poorly trained, or wilfully evil. Killing terrorists (alleged or otherwise) is ridiculous, but not from an intelligence standpoint, but from a humanitarian (someone has been killed) or pragmatic (a new martyr has been born) standpoint.
The Tea Party has dragged the entire GOP party to the right. Sure they get elected within the GOP national campaign party, but they've gotten their platform absorbed in the larger GOP platform to create a spectrum shift to the right. They haven't taken a majority in congress as a separate party...but they didn't have to do that to make a difference in US politics. They can run against an incumbent and lose, but force him to move to the right to protect himself from losing his base. I consider the Tea Party to be a very solid example of how a third party can "win" without winning elections. Sure, the result was a shutdown of the government, but hey, they got what they wanted.
Bruce Schneier
Cory Doctorow
Lawrence Lessig
Richard Stallman
Edward Snowden
Not on an open channel he's not.
Who said anything about eliminating corporations?
He is just a figurehead. All he does is try to smooth out controversies and keep the status quo.
Even if other parties have -- at first -- no real chance of winning, having them at all might still make clear just exactly how similar the current major parties are.
You underestimate the extent of the rules in question. They pretty nearly completely ensure that the other parties don't have a chance of winning within the system, regardless of how many people realize D/R are two sides of the same turd.
Then our options are to fix this related "slips on the floor" problem or to leave all problems as-is.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Isn't that what liability insurance is for?
(name withheld by request)
Which won't cost them anything. So your argument is a nonstarter. As for anyone who doesn't qualify for under the generous new terms for Medicaid, they'll get subsidies that will reduce their premiums significantly, to just about nothing. If they can't qualify for that, then (1) they can still access individual plans that are significantly reduced in price compared to the previous year and (2) they must be making well in excess of $46,000/year so they must be able to afford it [or seriously reevaluate how they spend their money].
Even the family argument won't work here once you take into consideration the deductions those children represent to perhaps put them under the ACA's own AGI. Even the recent loss of employment doesn't work as an argument, because it's all based on current monthly income and when that becomes zero your annual income calculation under the ACA goes to zero too regardless of however much you earned in the months previous.
Everyone needs health insurance. It's too destabilizing to families when people are suddenly faced with a $30,000 operation. It plays a roll in reduced productivity, crime, child mental health, etc. The fine prods people into doing right by them and the country as a whole, and for many all this means is spending half an hour on a website. Oh God, what a horror.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
So says the straight rich white male virgin. To some people issues like gay marriage and birth control are very significant.
one thing they largely agree on is that allowing Americans to be killed in large numbers by terrorists is a bad thing
They do agree on that, but its like believing in santa clause and spending all your money rebuilding the fireplace so a fat man can slide down.
"Large" numbers of Americans have never been killed by terrorists. And don't even think about talking about Sept 11. Even in 2001 the CDC numbers point at lots of other things we could focus on if we actually wanted to save some lives.
Ideally,we would stomp down anyone who dares to charge $8 for an aspirin or $500/pill for anything. We would force a return to routine healthcare that can be afforded without insurance and emergency care where insurance itself is affordable (hint, if they quit charging $1000 for an X-ray, the insurance that covers it gets cheaper).
The uninsured have basically given up on actually being able to afford health care (and the law prevents them from helping themselves).
How does his comment rate "Insightful" instead of "Troll"? Calling Barack Obama a right-wing religious crazy guy is downright baffling. Obama is the most leftist president this country has ever known and Romney was far from right-wing.
The real blame is a step back from the doctors. Outrageously priced medical supplies of all sorts and charges piled on by hospitals.
It's more like we had to go for a ride with one or the other. We weren't so sure about Obama but we sure didn't want to be tied to the top of the car and hosed every so often.
A huge chunk of the party thinks that swinging further and further right is how they'll win elections and it simply doesn't work at the national level or in moderate or left leaning states.
This is the current theme on talk radio. "We're losing because we're not radical enough." It boggles the mind.
In the real world, casting one's vote for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of getting elected is a waste of that vote.
So, if you don't vote for the winner, you're wasting your vote?
Write in someone. Write in Mickey Mouse, if you really want to get the point across.
Maybe we should all vote for Robert '); DROP TABLE Candidates;--?
Why did he have to be moderate? Obama is not moderate.
There's this idea going around that moving farther left or right is bad for the country. A moderate would be more electable, since they would win more swing voters to that party.
Who said anything about eliminating corporations? Corporations are fine as long as they are properly regulated. It's lack of effective regulation and deregulation that has messed things up.
A Constitutional Convention would be a more appropriate venue.
The right to change the Constitution to something more suited to the citizenry's desires is a fundamental right as demonstrated by the founding of this country, but no one thinks to exercise it.
Hey. Thanks for spreading the word. I've never heard of WOLF-PAC before I read your post.
I've already signed the petition and look forward to contacting my state legislators in the coming days.
I urge you to keep spreading the word that WOLF-PAC exists and that there may still be a way to reclaim our government.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I too voted for Jill Stein despite having some serious problems with the Green Party. The only thing I have to say to anyone that still votes for the republicrats: Stop with the fucking excuses already; YOU are the problem.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Magic fucking underpants aren't going to save you when...
EPIC campaign analysis in 10 words or less!
MOD +1
You keep talking about "both parties" as though there were only two to choose from.
The fact that you think the head of the republican party is any different than the head of the democratic party is telling.
The problem with this country is people like you. Wake the fuck up. Stop voting for the establishment, and stop with the fucking excuses.
I don't care if you vote for the Greens or for the Libertarians or for the Communists, but stop throwing away your vote by voting for a continuation of republicrat domination of politics.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
You mean the same Obamacare that's based on the healthcare legislation that the republican candidate Romney promoted and implemented in Massachusetts? Yes, the irony is palpable.
Stop with the fucking excuses already. The republicrats are two sides of the same coin. Stop throwing away your vote. The republicrats agree on ALL major issues. Unlimited campaign contributions from corporate persons? Public campaign financing? Alternative voting mechanisms? Unchecked expansion of executive branch powers? Unconstitutional surveillance of the American public, wholesale? Increased protections for government whistleblowers? A congressional medal of honor for Edward Snowden? Disengagement in the Middle East? Accountability for public officials known to have violated the public trust? Accountability from the financial industry? Yes, show me this "plenty of difference" with anything that actually matters. Note, I don't consider gay marriage, abortion, or creationism to be "major issues" that are worth fighting over while this country crumbles around us.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Anyone who didn't see this coming is a knave, fool, or dupe.
If I recall correctly, Obamacare's vote was divided by party lines. The only way it passed was by courting independent seats into joining the democrats. Courting independent seats means you need to offer them some red meat to bring them to your side.
You are aware that this block of independent seats does not exist, right? The House of Representatives hasn't had a non-R/D in almost a decade and hasn't had more than 2 (out of 435) since WWII. The Senate has a single Independent (Bernie Sanders, who considers himself a democratic socialist) who caucuses with the Democrats. Joe Lieberman also was considered an Independent for his last term in office because he lost the Democratic primary but won the general election with support from the national Republican party.
Basically, third party voters don't even need to win elections to make a difference.
Your post in no way actually supported this conclusion.
Surely, the Republicans are responsible for the current shutdown, and are werdly obcessed with killing Affordable Care Act. The Democrats have been trying to push through reforms that will benefit many Americans. I'm not saying tehre's no difference. But, you do know that Affordable Care Act is largely based on what was once a Republican legislative proposal, right? The republicans are mostly against Obamacare because the other team passed it. When the Republicans originally proposed it, the Democrats didn't like it very much mostly because it came from Republicans. The two parties really have relatively little difference in reality in terms of real policy goals in the long term. It's mostly about being opposed to whatever the other team is doing. That is a bigger driver for both of them than the real policy goal differences. (Which are indeed there. They just aren't really the dominant factor in determining what Congress does.)
Did those 2 seats belong to the Democratic party? No? Why is that? Neither a Democratic, nor a Republican candidate owned those seats. As independents they are certainly tempted to receive aid from the larger parties, since there is no large party supporting them, but ultimately they owned the seats and their votes were not guaranteed from the outset. You mention Lieberman taking his seat with help from the Republican Party. He had lost the support of the Democratic party. He could have chosen to side with the Republican Party against the bill to be reelected along the same path.
You're also conveniently pretending the Tea Party has had no effect on U.S. politics.
Your post in no way actually supports your conclusion.
Did those 2 seats belong to the Democratic party? No? Why is that? Neither a Democratic, nor a Republican candidate owned those seats.
Pretending Joe Lieberman was an Independent is laughable. He was a hair's breadth from being the nation's Vice President as a Democrat and was supported by the Republicans in his campaign as an "independent". He lost the support of the local Democrats because of his war hawk and neo-con positions. Bernie is indeed outside the mainstream and a legitimate independent politician. He's also an anomaly. 1 out of 535. Let's talk when he's one of 30 or 40.
You're also conveniently pretending the Tea Party has had no effect on U.S. politics.
I said that? I said nothing about the Tea Party because I had no interest in that part of your comment. Of course they've had an impact. But they're also a movement within the GOP that is shaping the GOP's platform from within. They are not a third party.
You are "free" to choose whatever reasoning resolves your cognitive dissonance and helps you sleep at night.
Does not make you right...
lol. Public property. Good one.
Exactly right.
On another, small, discussion board I used to go on last year, I mentioned after the election I voted for Jill Stein, and a fellow board member could hardly believe he and I voted for the same candidate. The two of us fought on many issues, and our politics are far apart, so he thought our choice would be polar opposites.
In fact, on that board, it turned out that over half of the couple dozen regulars voted third party because we couldn't stomach this crap anymore. One guy, who was the most vociferous liberal there had a hard time explaining why he still voted Democrat, when all his usual supporters didn't.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Moderate in regards to the competition. When one side is borderline fascist (no Godwinning, I speak strictly in the economic-political sense of the word, no goose-stepping skinheads) and the other is merely corporatist, the middle ground is gonna lie somewhere to the right regardless. The only question is how far afield will they go.
As to an actual left-wing candidate - fuggitaboutit. Sadly there is still more then enough voters that reflexively associate socialism or even liberalism with satanic worship and insidious plots to sap our precious national essences to make any serious national figure from the left DOA.
They can't afford it but the rest of us can...and do. Ultimately their care comes out of our collective pockets in the form of massive insurance premiums and hospital bills.
You do realise that in Australia a 1.5% levy on income tax covers the cost of a "free" health system for all Australians (taxpayer or otherwise),
That 1.5% income tax levy doesn't cover the whole cost of the healthcare system, not even close.
Expat guide to Australia: health care
All taxpayers contribute 1.5 per cent of income to Medicare. Higher earners contribute 2.5 per cent. This falls very far short of the budget required. Most funding comes from central government.
Healthcare costs rise to $130bn, or $5800 per Australian: report
Having said that, I think that the Australian healthcare system is interesting and probably a better model than some other national healthcare systems.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There was a time when there was no civilization, in that day and age, we had, by and large, law of the jungle.
Today, we have civilization. We are all interdependent, even though some don't want to admit it.
The wealthy are dependent on the poor to middle class people for the revenues they collect.
In the same way that you would water and provide needed nutrients/food to a garden, or to livestock that you recognized your dependence on, the wealthy ought to be allowing the provision of some minimum in recognition of this. I think a job ( at reasonable pay ) would be better than welfare, but when the "job creators" move the jobs elsewhere, what is one to do? ( no, I don't think they should adopt a victim mentality, but entrepreneurship is hard, and even those with the ambition to do that fail more often than not. Not everyone has every talent, not everyone is smart in the ways that work in business. Not everyone can be CEO ).
Life is hard. I don't think it is unreasonable for our society to try to take off a few of the rougher edges. ( not all of them, it is true that we need to work for what we get, in general )
I think it is heartless to say ( and I recognize you might not have said this ) NAIRU means full employment is not possible, but if you cant find a job, be ok with being at risk of dying because you weren't lucky in parentage or circumstance..
Fine, fine. OK start a third party but remember the rules of American politics:
Increased military spending
No cuts to Social Security
Loving Jesus
So long as you abide by those core principles you can have whatever policies you like. Without those three you're gonna get obliterated, and with those three you're just the same as the Dems and Republicans anyway.
By cherry picking two sentences out of my previous reply, you managed to miss the entire point of the reply in its entirety. You've also handily proven that point.
Write failed: Broken pipe
Bobby, you're never going to be president if you keep up with these shenanigans.
Write failed: Broken pipe
On second thought, I hear Diebold is hiring, so maybe you'll be elected after all.
Write failed: Broken pipe
Personally, I am happy to see these ppl on the panel. Ppl like Clarke are needed so that the rest of the panel understands what can/can not be missed. However, it strikes me that we need to double this panel and the other half of this absolutely needs to be civil libertarians with a strong CS background who can push for the constitution, and perhaps offer up alternatives. Ppl like Bruce Schneier absolutely needs to be on this panel.
Keep in mind that I worked on this stuff. At the time, and since then, I have stated that I support this, BUT, have always wanted great congressional oversight. Now, I happen to know that critters like rand paul KNEW about this (he is such a lying creep ). But few of them really pushed for oversights. In fact, I would say that with a panel composed like this and not a peep out of ANY in CONgress speaks volumes about them. Basically, we can NOT trust congress to have decent oversight on this. This panel may be the best chance at getting good ideas and decent oversight. Hopefully, EFF and others will push back on this.
. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
The United States of America.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way.
Are you sure that it isn't your evaluation that is ridiculous? There are people sitting in US prisons after arrest and conviction for terrorism related offenses, included attempted and actual attacks. If you were correct there shouldn't be anyone. There seems to be a defect in your reasoning.
Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
That makes no sense in light of the states goals of al Qaida. They want to conquer the entire earth for Islam, install Islamic governments in each country, and convert the people to Muslims, even if it takes 1,000 years. Given their goals they must ultimately deal with every nation. Your view makes no sense in light of that.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
Thousands of terrorist attacks happen around the globe each year, killing tens of thousands of people and wounding many more. I think the actual theater here is the fiction you're posting.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You do not want a free country, as you have made clear.
See: Ad hominem
Then I suggest you widen your reading material.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
OK, lets talk about December 7th. In 1941 there were far more people killed by automobiles, ~ 13x, than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. That is before we get into the large numbers killed by disease. By your thinking the US should never have gone to war against Japan, and yet it did. How do you explain that? Is it possible that there is a flaw in your reasoning regarding national security?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So that the vote ranking doesn't merely get us another representative President blockaded by a nutjob UN-representative House Of Representatives.
There are a couple ways to do this (create geometric rules for districts, or switch to proportional representation in Congress) and I read somewhere a Supreme Court decision in 1964 may make the prospect more probable than it sounds.
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20130930/OPINION02/709309932
Magic fucking underpants aren't going to save you when you directly insult massive fucking swaths of the voting public.
I just woke my neighbors laughing. Thanks for brightening my day. :)
The Japanese & allies were more than a half dozen guys with a grudge. To even imagine that a nation with an actual military is the same as a bunch of guys living in caves is pretty shocking.
If you are unable to comprehend the difference I pity you.
Why did you bother linking to that? If you're trying to say that was a logical fallacy, well, I never said your arguments were wrong because of some aspect of your character or any other such thing, so it isn't. Merely insulting someone isn't a fallacy, if that's what you even intended to convey. If not, then... good job on noticing the insult.
Then I suggest you widen your reading material.
I suggest you stop spamming links to articles about terrorists; no one with a brain cares.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
You said I don't want a free country. Prove it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Other than everyone on Slashdot, every day?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You don't want what I know as a "free country." You're constantly posting about how we should just accept surveillance and all the other measures that violate our freedoms (which you probably deny anyway) in the name of fighting terrorism, all the while spamming links that talk about terrorist attacks and how the terrorists are going to get us.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
That is the correct way to vote for the person, not the party they claim to align with.
What we really need to do is switch to a 0-party system and get rid of the center aisle so no one can claim to be on the left or the right either.
Instant run-off and nixing the choose your VP (VP is 2nd place vote-wise for Pres) would be icing on the cake.
Other than everyone on Slashdot, every day?
Not necessarily. We're not always as nuanced, but I suspect that many if not most of our members are not so upset with corporations being seen as legal persons with certain legal rights and duties, which has been the case since the 19th century, as they are with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that gave corporations additional rights previously reserved only for natural persons, particularly the right to make political independent expenditures under the First Amendment.
She was a much, much better candidate than either of the two bozos the major parties ran. If you looked at her webpage, she laid out a very comprehensive platform to reform the government to be more of the hope and change than one of the bozos who professed this(and lied.) Her guidance would have put this country back on track to be the America it once was as far as our freedoms, our military policy and this asinine spending without restraint(just the cost of the interest on the debt would pay for Medicare completely.) She was even blocked and arrested when she tried to get into one of the presidential debates which shows just how scared shitless both of them were if she was able to get up and start answering questions as well as pointing out the massive failures that Obama and Romney were(and Obama still is - he promises one thing and then turns around and does the opposite in many cases. It's the old adage - actions speak louder than words with him.) It's too bad that someone like her couldn't have been elected and show the people of this country what a real representative party could do for them. The Ds and Rs would find themselves in deep trouble with their policies(as if they aren't already) and find their positions very tenuous by now. "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx
> Are you sure that it isn't your evaluation that is ridiculous? There are people sitting in US prisons
> after arrest and conviction for terrorism related offenses, included attempted and actual attacks. If
> you were correct there shouldn't be anyone. There seems to be a defect in your reasoning.
There are lots of things. The existence of a handful of exceptions to the rule does not disprove the general rule. Had every single one of them been successful in their plan, the difference would be insignificant. It would be terrible and tragic, but, a handful of tragedies does not make an emergency, epsecially when all you can reasonably do, is change their targets.
> That makes no sense in light of the states goals of al Qaida. They want to conquer the entire
> earth for Islam, install Islamic governments in each country, and convert the people to Muslims,
> even if it takes 1,000 years. Given their goals they must ultimately deal with every nation. Your
> view makes no sense in light of that.
No my view makes perfect sense in that I don't care what their goal is, I don't expect them to be successful at it, not even minorly; not even in places where Muslims are already there.
If I say my goal is to conquer the world for fat people, does that make me a threat too?
> Thousands of terrorist attacks happen around the globe each year, killing tens of thousands of
> people and wounding many more. I think the actual theater here is the fiction you're posting.
We are not talking about the globe we are talking about here. Is the US building illegal settlements in other people's land? Hell, we are responsible for many of the terrorist attacks with our drone strikes, every one of which qualifies.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
So you're advocating violent regime change then?
So you're saying violence is the only way to effect change from the outside? I don't know about that, certainly not clear to me that's what GP was getting at. Seems to me what you guys need is a third, fourth, fifth major political party with half a chance of, if not winning any election, at least offset the current status quo.
Yes, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to do away with the Electoral College and to allow for political factions to form changing coalitions, especially in light if the awful ruling from the Roberts Supreme Court in 2010 that gave what is essentially citizenship to corporations. The Belt Way insiders need a flush, and we aren't going to get that under the current duopoly, the radicals in the House of Representatives, who don't represent most Americans, aren't helping either. This impasse is due to poor leadership and the breakdown of political traditions. A revitalization of political debate is badly needed with the public taking its responsibility to become opinion makers rather than letting special interests frame the discussion. One way to do that is to allow for as many political parties as can be started to wheel and deal over individual issues. The public will discover that a hand full of parties is enough to reflect both the terms of debate and the coalitions necessary to form policy.
You're the one who said "public spaces". Company-owned property is not public, by definition. While the easement in NYC and other places often allows people to pass through or even linger, it doesn't allow them to set up camp, leave refuse, vandalize, make noise, or block access to others. Perhaps my movement of the 50% of Americans who actually pay more in taxes than they receive in entitlements should set up camp on your lawn or, if it applies, the couch in your apartment. Hope you have HBO.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Question: Where is the central government getting the money from? Public donations?
I certainly am. There's no other sort. While there's no guarantee that violence in itself will bring satisfaction, the current regime is held in place with massive violence. If it is to be overthrown, it will be done with violence and bloodshed. We can argue politely about lesser evils, and we can speak about peaceful change. We'll see none that's meaningful. So long as that is certain, the need for an armed revolution, it makes sense to compete in detailing how one can progress from a successful revolutionary military command to a successful leadership of a divided nation, given victory.
So let them do it, one election cycle. The lesson that it'll give is well worth the pain of them being in the office.
Of course, for most important positions, they won't get to the office. If teabaggers manage to sneak in a bona fide crazy through the primaries and field him against Democrats, the latter will win in a landslide heretofore unseen - and that right there will be the end of the Tea Party.
You know who tea party folks voted for? They wrote in "Ron Paul."
ORLY?
Tea Party may have started as a libertarian attempt to take over GOP, but it was clearly overrun by batshit insane conservatives of the worst kind: religious whackos, racists, xenophobes, and people convinced that Illuminati are behind every tree (quite often, these all combine in a single person). Libertarians may be writing in Ron Paul, but they are not the Tea Party anymore.