There are so many differences between Obama and Romney that it's plainly silly to list them here.
There are some minor differences. Pretty much negligible when you look at how much they actually agree on. e.g., Obama didn't defend DOMA in court, Romney would have. That's nice, but it's trivial when compared to the gifts he's given to the finance industry, the innocent people he's killed with drones, the status quo on drug policy, flagrant disregard for the 4th amendment, etc., etc..
Obama had power for real change. IMHO, he blew it. Romney was the SOS-DD and worse.
Obama told you what you wanted to hear and you fell for it. That's not wimping out, that's the same old shit all over again.
Obama is a criminal. He broke the law by authorizing widespread violation of the 4th amendment. In doing so he also violated his oath of office. This does make him a traitor.
Instead, you voted for someone whose policies are 99% identical to Romney's. As long as you keep doing that, we're all going to keep getting screwed. The only vote that isn't wasted is one cast for a third party.
Sounds to me like it's homophobia that has ruined Doctor Who for you. Why do homosexual characters have to be necessary? Can't they just be characters that happen to be homosexual? What exactly is "leftist" about acknowledging that homosexuals exist, and that they form relationships like anyone else?
That Vastra & Jenny bother you and Amy & Rory do not says a lot more about you than it does about Doctor Who.
Single payer just makes sense. A centralized, not for profit system is going to be more efficient than a thousand different companies with their finger in the pie.
And what's wrong with a little pressure to conserve resources? Waste is rampant in the medical industry. As it is now, hospitals get paid for an x-ray whether it's needed or not. More needless tests means more profit, exactly the wrong incentive. We need to tie funding to outcomes, not procedures, and a centralized system is the right way to do that.
Democracy will be broken the day the vote is removed.
What good is a vote between two predetermined choices? You don't just need a vote, you need a functioning electoral system that's actually responsive to the will of the people. What we have instead is much more akin to the magicians choice than a carefully designed instrument that measures the will of the people. Until we have preference voting, publicly funded campaigns, and a media that doesn't black out third party candidates, we really don't have a meaningful franchise at all.
The problem with people "rising up" these days is that it tends to get very bloody, very ugly, and to chaotic to be managed
True. That's supposed to serve as incentive for the powerful to behave well. They will be the first against the wall after all. Prison terms within the legal system are the ideal approach, but when the government is too corrupt what do we have left?
Want to get out Republic back, vote for a moderate republican
We tried that in 2008, look what it got us.
Vote for a reasoned voice then hold them to it.
I would love to, there are none on the ballot that have a chance of winning.
You have plenty of opportunity to provide factual rebuttals here, and good arguments are modded up. All we have here are unsupported assertions that the NSA mostly does good, and the old "I was only following orders excuse". *THAT* is what you'd expect to see at Fox News.
Reasonable people with a brain can do better. Try harder.
Most times they come to work like most people, processing paper work, managing information, and trying to make it to the end of the day so they can enjoy life.
And why does that excuse them from assisting evil? These people have a moral responsibility to evaluate the system that they are working in.
As the GP said, save the vitriol for those that make policy
Policy doesn't do anything if there aren't people to carry out that policy. Those who choose to help carry out bad policy are bad people.
if you don't like the current batch of policy makers, work to get rid of them in the next round of elections.
Was that *your* attempt at humor? We tried getting rid of the neocons in 2008, look at what that got us. Democracy is well and truly broken in the US. You're not going to do anything from the top down. Only when the people rise up will real change happen.
Like any fed agency it's largely ordinary civil service just doing a day to day job to feed their family. Most of them are ordinary people no more deserving of your hate (and yes, it is bigoted hate, oriented around their job instead of race or creed) than anyone else.
Would you make the same arguments about e.g. Al Qaeda's accountant? Or the contractors on the Death Star?
Most of them are probably doing harmless innocuous work
If you sweep the floors for the enemy, you're still working for the enemy.
Beleive it or not the intelligence community does serve a useful purpose
Only useful to those interested in projecting American hegemony across the planet for all of eternity.
the same ordinary civil service workers who just "doing their job" and give no more thought to the moral rightness of what theyre doing than a Chevy worker does as he tightens the same nut 50k times a day as the line moves past.
And that's the problem. They're morally negligent, that's no better than being morally wrong. Remember, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. These people aren't just doing nothing, they're providing support.
The product. Our justice system is designed to manufacture criminals which profits police, judges, lawyers, politicians, prison guards, prison owners, small towns that surround prisons, etc. There are lots and lots of people in our economy that benefit when someone is incarcerated, and fewer who benefit when one is freed. That creates a lot of perverse incentives.
If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.
What part of not giving money to a bigot implies that someone refuses to listen to any argument against what they believe in? If he wants to change my mind, he can write down a well thought out argument and publish it for free on the internet. If his argument has merit, I'll change my mind. He's done this, his argument doesn't have merit, he's just a bigot. What purpose is served by giving him money?
why the hell would I have a problem with him voicing his opinions?
I don't have a problem with him voicing his opinions. I have a problem with supporting that opinion with my money.
The best way of making a point against racism, for example, is letting the KKK talk and make asses of themselves.
Great example. If the KKK funded a remake of Birth of a Nation, would you pay to see it?
If it's not his job to defend the constitution, why does he take an oath to do so?
Besides, the constitutionality of an act depends solely on the act itself, and the constitution. The constitution is what it is, and it can only be modified by an amendment properly ratified.
If Congress passes an unconstiutional law, the President enforces the unconstitutional law, and SCOTUS refuses to do their duty and strike down the unconstitutional law, all that means is that the government is corrupt to the point of illegitimacy. And that is actually the case with respect to the US government today.
What you are describing is not the rule of law, but the rule of men. By your logic, if you can install enough cronies in high office you can make anything constititutional. That's not how just government works.
Warrants have issued that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the things to be seized. That's unambiguously in violation of the 4th amendment.
The laws that allow surveillance of individuals were laws put in place by Congress and started under Bush - not Obama. So strike 1 on that.
It's still unconstitutional. Obama swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. It's his responsibility not to use powers that are not authorized in the Constitution.
But by the traditions such as that exist, such are very weak grounds for putting forth an impeachment proceeding.
If you can impeach a president for violating an oath to tell the truth in a civil case unrelated to his presidential duties, you can impeach a president for directly violating his oath of office.
A key issue here is that these "crimes" are all done with the implicit blessing of Congress.
That doesn't make the offenses unimpeachable, it just means the Congress is in on it. If I lynch a black man with the implicit blessing of the sheriff, that doesn't make it legal. It makes the process corrupt. Same thing here.
So, yes, I think a broad reading of the president's positive duties is rational. Yes, it is a political question of whether Congress wishes to proceed. But the problem is that Congress itself does not want to take on the heavy lifting of clarifying the legal situation by the means that the Constitution has put at its disposal.
You're absolutely right here. Congress doesn't have the political will. But that has no bearing on whether there should be political will. I don't see how anyone who values the rule of law can argue that Obama doesn't deserve to be impeached for his crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
There are so many differences between Obama and Romney that it's plainly silly to list them here.
There are some minor differences. Pretty much negligible when you look at how much they actually agree on. e.g., Obama didn't defend DOMA in court, Romney would have. That's nice, but it's trivial when compared to the gifts he's given to the finance industry, the innocent people he's killed with drones, the status quo on drug policy, flagrant disregard for the 4th amendment, etc., etc..
Obama had power for real change. IMHO, he blew it. Romney was the SOS-DD and worse.
Obama told you what you wanted to hear and you fell for it. That's not wimping out, that's the same old shit all over again.
And they charge patients $400 for an aspirin. Actual costs have nothing to do with what a hospital bills.
Obama is a criminal. He broke the law by authorizing widespread violation of the 4th amendment. In doing so he also violated his oath of office. This does make him a traitor.
Instead, you voted for someone whose policies are 99% identical to Romney's. As long as you keep doing that, we're all going to keep getting screwed. The only vote that isn't wasted is one cast for a third party.
No, it doesn't take help from Congress. Unlock the doors, turn off the lights, and leave. That's all he needs to do.
Sounds to me like it's homophobia that has ruined Doctor Who for you. Why do homosexual characters have to be necessary? Can't they just be characters that happen to be homosexual? What exactly is "leftist" about acknowledging that homosexuals exist, and that they form relationships like anyone else?
That Vastra & Jenny bother you and Amy & Rory do not says a lot more about you than it does about Doctor Who.
What good is freedom if you can't exercise it for fear of medical bankruptcy? Social safety nets make us all more free.
Single payer just makes sense. A centralized, not for profit system is going to be more efficient than a thousand different companies with their finger in the pie.
And what's wrong with a little pressure to conserve resources? Waste is rampant in the medical industry. As it is now, hospitals get paid for an x-ray whether it's needed or not. More needless tests means more profit, exactly the wrong incentive. We need to tie funding to outcomes, not procedures, and a centralized system is the right way to do that.
Other countries have single payer health care, which delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. Try learning from that.
Democracy will be broken the day the vote is removed.
What good is a vote between two predetermined choices? You don't just need a vote, you need a functioning electoral system that's actually responsive to the will of the people. What we have instead is much more akin to the magicians choice than a carefully designed instrument that measures the will of the people. Until we have preference voting, publicly funded campaigns, and a media that doesn't black out third party candidates, we really don't have a meaningful franchise at all.
The problem with people "rising up" these days is that it tends to get very bloody, very ugly, and to chaotic to be managed
True. That's supposed to serve as incentive for the powerful to behave well. They will be the first against the wall after all. Prison terms within the legal system are the ideal approach, but when the government is too corrupt what do we have left?
Want to get out Republic back, vote for a moderate republican
We tried that in 2008, look what it got us.
Vote for a reasoned voice then hold them to it.
I would love to, there are none on the ballot that have a chance of winning.
You have plenty of opportunity to provide factual rebuttals here, and good arguments are modded up. All we have here are unsupported assertions that the NSA mostly does good, and the old "I was only following orders excuse". *THAT* is what you'd expect to see at Fox News.
Reasonable people with a brain can do better. Try harder.
Most times they come to work like most people, processing paper work, managing information, and trying to make it to the end of the day so they can enjoy life.
And why does that excuse them from assisting evil? These people have a moral responsibility to evaluate the system that they are working in.
As the GP said, save the vitriol for those that make policy
Policy doesn't do anything if there aren't people to carry out that policy. Those who choose to help carry out bad policy are bad people.
if you don't like the current batch of policy makers, work to get rid of them in the next round of elections.
Was that *your* attempt at humor? We tried getting rid of the neocons in 2008, look at what that got us. Democracy is well and truly broken in the US. You're not going to do anything from the top down. Only when the people rise up will real change happen.
Like any fed agency it's largely ordinary civil service just doing a day to day job to feed their family. Most of them are ordinary people no more deserving of your hate (and yes, it is bigoted hate, oriented around their job instead of race or creed) than anyone else.
Would you make the same arguments about e.g. Al Qaeda's accountant? Or the contractors on the Death Star?
Most of them are probably doing harmless innocuous work
If you sweep the floors for the enemy, you're still working for the enemy.
Beleive it or not the intelligence community does serve a useful purpose
Only useful to those interested in projecting American hegemony across the planet for all of eternity.
the same ordinary civil service workers who just "doing their job" and give no more thought to the moral rightness of what theyre doing than a Chevy worker does as he tightens the same nut 50k times a day as the line moves past.
And that's the problem. They're morally negligent, that's no better than being morally wrong. Remember, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. These people aren't just doing nothing, they're providing support.
The product. Our justice system is designed to manufacture criminals which profits police, judges, lawyers, politicians, prison guards, prison owners, small towns that surround prisons, etc. There are lots and lots of people in our economy that benefit when someone is incarcerated, and fewer who benefit when one is freed. That creates a lot of perverse incentives.
Then its your facebook contacts who are useless.
The state is a wholly owned subsidary of the prison/industrial/military complex.
You don't see the difference between patronizing a live artist and educating yourself about dead ones?
If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.
What part of not giving money to a bigot implies that someone refuses to listen to any argument against what they believe in? If he wants to change my mind, he can write down a well thought out argument and publish it for free on the internet. If his argument has merit, I'll change my mind. He's done this, his argument doesn't have merit, he's just a bigot. What purpose is served by giving him money?
why the hell would I have a problem with him voicing his opinions?
I don't have a problem with him voicing his opinions. I have a problem with supporting that opinion with my money.
The best way of making a point against racism, for example, is letting the KKK talk and make asses of themselves.
Great example. If the KKK funded a remake of Birth of a Nation, would you pay to see it?
You assume society has agreed on the rules, when in reality a small segment of society has imposed their rules on the rest of us.
If it's not his job to defend the constitution, why does he take an oath to do so?
Besides, the constitutionality of an act depends solely on the act itself, and the constitution. The constitution is what it is, and it can only be modified by an amendment properly ratified.
If Congress passes an unconstiutional law, the President enforces the unconstitutional law, and SCOTUS refuses to do their duty and strike down the unconstitutional law, all that means is that the government is corrupt to the point of illegitimacy. And that is actually the case with respect to the US government today.
What you are describing is not the rule of law, but the rule of men. By your logic, if you can install enough cronies in high office you can make anything constititutional. That's not how just government works.
Warrants have issued that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the things to be seized. That's unambiguously in violation of the 4th amendment.
What ambiguities? The 4th amendment is not ambiguous.
The laws that allow surveillance of individuals were laws put in place by Congress and started under Bush - not Obama. So strike 1 on that.
It's still unconstitutional. Obama swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. It's his responsibility not to use powers that are not authorized in the Constitution.
But by the traditions such as that exist, such are very weak grounds for putting forth an impeachment proceeding.
If you can impeach a president for violating an oath to tell the truth in a civil case unrelated to his presidential duties, you can impeach a president for directly violating his oath of office.
A key issue here is that these "crimes" are all done with the implicit blessing of Congress.
That doesn't make the offenses unimpeachable, it just means the Congress is in on it. If I lynch a black man with the implicit blessing of the sheriff, that doesn't make it legal. It makes the process corrupt. Same thing here.
So, yes, I think a broad reading of the president's positive duties is rational. Yes, it is a political question of whether Congress wishes to proceed. But the problem is that Congress itself does not want to take on the heavy lifting of clarifying the legal situation by the means that the Constitution has put at its disposal.
You're absolutely right here. Congress doesn't have the political will. But that has no bearing on whether there should be political will. I don't see how anyone who values the rule of law can argue that Obama doesn't deserve to be impeached for his crimes.
No, it's not like that at all. We mod APK down. Republicans elect these people to represent them at the national level.