Slashdot Mirror
RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance
Bob9113 writes "According to an article on Ars Technica, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has passed a resolution that "encourages Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA's data collection programs." The resolution, according to Time, was approved by an overwhelming majority voice vote at the Republican National Committee's Winter Meeting General Session, going on this week in Washington, DC."
Hey, when you oppose everything the president does, it's gotta work in our favor sometimes!
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.
Unconditional opposition can be beneficial.
Next thing you know the RNC will favor marijuana and homosexuality.
Only for themselves, everyone else who engages in that is a sinner.
The NSA is also spying on the internet under Section 702 of FISA.
No one is talking about discontinuing that program or protecting our 4th amendment rights online.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Who is working to end this?
not Obama, that is for sure
The only change thus far has been that the the NSA has been ordered to use the Rubberstamp FISA court.
the appearance of change. not actual change.
Obama who is working very hard to end this
[citation needed]
Back in 2002 or so, when people were really starting to rally against the PATRIOT act, the usual faces were all over the media, calling detractors "terrorist sympathizers" and worse. More than a few openly called for such people to be labeled traitors.
And here's Paul Krugman with regards to Rush Limbaugh back in 2002...
I can't remember where it happened, or who exactly said it, but someone confronted Rush Limbaugh about his words and said, "Imagine if Hillary Clinton were to become president, and she has the power that you want to give President Bush."
Well.
It would appear that has a very good chance of happening. And what was laughed off back in 2002, is now staining underwear in 2014.
[End Of Line]
but I suspect the homosexual angle will be solely Democrat for some time to come because of the religious objections.
The anti-surveillance stance reminds me of the rally against deficit spending by whichever Party is presently out of power.
The roles in our two-trick pony show are amusingly interchangeable.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
These guys never take into consideration that you should never grant yourself any powers you wouldn't want your enemies to have...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Oh, the irony: From the party that brought us the PATRIOT act.
Oh, the data!
Here's the roll-call vote for the Patriot act.
tl;dr: Democrats: 145 yea, 62 Nay (with 4 abstentions).
I've been thinking of changing my party affiliation recently (and no, not making this up).
Which party do you recommend? I'd like to see if your party votes in the interests of the republic. Do you know any accomplishments that you think are noteworthy? Excluding health care, since everyone already knows about that.
Even attempted accomplishments would be a good indicator of intent, even if they came to naught. I want to throw my weight and online debating skills behind an organization I can believe in.
Who can you recommend?
Nobody believes them anymore.... they just seem to do knee-jerk reactions to any and everything. Next thing you know the RNC will favor marijuana and homosexuality.
I reject the entire notion that consenting behavior among adult people is ever the concern of government. The sooner the average person figures this out, the sooner we can stop having these silly, phony, issue-by-design debates about such things.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Opposition parties should oppose stupid things (even if they would do the exact same thing if they were in power).
The problem with the GOP not that they oppose, it's that they seem to have lost the element of selection.
no doubt about it. If you voted for obama, and are now in the middle because you pay attention to what's really going on behind big media, you're probably going to be really ready for what the other party has to offer. Especially when you hear on all news sites about how we're turning into a police state silently but surely.
who is working very hard to end this, we know this is a lie. They hate him so they are for it because he is against it. That is how those people think.
If he is working hard to end this, it's because its existence was leaked and the Joe Sixpacks of the nation who need to have these things explicitly explained to them became outraged. The rest already assumed they were doing something like this while listening to the sheep cry about tin-foil hats anytime someone tried to suggest that massive surveillance powers were going to be abused like any other power. You really can't help people who won't lift a finger to help themselves and are hostile to the suggestion that they should.
Consider that the US President would almost certainly be informed about such a significant program implemented by the executive branch. How hard did he try to stop it before so many people became outraged about it? I'm guessing not at all, but I would like to be contradicted on that.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
and the perp-u-lation says what? Welcome to Corp 101
Who can you recommend?
If you are mature enough to understand that most are not anarcho-capitalists, I'd recommend the Libertarian Party. They're the only ones I know of who are serious about reducing the size and power of government, which is badly needed right now. If that ever happens (ha ha!) I'd be open to other ideas myself.
I could not in good conscience recommend either major party. I'd personally rather back the underdog that's not going to win, than be Satan's Little Helper, but that's me.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Pass a resolution calling for the prosecution of all federal agents who engaged in the practice of "parallel constructions" and in particular try the entire clandestine side of the DEA as a criminal conspiracy operating under color of authority for its major role in that.
If the democratic party doesn't have abortion, same sex marriage, welfare, and racism, what do they have left? Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.
Inconveniently, it's not confusion so much as disagreement that you are encountering on that one. People just can't get enough of the intoxicating feeling of having society and the power of the state united behind their personal tastes. Worse, some of them think that this feeling is objectively good, as well as pleasurable.
So the RNC is encouraging their members to come out against things which are unconstitutional? Where will they find the courage to make such a principled stand? I haven't heard of such a thing since the "No punching babies" resolution of 1978! I also applaud their timely response to the issue, seeing as how we've only known about it for the better part of a year.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's all about the targets.
Republicans never thought the targets would be other American citizens.
Obama has proven them wrong.
Yes, for some reason there are still large numbers of people who need proof that something which happened every single other time (power being abused) is, in fact, going to happen again this time if you start with the same conditions.
I generally call these people "idiots", but you may prefer such terms as "numbnuts", "morons", "imbeciles", etc.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Their platform requires that the county be racist, misogynist, homophobic, and poor.
Good point. Probably why the GOP won't be seeing the inside of the White House anytime during the next 6 years.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Apparently having a cogent healthcare system is a moral hazard, but it took them six years to care about the massive, unconstitutional surveillance programmes.
Quite a few republicans who have been elected in the previous 10 years are not the same republicans that helped put bush in power. Rand paul and the rest of the young guns are more libertarian. The real traitors IMO are the ones who were against it while bush was in office, but then expanded the power once they took over
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The USA PATRIOT Act, that is, sorry.
Oh please. The government isn't run by the people you elect. It's run by the people who finance their appearance on the TV. And if all you people didn't play along, the velvet glove would come off. Power and privilege is never given up peacefully. The 'underdogs' are allowed to mouth off because nobody's listening.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I know it's just anecdotal, but almost all of the Republicans I know have more of a laissez faire attitude towards marijuana and homosexuality.
It would be amusing if it weren't so detestably obvious, friend. It almost seems to me like they kicked off the year 2000 with a list of targets known as the bill of rights. The following no longer offer any legitimate protection I, II, IV, and VI. That only leaves 23 and we're only 14 years into the century. We were probably silly to count on a legal document in the first place. We should have heeded the words of our forefathers and hung these bastards as far back as 1913.
Well, okay, 11-27 aren't considered the bill of rights, but within them is the right of women to vote and a revision of the racist counting of black people and the end of slavery, so I feel they are every bit as important.
The most respectable conservative I ever met in person was a cross-dressing bisexual. He was a conservative republican because 1) he believed the government had no place in our personal lives (if you can't agree with that, you are not an American, you are something else, and you are a motherfucker) and 2) he believed that government had no incentive to save him money as long as they could decide how much of his money they would take and not the inverse.
Every Republican primary and local elections we've had in the last couple of decades has the candidates battling about whose the most "conservative" - conservative being is the most socially conservative.
The Christian Right still has a HUGE stranglehold on the party and that's why unless the Liberian leaning candidate is also for government control of sex, marriage, and reproduction (especially abortion), they will have no chance.
There are many many Republicans who vote on social issues and limiting government (Old School Republicanism) doesn't even cross their mind.
Many Republicans are on the same side as the Statist Democrats: they want to legislate morality as they see it.
So, in 2016, we WILL see the same old shit because there are too many people out there who care more about preventing two same sex people getting married than our Government ignoring everything that this country used to stand for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The Republicans do something I agree with? Woah. I’m going to have to switch to being pro-surveilance! I’m in a conundrum!
Isn’t it the republicans who are usually in favor of this sort of stuff? They’re usually the morallity police who think it’s okay to spy into your house to make sure you’re not doing something gay or smoking pot.
Oh, wait. I get it. The republicans, who support big businesses rich people taking over the world, are afraid that surveilance will uncover their dirty dealings.
Then again, Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in a staggeringly atypical rush for such sweeping legislation, amid what was for much of the country a state of still-raw shock and terror.
By comparison the Affordable Care Act -- "Obamacare" if you insist -- passed both chambers with significant majorities after lengthy and intense debate. Debate, moreover, on issues and policy responses that were both familiar for some considerable time beforehand.
I'm not aware of any standard, detailed definition for "ramming" legislation through, so presumably this must remain a matter of personal opinion. But for my part, I really don't see a persuasive case for suggesting that the ACA was "rammed through" but the USA PATRIOT Act was not.
Wait a minute. Weren't these the same people who broke into the Democratic Natl. Committee's headquarters seeking to pilfer with documents and information?
on our own people is a great first step. Next, we need to respect our allies in the same way.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
That, and there's a democrat in the white house they can try to blame the whole thing on.
You actually think there are two parties?
There are absolutely two parties - statists and non-statists. Those who want your life controlled by the government, those who want you to be free to choose.
That's not a Republican / Democratic breakdown though. McCain is absolutely a statists, as are a number of other prominent Republicans. The real issue that a VAST majority of Democrats now are primarily statists, to the point where there is very thin resistance against government intrusion in all aspects of life.
That's why instead of voting for PARTIES, you need to understand where the candidates you can choose between lie on the statist/non-statists continuum (because in real life real people are not simply angels or mustache-twirlers) and vote in the direction of the person who wants most to leave you the hell alone...
And if you REALLY want to change things, you should promote and support such people in primaries before they ever even reach the stage you can vote for them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Greens are interesting too ... essentially libertarians with a greater willingness to ensure a social safety net and protect the commons (environment) from being abused by a few who profit at everyone else's expense.
Honestly though, I'd vote for either. The DNC and GOP are so corrupted by and enslaved to their donors, I'd be happy to see anyone kick their collective elephantine asses.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Where were these turds when Bush rammed through the PATRIOT Act?
Right with all the Democrats ramming just as hard.
As has been stated though, there are a lot of Republicans in office now that never voted for Patriot and do not like it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lots of posturing about restoring 4th amendment rights w/o any specifics. I'd really like to know what ACTION they will take. The only specific plans seem to be to haul as much of the current administration before congress for some goo ole public chastisement and to see if they can throw some charges at them that will stick. Not any mention chastising the GOP leaders that created the legislation that deprived the citizenry of their constitutional rights. Let focus on addressing the reform. If they really feel the need for outing people in public, be sure to bring along the leaders of both parties during bush that created the PATRIOT act and empowered the secret laws and courts.
Yup. Even the most dimwitted Republicans have figured out that America's secret police do not discriminate. They spy on *everybody* who might need to be arrested or blackmailed (i.e. everybody), congress included.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It wasn't that long ago that the Democratic party was on the vanguard of Christian piety and the Republicans were in the business of courting disenfranchised minorities to help win elections.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
You'd be surprised. Remember Cheney was still in the White House when he came out in favor of gay marriage.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The roles in our two-trick pony show are amusingly interchangeable.
It becomes shocking once you realize that there is no position held so strongly by either party that they couldn't do a complete reversal within ten years, and on most issues, much more quickly. Remember Obama thought marriage was between a man and a woman until his viewpoint evolved last election.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, these people are partly responsible for creating these programs in the first place. But at least now they're opposing them. That's something I agree with. We should let them know we agree with it. And just as import: tell the Democrats we agree with it. Tell them they'd better get behind this, or they'll be on the losing side of the issue in the next election.
And yes, I know that many of the Republicans who voted for this are probably just doing it for political reasons, because they have to oppose whatever Obama supports. But that doesn't change the conclusion. If politicians just do whatever they think will be politically beneficial, then you need to make it beneficial to do what you want them to do. And when they do something you agree with, don't hesitate to voice your approval.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
There are Many Many MORE that vote on fiscal issues, support abortion, gay marriage, and limiting the NSA.
If that were true, then why is it that none of those Republicans ever make it past the primaries?
If you want to be a Republican Presidential candidate for the general election, you better be anti-abortion, anti-gay, Christian (although Lieberman did make to VP candidate) - the other issues take a back seat.
A pro-gay, agnostic, pro-abortion BUT fiscal conservative would NEVER make it past the Republican primaries.
The religious nuts have ruined the GOP - thank you very little Reagan.
To be fair, not all Republicans believe that way. Not even all Republican politicians. But it may well be true that all successful Republican politicians believe that way.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
> I'm rather certain, from internal logic, that you don't have a citation for that.
I'm rather certain you are an asshole.
"NASA Chief Bolden's Muslim Remark to Al-Jazeera Causes Stir"
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa...
Was the biggest reason I voted Democrat.
Ordinarily I don't feed the trolls, but that was hilarious!. Well done, sir. Well done.
It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.
C|N>K
Ok, I will bite on this one. Can you name the Successful republican candidates that believe it is necessary to mention that Hitler believed in evolution? I have never heard Mitt Romney or John McCain say this. They were the last two republican candidates for president.
"That, and there's a democrat in the white house they can try to blame the whole thing on."
What do you mean "TRY"?
Obama supports more government surveillance. He's said so. Hell, he said it again just the other day. And his purported "fixes" don't stop anything or slow it down, they just try to shift the blame.
Several government oversight bodies have ALL said this is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. Who says nay? Obama and his cronies in the current administration. Nobody else. (Of course the NSA does, too, but they're just employees. They don't count.)
The hemorrhage may have begun under Bush, but Obama was the one who deliberately grew it to completely, hilariously, outrageous dimensions. Nobody else. He has no excuse that it was an accident either, because he has defended it publicly.
These are statements of fact. And here's one more:
When the Republicans have to rescue our "civil liberties" from Democrats, it's pretty damned clear that you have a bad administration.
Because being a fascist dickhead is only cool if a Republican is president.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"hat's why instead of voting for PARTIES, you need to understand where the candidates you can choose between lie on the statist/non-statists continuum ..."
... and realize that the statist - non-statist (others call it authoritarian-independent) continuum is not directly related to the Left-Right continuum.
That's why THIS was invented.
"Greens are interesting too ... essentially libertarians with a greater willingness to ensure a social safety net and protect the commons (environment) from being abused by a few who profit at everyone else's expense."
No, they're not. Greens are scarcely different from Democrats, except for a strong emphasis on environment. That is all.
By and large, they are not even remotely Libertarian. Most Greens I have met wouldn't know a Libertarian principle from an Erlenmeyer flask.
A non-statist wants smaller government.
Without government propping up corporations, and vice-versa, corporations (read: business) is Mostly Harmless.
Historically the truly bad effects from large corporations are always caused by significant ties with government.
That's why it's OK to be pro-business and anti-statist.
Also, no corporation has ever had as poor an effect on people as bad government - so if you have to chose choosing the anti-statist is always the better choice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am with Causality. Nobody in the Federal government should either favor or oppose either marijuana or homosexuality... because neither one of them is any of the of Federal government's business. At all.
1. Social Security is NOT an "insurance program". The Supreme Court has ruled on this and said that the Federal government has NO OBLIGATION to pay you "your" benefits (it can stop any time the politicians are brave enough to stop it) and you do not OWN any account (your "account number" (which you will note has no accompanying PIN number) is not tied to ANY assets or investments nor to anything you own). Social Security is certainly politically "untouchable" for now but some future congress faced with other priorities and perhaps a generation of politically-lazy seniors could cut it or kill it. One way the Federal government got so much support for SS was by this "account" lie which the courts do not accept (note: if people "own" their SS accounts, then why do they not get to pass anything from these "accounts/policies" on to their heirs?????).
2. Social Security is one of the primary DRIVERS of national debt. It was setup as a huge scam to help grow the federal government. It is a violation of federal law for Social Security to "invest" in anything other than government debt instruments. This means that it cannot actually "grow" deposited funds by investing them in productive economic activity (like REAL insurance companies must do to generate the money to be able to pay-out) AND it means the government MUST be in debt (or else there are no debt instruments (government bonds, etc) for it to "invest" the money in). Indeed, you cannot even "fix" it by amending the law to allow the money paid-in to actually be invested.... THAT would drive crony capitalism by letting a President pick-and-choose winners and losers on Wall Street by choosing which companies the hundreds of billions of SS tax dollars were invested in, and would lead to things like Solyndra on a MASSIVE scale.
3. The LIE that social security is now (or has been in any recent decade) "in surplus" is VERY convenient for politicians (who want to spend that money now on big government, and put IOU's in the "lock box" for future generations to deal with... long after THIS generation of politicians have retired and died) but this accounting would lead to serious jail time if any company practiced it.... corporations must not only report their earnings and expenditures but also the future outlays they have promised.
Social Security's "unfunded liabilities" right now are so massive that the CBO several years ago said its computers had no model that projected a way to both fund government operations AND pay those liabilities after the year 2040 (no matter WHAT tax policy changes were entered)
Republicans proposed alternatives to SS back when it was created (they predicted this exact mess) AND they have repeatedly proposed a gradual transition to individual policies OWNED by individuals which could be invested (to actually GROW from economic growth rather than higher taxes on future taxpayers) and could even be passed-on to spouses and children as inheritance....but Democrats always go insane on this idea (they KNOW it would deprive them of the money they need to keep growing government with deeper and deeper debt... it's basic math)
It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.
Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".
On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.
I do not trust the RNC as much as I do not trust the DNC - but at the very least the RNC is doing something.
Meanwhile ...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Dianne Feinstein still insists to keep all NSA program running !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Cause true libertarians believe
Libertarians are... whatever they say they are. They don't need to be defined by you; certainly they do not need to be defined into a corner as you are attempting to do here. Yes, the ideas you've discussed have been promulgated by those who would call themselves Libertarians, but these ideas are not necessarily true of all, or even most modern would-be (l)ibertarians.
The Libertarian Party has adopted questionable policy perspectives in part because they have never had a serious chance of participating in government. (l)ibertarians who have wanted to govern (in the USA...) have had to, by necessity, find a place in one of the parties that were willing and able to do so. With the expansion of programs like the NSA's data collection, with the emergence of private data, with the expansion of all of government, it's really not surprising that more people would want a third option. It may be possible for another party to participate.
You could call them Democrats who feel that Obama and co. are guilty of massive overreach.
You could call them Republicans who feel that Bush and co. were guilty of the same.
Democrats will probably call them backwards racists.
Republicans will probably call them anarchists.
But if they all start to call themselves (L)ibertarians, watch out.
But no True Scotsman expects that to happen.
Rand Paul was born in 1963. You believe whoever told you that he opposed the civil rights act of 1964.
To be fair to whoever that was (comedian Jon Stewart, probably), when asked about his FATHER'S concerns about the first amendment issues with how the concept has been expanded, Rand Paul said:
"I would have marched with King ....
I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator."
Having concerns about how the federal government mandates sometimes fly in face of common sense (and the first amendment) is quite different from opposing civil rights.
Several government oversight bodies have ALL said this is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. Who says nay? Obama and his cronies in the current administration. Nobody else. (Of course the NSA does, too, but they're just employees. They don't count.)
Well, there is that Pete King guy. He seems to be naying pretty loudly. Does he count?
There's probably a footnote somewhere explaining that surveillance under a Republican President is automatically constitutional.
How about if we call them "people who learned from their mistake and are determined not to repeat it"? If you want their help to actually build a better country for the future, you might start there.
Hopefully this will be the new Benghazi
Apparently you didn't really pay attention, it being so much more fun to criticize.
Jill Stein was the candidate last season. She's a medical doctor.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"RNC should finally shut up and go back to eating his toenails."
"Oh, wait."
That's cruel even for the worst detractors to RMS.
> Every Republican primary and local elections we've had in the last couple of decades has the candidates battling about whose the most "conservative" -
With the occasional mention of being electable, yeah. Democrat primaries have the candidates selling to liberals, republican primaries pitch conservatives. Of course, there are also guys like McCain and Lieberman, who are damn near the center. McCain won the nomination, then got silly by picking Palin.
> conservative being is the most socially conservative.
Nope. Just not in any way true. See for example practically ALL of the freshman Congressmen. They nearly all got elected on a platform of fiscal responsibly and personal freedom.
The Moral Majority went bankrupt in what, 1992 or so. They were a major force in the party in the mid to late 1980s, during Reagan's second term. Things have been changing. I pay attention to this because I'm careful not to vote for Moral Majority types, or for race baiting, envy-selling liberals.
How very true. Many Democrats don't like to admit this, but they are the only party to ever vote in favor of slavery. Now the Republicans are labeled the racists. (I am of neither party. I'm just showing how drastically parties change as well as the People's perception of them.)
I think dog and pony show rings a little more true.
Yeah. If you pay attention you'll start seeing it happen over and over.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I see it and am disgusted. People claim we have representation because we get to vote on which shill will get the desk. Truth is, it doesn't matter.
Full disclosure: I am currently wearing a t-shirt that has "I DON'T NEED SEX. The Government Fucks Me Everyday." written across the front.
Ok, it's cold, polar vortex and all, but has hell frozen over? The Republicans doing something that makes sense? And (so far) it's not loaded with riders to push creationism in schools and cut government spending on welfare programs? Wow.
They just might've taken the last exit on the road to insignificance they were travelling down at top speed.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Supporter of corporations" is not what "corporatist" means—at least not to those who know history. "Corporatism" is when all people are *incorporated* into mass organs like Labor, Business, Academia so they can be dealt with by the state as pliable undifferentiated blobs, and not troublesome individuals. Corporatism presupposes the state, and is a tool of state rule. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
and none of your "facts" have anything to do with libertarians
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
<tinfoil-hat>
OMG!11one!!
I KNEW it!
The NSA was behind Janet Jackson showing a tastefully decorated nipple!
</tinfoil-hat>
What is it this time, here other nipple? Think about all the heart attacks this will cause to unsuspecting American viewers!
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
That said, the Republicans are in a civil war between the "statists" and the "liberals" (in the european sense of the word). The Dumbocrats (sp?) are similarly torn, but they are miraculously immune from questioning by the Media-ocratic press. Meanwhile, the rest of the planet (~6B not in Europe or US are basically killing themselves, us, and anything else as they squabble over whose imaginary friends are the most potent (sorta like a real-world extension of the Friday night fights between StarWars fanboys and Trekkies, but with real bullets and real bombs).
When I taught military strategy, I often asked mystudents if they thought rational societies could win out over irrational ones. The mathematics of mutual assured destruction (the context for my question) fail in the absence of a form of rationality on both sides. In the 60s and 70s there was a form of that rationality as required by the assumptions. I fear that in the present world there is no such bi-lateral rationality, at least not between the Western European styles of government and the theocratic forms we are confronting.
Good luck with all that. Myself, I don't live near a ground zero during these time. Welcome to World War IV.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
republicans were warned by liberals that the Patriot Act would be used for spying on Americans and sure enough, this process began in 2004, reaching full integration in 2008..under Bush. Let us thank Snowden for proving, once again, that either Republicans are hypocrites, gullible or stupid (doesn't seem to be a 4th Alternative) in creating this monster in the first place.
Voting rights for all citizens, equal economic rights for the many as the few, equal tax percentages for all classes, equal medical care rights for women, men, the old, the young, the poor, the black, the brown, the yellow. The Democratic party platform requires that the nation STOP begin racist, misogynistic, homophobic and exploited by the 1%
I know it's just anecdotal, but almost all of the Republicans I know have more of a laissez faire attitude towards marijuana and homosexuality.
Then why do they vote in homophobes and drug warriors?
The problem is, much of the party is anarcho-capitalists. They will have significant influence if the party gets into power.
That is not a recent thing either. When I looked at it in the '80s it was well dominated by anarcho-capitalists as well.
First, that's really picking at small nits, but to respond anyways:
I didn't claim they had to say that, I claimed that they might need to believe that. I don't follow them closely enough to know whether that it true or not, and explicitly disavowed knowledge of whether that was a prerequisite.
OTOH, do you really doubt that Hitler believed in evolution? It's true that he wasn't sensible, in my definition of the term, but there are many places where he gives signs of believing in the "Nature, red in tooth and claw" version of evolution.
Not everyone who "believes" in evolution actually understands it.
Also, FWIW, the reason that it was objected to the school texts claiming that Hitler believed in evolution had nothing to do with whether it was a true or false statement (and I actually think that it's indeterminate at this time), but rather that it was only put in as a piece of propaganda. There's no rule that says propaganda must be false, it merely needs to lead one to draw false conclusions (or even true conclusions that are so out of context that they result in improper decisions).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thank you for the link.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And where were they when Bush was caught doing this in 2005? They voted to legalize it after Bush was caught doing it.
It's still illegal, but seeing them suddenly complain about it reeks of partisanship. (That also goes for the left, where people like Bill Maher suddenly think it's a necessity if Obama does it and not Bush).
what about throwing your weight into a party that might break the duopoly? The Tea Party is possibly the most viable since they are super strong, have the push of the Republican party, and have a building incentive to become a 3rd party at the state level to force more Republicans out. Any party that can collapse the two party partay that's happening now is a winner in my book, even if they hate women and gays.
All of these things can be taken care of WITHOUT the countless acronym agencies and insane amount of resources they consume. The government can indeed provide the same effective functionality without intruding on everyone's life and becoming a parasitic drag on the economy.
Laws that punish the bad behaviour. They do not need to intrude any further than that. If they laws say you cannot kill or harm your fellow man through any means (one of them is pollution), then that should be sufficient. It may sound naive and simplistic but that's what it boils down to. We just need someone to protect us from the bad actors in society. That's all.Make the act(s) of harming people illegal with severe enough punishment and allow the citizens to look for bad actors.
Service "NSA" interrupted process. Service "FBI" responding to issue.
It costs nothing to make the "prediction" and be wrong. It makes them look like an insider genius if something happens.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [nothing] damn.
"Event!" [*BANG*] I told you so!
RNC Chairman found to be a target of surveillance in the latest Snowden leak!
A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy. Her internal organs are pushed around and rearranged. She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery. She risks injury and, on admittedly rare occasions, death in the birth process. Telling her she has no choice in this is draconian, paternalistic, unspiritual, and, if you are concerned with such things, inconsistent with the principle that women should have equal rights. If you do not believe that women are entitled to equal rights, then say so, plainly, and without equivocation. That would be honest..but it's not Libertarian.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
Did you read any of what I wrote? You certainly didn't get the point if so.
> A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy.
As it is by nursing an infant. Do you believe that justifies someone murdering the nursing infant?
Obviously it would not, and therefore your comment is irrelevant, to anyone who believes abortion is murder.
> Her internal organs are pushed around
Yes, my wife describes it as feeling like she ate an entire pizza.
Does that justify murder? Again, that's my point - to the ~ 50% of people who believe abortion is murder, or is very similar to murder, the fact that she decided to do something that makes her feel bloated and uncomfortable is pretty insignificant - compared to murder.
> She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery.
It seems that the amount of discomfort depends on how well she takes care of herself and other factors. My wife, for example, does exercises daily, eats right, and is feeling pretty good. Regardless, how does having your arms and legs torn off feel?
You are making the argument that it's better to rip the limbs from someone who has no say in the matter, than for she who chose try to get pregnant to experience some discomfort. See how that makes absolutely no sense to a lot of people?
Two options:
A) She decided to have sex, and that make mean she ends up with some discomfort.
B) She decided to have sex, so let's tear out a baby's intestines with a metal hook.
Of course, if you ignore the fact that abortion means tearing someone's arms and legs off, then what you said makes perfect sense.
Yes, I read every emotional word you wrote. And I must point out that you still have not clearly stated that you do not believe women should have equal rights. Why not just say what you believe?
If I were a woman and if I became pregnant, I'd like to think that abortion is not the choice I would make. But I have to insist that it would be my choice to make. Not yours, nor even a majority of my neighbors. In a free country, with equal rights, it would have to be mine alone. I will continue to work with (vote for) anyone to help make this the kind of world where no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy (murder her unborn child if you insist on using that terminology). But I'm not such a control freak that I would deny people the freedom to choose to do something I would not. Denying choice to women is not Libertarian (my original observation if we could stay on topic).
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
I will directly answer your question, and again request that you answer mine. You asked:
> you do not believe women should have equal
> rights. Why not just say what you believe?
I believe you are confusing your own position with mine. I clearly stated I believe mothers and fathers have rights, as do children. You are the one advocating a heinous infringement on the rights of most of the people involved. It is YOUR position that only adult females rights should be respected.
Again, my question for you:
When someone decides to do something that might cause themselves discomfort, does that mean they have the right to murder someone else to relieve their own discomfort?
How about "not exactly murder" - is it okay to dismember an innocent person in order to make yourself more comfortable, if you realize you've done something that makes you temporarily uncomfortable?
I answered your question clearly and directly. Are you capable of the same?
> And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free
Thanks for answering that. At first I thought you had ignored the question about ~ murder, but indeed you answered "she is taking a human life when she does so". I find that very interesting. I've never had anyone tell me they think it's okay to take a human life to relieve temporary discomfort when you change your mind about something.
Obviously I've heard people say it's not a human life, or it's not murder. I let them explain the subtle difference between murder and abortion. Then I point out that they just spent five minutes groping about trying to find a distinction between what they advocate and murder. Maybe they are right, maybe abortion isn't EXACTLY murder. They are advocating "pretty much murder, but not exactly". They typically running from the room screaming, covering their ears with their hands, at that point.
I'm curious. Lack of sleep causes discomfort. For example, getting up to feed a baby who is hungry every few hours can make one grumpy. Is it okay to end a human life so mom can sleep better?
Also, does the fact that mom CHOSE to make a baby affect aanything? I mean if it were about CHOICE, we'd recognize that mom and dad chose to make a baby and their choice will affect them. Just like dad is now responsible for at least child support, is it not rational to say mom is responsible for at least offering the baby for adoption, if not raising her child? Is child support violating the father's rights when it recognizes that his deci sions have effects?
I believe in equal rights. I believe men and women have the right to make decisions, and their decisions have effects.
In re the whole libertarian thing, I've never seen a libertarian say it's okay to murder someone else. Flip a coin - some people see it as murder (or similar), some don't. I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
A woman's body is hers, that much is obvious. Pretending that's the issue is disingenuous - you're smarter than that I think.
The question arises when a couple decides to conceive a child. When, if ever, is it okay for parents to dismember their children? That is the question.
While my wife is asleep, our baby is often awake, moving around inside of her. Our child probably has a different blood type than mom. We think it's pretty clear that our baby Milan is not an organ of mom's body, but a separate person , currently inside of mom. To us, it's pretty similar to the fact that I'm a separate person, even when I'm inside of mom. :)