I'll give you all that, but even if I do something "interesting", it will not be illegal....unless our country continues to head down the road of socialism that it is doing right now. The more we can push back the Federal government to simply the authority given to it by the Constitution, the less this discussion is troubling. Its all the people in support of more laws and more government control that make me more worried about our direction than just the government by itself. There are lots of people in our country pushing the government to get more and more involved. This is the result.
Whether or not your actions are illegal may not matter. If you become a threat to the established order, violent or not, you will be dealt with. That's really what all this surveillance is about; "terrorism' is only one target.
I read stories like these all almost every day, going on for years now. Then I read the comments and see angry American citizens decrying Americas descent into a police state. But I don't see any actual real protest, only angry comments online... Why are you so timid?
There are a number of reasons that can be mixed and matched for any given individual.
First, some of us do protest. There were huge protests around the Iraq war back in 2003. But media coverage was lacking (odd, eh?). There have also been the "Occupy" protests which have been widespread and some quite large. The corporate media have a funny way of downplaying or casting aspersions at these protests though. And business seems to go on as usual in spite of them. But they are there, and they do have an impact.
Second, the American people are fractured as a society. We are as suspicious of each other as we are of the government. That makes it harder to organize people around things they agree on. We have been taught to fear our neighbor and look to the state for authority and protection. Organizations like unions that used to be a political force have been systematically beaten back by business and other interests.
Third, many of us buy in to the hype and don't perceive that we are slipping into a police state. Many of my friends and family don't see it. They think totalitarianism has to look like Nazi Germany, and even then it has to look like it does in the movies. I am not forthcoming to most people about my political opinions, and those with whom I am think I'm a little "out there".
Fourth, there are real risks to protesting in the United States. If I get arrested at a protest, my employer will not be happy and I could lose my job. I would probably need to take time off work to join a protest. I can do that, but many of my hourly-wage fellow citizens cannot; especially on a sustained basis. If you work for a company that does business with the government, your employer might not like your protesting either. People can be fired for just about any reason in the United States.
Fifth, many people's lives are still fairly comfortable and they don't want to upset the apple cart. It's plain old short-sighted self-interest.
Lastly, and this is related to point three, the American people don't really know what's going on. See my signature for more insight. They know things are bad, but they don't really know why. And the "news" where they get their information is not going to explain it to them. How does the Fed's zero interest rate policy affect their savings account or their ability to borrow money? How many Wall Street firms engaged in fraud over the past decade? When is the right to free speech most important? Was there a state of emergency declared after 9/11/01 and if so has it ever been repealed? Why does it matter? Most Americans don't know the answers to these questions. They don't even know the questions. They are too busy with keeping their jobs and raising their kids (most families need two incomes these days) to pay close attention. Or they think the government is corrupt and unresponsive anyway, so why bother. In short they are disengaged. Those in power who really know the score are interested in keeping them that way.
You may want to believe that is a lot,but those doing the surveillance want to get evidence they can use.if they don't get it legally, it does them little good.
That's really not the case. Those surveilling you just want to find out what you're up to. If it leads them to think you are doing something illegal, they can get a warrant for other stuff that will be admissible. But they might also just want to know what political rallies you are interested in, or whether you hold anti-establishment views. Then they'll know you're dangerous and can keep tabs on you just in case you start to make a difference. The people who are watching you don't have to go through traditional legal procedures, especially these days.
Funny how we demand more and more transparency of everyone else and everything else, but we must have lots to hide if we are so paranoid about this. If they monitored me and my family, they would get put to sleep. I've got nothing to hide.
Lots to hide? Hide from whom? Who decides what needs to be hidden? The thing is, the state is supposed to work for us, the people. I know that's not how it actually works, but it is supposed to. So the people should have a lot of access to what the government is doing, to whom and why. Unless there is a suspicion of wrongdoing, the opposite should be true in the relationship of the state to the citizenry. If I'm not suspected of illegal activity, the state should have no interest and no access.
While it may be true that your family is boring and of little interest, the fact is there is some intelligence agent watching to make sure. What if the government does something you don't like, and you decide to try to change it? Might you become interesting then?
The secrecy of the surveillance orders is what actually creates the uncertainty and doubt, and EVERYONE should be fearful of people in power starting to hide behind secrecy, because all the ages of history of mankind have shown that power corrupts.
I don't disagree but enough FUD is coming off the surveillance orders without a bunch of hyper sensitive politically motivated individuals running around adding to it; a well thought out and moderated approach is the only viable answer.
Unfortunately we aren't capable of that in modern history.
Part of a well-thought-out approach would involve finding out what is so secret. We cannot have an informed discussion when so much is kept from us. When the actions of the state are kept secret from us, all we have are conspiracy theories. And further, when people are being spied on in secret with no possibility of public scrutiny the appropriate response is suspicion and derision. With the poor track record for honesty that the government has, I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.
You know what is equally destructive to liberties, freedoms and fighting to regain civil rights? Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Conspiracy theorists. Extremist of any wing or any standpoint. America has long since lost it's level headed moderated advocates and instead all we're left is secret surveillance and conspiracies.
You are certainly correct that FUD can have an impact on civil liberties, whether it's making people afraid to speak out or inducing them to give up their rights for perceived safety. But I am confused as to why you mention conspiracy theorists. Most of the FUD I encounter comes from the media. They are always telling us about terrorists and immigrants and criminals coming to kill us, marry our women and diddle our children.
So I agree that the American people are too scared and anxious to have a rational conversation about just about anything. But there were no "conspiracy theorists" needed to put them in that state. The things we all agree on are terrifying enough.
Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.
Iran already had reason enough. We've been fucking with them for a while now. But they won't, because on the world stage right and wrong are just quaint sentimentalities. It's all about power, and the US still has more than Iran does. Having "justifiable reasons" only matters when one is trying to convince the public to support a given agenda.
A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
Thank you for providing an example of how people should interpret the news. Many still think the news is there to inform them, when in actuality it is there to tell them what to think. "Why would somebody want this story public?" is always the right question to ask when dealing with any spokesperson or press agent, corporate or government.
Those muzzies are so stupid they'll probably not realise it is a codeword and bomb the Olympics for infecting their computers
Muzzies? Is that what we're calling them now? What happened to rag-head, towel-head, Haji, and sand nigger? Camel Jockey? I just can't keep up with the bigoted slurs.
Don't you get it? The long term debt trajectory is the utter destruction of the dollar as a currency (see Zimbabwe). Eventually the increase in the debt and its associated compounding interest payments begin to approach infinity and long before that happens the dollar will have become essentially worthless anyway. So yes, the government promises to pay your social security check in worthless dollars, but what good is that to you? Ask those pensioners who received their defined payments in Zimbabwe dollars how well that worked out for them. Keep your eye on Greece if you want a preview of coming attractions, they are much farther along the path than we are.
Yes, I do get that. But it has nothing to do with Social Security, and everything to do with our monetary system. The only way for the debt to go is up. That's because we borrow every last cent (and more) from the Fed or its member banks. No more debt, no more money. That's a separate issue from whether we can afford to take care of our elderly. That is something we can choose to do or not do.
If those are truly available to everyone, then the relative wealth of some few is largely irrelevant.
I agree, but in my experience that never happens. It is a matter of degree. As the wealthy get wealthier, and therefore more powerful, they begin to rig the system so that it funnels more to them and less to everyone else. If the general wealth disparity is not large, the relative power imbalance is not as great. But the larger the wealth disparity, the larger the power disparity. I have yet to encounter an exception.
Don't forget the ageism thing. Shocked no one mentioned this.
Must have 25 years Java experience... and the unwritten rule is be under 30.
Sometimes ageism shows up in ridiculous combos, where the only way to get that combo is to already have that specific position, or be about 60.. and they only hire kids under 30.
As an aging Sys Admin I agree with this and it scares the crap out of me. I will definitely be dying my hair for my next job interview.
The fact that there are rich people with fancy cars in a country doesn't have any relevance to an abuse of police power.
Don't think so, huh? Do you think the rich people with the fancy cars see as much abuse from the police as those without money? Who do you think employs the police, and who is being protected from whom?
he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so.
Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know
very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.
I don't think the unborn babies rights trump the mother's. And since you're so concerned with these unborn babies, I assume you support providing pre-natal care for the mothers, and funding for children's health care. You know, those things the GOP always wants to de-fund because they care so much about these kids?
and it would take a major act of Congress to get rid of them
Indeed it would, but that would require something that President Obama is sorely lacking; Leadership. If Rudy Giuliani had been in office instead of Obama, we wouldn't be having this conversation because these things would have already been done. New Yorkers don't beat around the bush, they get shit done.
(not that that would even be desirable).
That's debatable. What's not debatable is that some changes are necessary if these programs are going to remain available in any meaningful way for millennials and those now in their prime working years (approximately ages 30-50). Just go out and ask anyone under the age of 40 whether or not they believe there will be anything left once the boomers have passed through. Most of them either believe that they will get essentially nothing OR they have rocks in their heads and shouldn't be asked about financial matters in general and certainly not about actuarial matters.
Rudy Giuliani? Tell me another one.
Social Security is fine. A few tweaks like subjecting incomes higher than $110,000 to the FICA tax would bring collections closer to expenditures. It's really a matter of priorities. We have plenty of money, it's a matter of how we choose to spend it. I don't hear anyone wringing their hands about not being able to fund Homeland Security or the Pentagon. I'm right around 40 and I fully expect Social Security to be there. I paid into it, I want my benefit.
Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.
But he has stepped up the use of special forces and drones. They are used in the types of war the Pentagon doesn't tell you about.
Obama is pro bill-of-rights. He's signed three laws allowing for better access to firearms (not passed when the GOP was fully in charge under Bush), and unlike Ron Paul, he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
While I like his stance on abortion, saying that a man who has arrogated the right to declare you a terrorist and kill you is "pro bill-of-rights" is a stretch.
Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.
Presidents come out in favor of a lot of things. I like the noises he is making, but I'll be more impressed when something happens as a result.
Further, as you will see from this chart, the deficit is almost entirely due to things done during Bush's term. And the chart doesn't even point out that the "Economic downturn" was caused by the GOP and conservatives deregulating banks so they could gamble with depositor's money backed by the taxpayer. (Nothing forces a brokerage to take FDIC insurance, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to gamble with other people's money.)
I agree with your point about the downturn beginning on Bush's watch. The GOP clearly doesn't care about anyone but the very rich. But Obama's justice department hasn't gone after any of the Wall Street criminals. Besides, when a country borrows all of its money from a bank, it's always going to be in debt. There's really no way around it.
So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed? I doubt it. Everything I just wrote was just a google search away, but you clearly didn't bother doing that. So I conclude that your reasons are little more than excuses, because you have a dream that some day you'll actually end up wealthy enough to pay the Buffet tax.
Ain't going to happen, pal.
Personally, I will give Obama credit where I think it's due. He has advanced gay rights, and the healthcare system is marginally better than it was before (it's easier for people to get and keep health insurance). But I won't support him because he is not liberal enough. I have no illusions about ever paying a Buffet tax, and I support taxing the very rich at confiscatory levels. Obama has not gone far enough in dealing with financial criminality, has further eroded our civil rights, and has not done much to curb our militarism except to withdraw from Iraq according to a timetable set up by his predecessor. One could argue that it was politically impossible for him to do these things, but the fact is he didn't really try.
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.
FWIW, I have seen you post that before and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. To be fair, earlier drafts of the bill did not include such language. So there is a reason that people got upset; it wasn't that lies were being spread. However, the language was modified in the final draft and people didn't get the memo. So thanks for pointing it out.
That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.
Trials in absentia are generally illegal in the United States. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."
I hate the two party system but history has shown that voting for a third party/independent only hurts one's cause. As an alien on The Simpsons once said, "What are you going to do, vote for a third party candidate? Go ahead, throw your vote away! Mwahahahaha!"
But it seems you missed the irony of that scene. In that episode the choice was between an alien determined to enslave the human race, and an alien determined to enslave the human race. In that situation a fellow suggests voting for a third party, and is still told he would be throwing his vote away, thus showing the stupidity of the argument!
There were too many things going on in that election, from the Supreme Court to electronic "voting" machines, to say that one variable (i.e. Nader) would have swung everything in the other direction. People should vote their conscience.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give you all that, but even if I do something "interesting", it will not be illegal....unless our country continues to head down the road of socialism that it is doing right now. The more we can push back the Federal government to simply the authority given to it by the Constitution, the less this discussion is troubling. Its all the people in support of more laws and more government control that make me more worried about our direction than just the government by itself. There are lots of people in our country pushing the government to get more and more involved. This is the result.
Whether or not your actions are illegal may not matter. If you become a threat to the established order, violent or not, you will be dealt with. That's really what all this surveillance is about; "terrorism' is only one target.
I read stories like these all almost every day, going on for years now. Then I read the comments and see angry American citizens decrying Americas descent into a police state. But I don't see any actual real protest, only angry comments online ... Why are you so timid?
There are a number of reasons that can be mixed and matched for any given individual.
First, some of us do protest. There were huge protests around the Iraq war back in 2003. But media coverage was lacking (odd, eh?). There have also been the "Occupy" protests which have been widespread and some quite large. The corporate media have a funny way of downplaying or casting aspersions at these protests though. And business seems to go on as usual in spite of them. But they are there, and they do have an impact.
Second, the American people are fractured as a society. We are as suspicious of each other as we are of the government. That makes it harder to organize people around things they agree on. We have been taught to fear our neighbor and look to the state for authority and protection. Organizations like unions that used to be a political force have been systematically beaten back by business and other interests.
Third, many of us buy in to the hype and don't perceive that we are slipping into a police state. Many of my friends and family don't see it. They think totalitarianism has to look like Nazi Germany, and even then it has to look like it does in the movies. I am not forthcoming to most people about my political opinions, and those with whom I am think I'm a little "out there".
Fourth, there are real risks to protesting in the United States. If I get arrested at a protest, my employer will not be happy and I could lose my job. I would probably need to take time off work to join a protest. I can do that, but many of my hourly-wage fellow citizens cannot; especially on a sustained basis. If you work for a company that does business with the government, your employer might not like your protesting either. People can be fired for just about any reason in the United States.
Fifth, many people's lives are still fairly comfortable and they don't want to upset the apple cart. It's plain old short-sighted self-interest.
Lastly, and this is related to point three, the American people don't really know what's going on. See my signature for more insight. They know things are bad, but they don't really know why. And the "news" where they get their information is not going to explain it to them. How does the Fed's zero interest rate policy affect their savings account or their ability to borrow money? How many Wall Street firms engaged in fraud over the past decade? When is the right to free speech most important? Was there a state of emergency declared after 9/11/01 and if so has it ever been repealed? Why does it matter? Most Americans don't know the answers to these questions. They don't even know the questions. They are too busy with keeping their jobs and raising their kids (most families need two incomes these days) to pay close attention. Or they think the government is corrupt and unresponsive anyway, so why bother. In short they are disengaged. Those in power who really know the score are interested in keeping them that way.
Well, you asked... ;-)
You may want to believe that is a lot,but those doing the surveillance want to get evidence they can use.if they don't get it legally, it does them little good.
That's really not the case. Those surveilling you just want to find out what you're up to. If it leads them to think you are doing something illegal, they can get a warrant for other stuff that will be admissible. But they might also just want to know what political rallies you are interested in, or whether you hold anti-establishment views. Then they'll know you're dangerous and can keep tabs on you just in case you start to make a difference. The people who are watching you don't have to go through traditional legal procedures, especially these days.
Funny how we demand more and more transparency of everyone else and everything else, but we must have lots to hide if we are so paranoid about this. If they monitored me and my family, they would get put to sleep. I've got nothing to hide.
Lots to hide? Hide from whom? Who decides what needs to be hidden? The thing is, the state is supposed to work for us, the people. I know that's not how it actually works, but it is supposed to. So the people should have a lot of access to what the government is doing, to whom and why. Unless there is a suspicion of wrongdoing, the opposite should be true in the relationship of the state to the citizenry. If I'm not suspected of illegal activity, the state should have no interest and no access.
While it may be true that your family is boring and of little interest, the fact is there is some intelligence agent watching to make sure. What if the government does something you don't like, and you decide to try to change it? Might you become interesting then?
The secrecy of the surveillance orders is what actually creates the uncertainty and doubt, and EVERYONE should be fearful of people in power starting to hide behind secrecy, because all the ages of history of mankind have shown that power corrupts.
I don't disagree but enough FUD is coming off the surveillance orders without a bunch of hyper sensitive politically motivated individuals running around adding to it; a well thought out and moderated approach is the only viable answer.
Unfortunately we aren't capable of that in modern history.
Part of a well-thought-out approach would involve finding out what is so secret. We cannot have an informed discussion when so much is kept from us. When the actions of the state are kept secret from us, all we have are conspiracy theories. And further, when people are being spied on in secret with no possibility of public scrutiny the appropriate response is suspicion and derision. With the poor track record for honesty that the government has, I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.
You know what is equally destructive to liberties, freedoms and fighting to regain civil rights? Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Conspiracy theorists. Extremist of any wing or any standpoint. America has long since lost it's level headed moderated advocates and instead all we're left is secret surveillance and conspiracies.
You are certainly correct that FUD can have an impact on civil liberties, whether it's making people afraid to speak out or inducing them to give up their rights for perceived safety. But I am confused as to why you mention conspiracy theorists. Most of the FUD I encounter comes from the media. They are always telling us about terrorists and immigrants and criminals coming to kill us, marry our women and diddle our children.
So I agree that the American people are too scared and anxious to have a rational conversation about just about anything. But there were no "conspiracy theorists" needed to put them in that state. The things we all agree on are terrifying enough.
Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.
Iran already had reason enough. We've been fucking with them for a while now. But they won't, because on the world stage right and wrong are just quaint sentimentalities. It's all about power, and the US still has more than Iran does. Having "justifiable reasons" only matters when one is trying to convince the public to support a given agenda.
A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
Thank you for providing an example of how people should interpret the news. Many still think the news is there to inform them, when in actuality it is there to tell them what to think. "Why would somebody want this story public?" is always the right question to ask when dealing with any spokesperson or press agent, corporate or government.
Those muzzies are so stupid they'll probably not realise it is a codeword and bomb the Olympics for infecting their computers
Muzzies? Is that what we're calling them now? What happened to rag-head, towel-head, Haji, and sand nigger? Camel Jockey? I just can't keep up with the bigoted slurs.
Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.
I love that this got modded "Funny".
Don't you get it? The long term debt trajectory is the utter destruction of the dollar as a currency (see Zimbabwe). Eventually the increase in the debt and its associated compounding interest payments begin to approach infinity and long before that happens the dollar will have become essentially worthless anyway. So yes, the government promises to pay your social security check in worthless dollars, but what good is that to you? Ask those pensioners who received their defined payments in Zimbabwe dollars how well that worked out for them. Keep your eye on Greece if you want a preview of coming attractions, they are much farther along the path than we are.
Yes, I do get that. But it has nothing to do with Social Security, and everything to do with our monetary system. The only way for the debt to go is up. That's because we borrow every last cent (and more) from the Fed or its member banks. No more debt, no more money. That's a separate issue from whether we can afford to take care of our elderly. That is something we can choose to do or not do.
If those are truly available to everyone, then the relative wealth of some few is largely irrelevant.
I agree, but in my experience that never happens. It is a matter of degree. As the wealthy get wealthier, and therefore more powerful, they begin to rig the system so that it funnels more to them and less to everyone else. If the general wealth disparity is not large, the relative power imbalance is not as great. But the larger the wealth disparity, the larger the power disparity. I have yet to encounter an exception.
I'm an adult under 30, thanks. I get the vibe that you lack respect for your younger coworkers.
Just wait, it'll happen to you too.
Don't forget the ageism thing. Shocked no one mentioned this.
Must have 25 years Java experience... and the unwritten rule is be under 30.
Sometimes ageism shows up in ridiculous combos, where the only way to get that combo is to already have that specific position, or be about 60.. and they only hire kids under 30.
As an aging Sys Admin I agree with this and it scares the crap out of me. I will definitely be dying my hair for my next job interview.
Only in the mind of the poor, or those who feel they "deserve". Quite frankly, no one deserves anything.
You think it's the poor who think they deserve things? Like what, dignity? Adequate food and shelter? Hope for the future?
Or maybe they think they deserve a 20 million dollar salary and a Gulfstream jet. Now that would take some balls, eh?
There have always been big disparities in wealth, and that in itself doesn't indicate anything pathological about a society.
Actually I think it does. When some people in a society can spend $100,000 on a hand bag while others must go without food, something is fucked up.
The fact that there are rich people with fancy cars in a country doesn't have any relevance to an abuse of police power.
Don't think so, huh? Do you think the rich people with the fancy cars see as much abuse from the police as those without money? Who do you think employs the police, and who is being protected from whom?
Anything less appears to be completely useless today as the Republicans will (and often have) filibuster anything.
Because the Democrats let them. Just sayin'...
he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so. Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.
I don't think the unborn babies rights trump the mother's. And since you're so concerned with these unborn babies, I assume you support providing pre-natal care for the mothers, and funding for children's health care. You know, those things the GOP always wants to de-fund because they care so much about these kids?
and it would take a major act of Congress to get rid of them
Indeed it would, but that would require something that President Obama is sorely lacking; Leadership . If Rudy Giuliani had been in office instead of Obama, we wouldn't be having this conversation because these things would have already been done. New Yorkers don't beat around the bush, they get shit done.
(not that that would even be desirable).
That's debatable. What's not debatable is that some changes are necessary if these programs are going to remain available in any meaningful way for millennials and those now in their prime working years (approximately ages 30-50). Just go out and ask anyone under the age of 40 whether or not they believe there will be anything left once the boomers have passed through. Most of them either believe that they will get essentially nothing OR they have rocks in their heads and shouldn't be asked about financial matters in general and certainly not about actuarial matters.
Rudy Giuliani? Tell me another one.
Social Security is fine. A few tweaks like subjecting incomes higher than $110,000 to the FICA tax would bring collections closer to expenditures. It's really a matter of priorities. We have plenty of money, it's a matter of how we choose to spend it. I don't hear anyone wringing their hands about not being able to fund Homeland Security or the Pentagon. I'm right around 40 and I fully expect Social Security to be there. I paid into it, I want my benefit.
Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.
But he has stepped up the use of special forces and drones. They are used in the types of war the Pentagon doesn't tell you about.
Obama is pro bill-of-rights. He's signed three laws allowing for better access to firearms (not passed when the GOP was fully in charge under Bush), and unlike Ron Paul, he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
While I like his stance on abortion, saying that a man who has arrogated the right to declare you a terrorist and kill you is "pro bill-of-rights" is a stretch.
Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.
Presidents come out in favor of a lot of things. I like the noises he is making, but I'll be more impressed when something happens as a result.
Further, as you will see from this chart, the deficit is almost entirely due to things done during Bush's term. And the chart doesn't even point out that the "Economic downturn" was caused by the GOP and conservatives deregulating banks so they could gamble with depositor's money backed by the taxpayer. (Nothing forces a brokerage to take FDIC insurance, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to gamble with other people's money.)
I agree with your point about the downturn beginning on Bush's watch. The GOP clearly doesn't care about anyone but the very rich. But Obama's justice department hasn't gone after any of the Wall Street criminals. Besides, when a country borrows all of its money from a bank, it's always going to be in debt. There's really no way around it.
So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed? I doubt it. Everything I just wrote was just a google search away, but you clearly didn't bother doing that. So I conclude that your reasons are little more than excuses, because you have a dream that some day you'll actually end up wealthy enough to pay the Buffet tax.
Ain't going to happen, pal.
Personally, I will give Obama credit where I think it's due. He has advanced gay rights, and the healthcare system is marginally better than it was before (it's easier for people to get and keep health insurance). But I won't support him because he is not liberal enough. I have no illusions about ever paying a Buffet tax, and I support taxing the very rich at confiscatory levels. Obama has not gone far enough in dealing with financial criminality, has further eroded our civil rights, and has not done much to curb our militarism except to withdraw from Iraq according to a timetable set up by his predecessor. One could argue that it was politically impossible for him to do these things, but the fact is he didn't really try.
Now we're getting somewhere!
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.
This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.
FWIW, I have seen you post that before and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. To be fair, earlier drafts of the bill did not include such language. So there is a reason that people got upset; it wasn't that lies were being spread. However, the language was modified in the final draft and people didn't get the memo. So thanks for pointing it out.
That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.
Trials in absentia are generally illegal in the United States. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."
I hate the two party system but history has shown that voting for a third party/independent only hurts one's cause. As an alien on The Simpsons once said, "What are you going to do, vote for a third party candidate? Go ahead, throw your vote away! Mwahahahaha!"
But it seems you missed the irony of that scene. In that episode the choice was between an alien determined to enslave the human race, and an alien determined to enslave the human race. In that situation a fellow suggests voting for a third party, and is still told he would be throwing his vote away, thus showing the stupidity of the argument!
So, as Ranier Wolfcastle said, "That's the joke!"
There were too many things going on in that election, from the Supreme Court to electronic "voting" machines, to say that one variable (i.e. Nader) would have swung everything in the other direction. People should vote their conscience.