If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Addicting Info)   While Americans worry about the relationship status of the Kardashians, Congress is looking at a new way to strip Americans of their citizenship if they get all protest-y   (addictinginfo.org) divider line 252
    More: Scary, Americans  
•       •       •

7204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2012 at 3:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-07 08:27:21 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Aarontology: Just think.

if fifteen years ago someone told you the government would attempt to pass laws that would give them the authority to revoke your citizenship without due process and imprison you indefinitely, people would have laughed you out of town.


Yes, as little as ten years ago, when we began down this road, they did just that. As everyone bemoaned the Patriot Act, torture, warrantless wiretaps, and all the other post-9/11 bullshiat, right-wingers kept going "Oh yeah, it's just like Nazi Germany here... Oh noes! Look, bottom line is if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!!!"

And even now, Americans won't do shiat. They won't believe where we're headed till we get there. As I have long semi-joked, the point is stopping it before there are SS stormtroopers standing on the street corner. You don't wait until you get to the "papers, please!!!" and go "Now, THIS is fascism!!! We should totally do something about it."



The Kardashians are a powerful sedative.
 
2012-01-07 08:29:51 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Dwight_Yeast: Same thing is true of the NDAA,

The NDAA isn't a problem, it's a defense appropriations bill. The problem is a couple sections of it. And what Congress managed to do was to get it to Obama so late that if he vetoed it there was no way Congress could either override the veto or put together a new bill before the old NDAA, there's one for every fiscal year, expired. Which would mean the DoD has no money for things like, oh, covering paychecks.


He should have vetoed it. He should have followed with a press conference detailing a worst case scenario for the consequences of the sections you reference. Then he should have laid blame for delay of payment to military personnel square on the congressmen who voted for that nonsense. Furthermore, he should have read aloud the name of each and every individual who voted for the bill warning that these individuals were atempting to incur upon Americans' constitutional rights. He should have ended the speech with "I hope you'll remember this narrowly avoided threat when you go to the polls.
 
2012-01-07 08:35:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Wayne 985: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Yep. I hate to Godwin the thread...

Then don't. You're comparing the crime of exterminating 11 million innocent people to a policy of what is essentially banishment for terrorist activity. It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

Bullshiat. Shiat like this starts small, and encroaches slowly.
The best way to honor the victims of tyranny is to prevent more lives and liberty being lost to tyranny.


Exactly!

I think it was author Bertold Brecht who compared Hitler to a snowball rolling down a hill. At first, no one took him serious, but when he had turned into an avalanche, it was too late to stop him.

And this very bill is such a snowball.

Also, Godwin's Law does not apply to any mention of Nazis in a discussion. It only applies to telling the other side of the discussion "oh yeah? Well, you're a dirty Nazi, so there!"
Godwin's Law most definitely does not apply to drawing valid historical parallels between the Third Reich and parts of today's politics. That's not Godwinning, that's examining snowballs.

Also, he wasn't comparing the bill to the holocaust against the German Jews.
He was comparing the bill to what happened *before* the holocaust.

It trivializes the deaths of these people if we put the holocaust and its victims onto a pedestal, because, as we see by Wayne's words, it keeps us from analyzing how the holocaust happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.
Ask the survivors what they want: for us to speak about the holocaust in hushed tones only or for us to have a frank discussion of the political mechanisms with the goal of making damn sure nothing like this ever happens again.
 
2012-01-07 08:49:24 PM  

danny_kay:
It trivializes the deaths of these people if we put the holocaust and its victims onto a pedestal,.


you want to put the holocaust onto a pedestal? Are you farking nuts? Or a Nazi?

Sick.
 
2012-01-07 08:50:24 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: stevenr868: it's this kind of thinking that will be the end of America as we know it

Not exactly. Read the psychopath's senate bill (And make no mistake, Lieberman is a psychopath) and see what it does and to what law, then get back to yourself on that. It just adds buying a Capri Sun for the Taliban to the list of reasons you can lose your rights.

/Dude, don't do it


There are some Christian organizations that send humanitarian aid to stated enemies of the USA: things like blankets, over the counter meds, and children's' clothing. These groups, generally, send a letter to the government advising the government of their intent to violate given restrictions in sending these goods and why they are doing so. This insignificant (as you seem to view it) tidbit of Liebermans' would put all of these folks at risk of losing citizenship. This, to you, is a casual, no-big-deal-dude, kind of thing?
 
2012-01-07 08:58:40 PM  

Lunaville: This, to you, is a casual, no-big-deal-dude, kind of thing?


I've already stated my position on Lieberman and anything he does. It seems to me all we can do is 1) fight the legislation in all the usual ways, then 2) deal with the consequences, either way.

Everyone is free to break laws as their morality directs them, including "humanitarians" who send stuff to maybe or maybe not terrorists or Capri Suns to the Taliban or whomever. If they don't like this, they need to take it up with Lieberman, I suppose.
 
2012-01-07 09:02:47 PM  

Aarontology: Just think.

if fifteen years ago someone told you the government would attempt to pass laws that would give them the authority to revoke your citizenship without due process and imprison you indefinitely, people would have laughed you out of town.




Unfortunately, it is inevitable and eventually something like this will be passed.
 
2012-01-07 09:04:40 PM  

Goodfella: Unfortunately, it is inevitable and eventually something like this will be passed.


Bull. Puckey.
Nothing is inevitable.
 
2012-01-07 09:09:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: danny_kay:
It trivializes the deaths of these people if we put the holocaust and its victims onto a pedestal,.

you want to put the holocaust onto a pedestal? Are you farking nuts? Or a Nazi?

Sick.


Okay let me explain that:

Wayne 985 originally said:
Then don't. You're comparing the crime of exterminating 11 million innocent people to a policy of what is essentially banishment for terrorist activity. It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

In my opinion, *he* puts the holocaust on a pedestal by viewing it as a monolithic event that bears no comparison to anything EVAR.

Of course the extermination of a significant segment of our population is an event against which everything else pales in comparison.

But we can't forget that the gas chambers did not exist in a vacuum, but they were the last step in a long chain of events.
I think there must be a way to grieve for the victims of the holocaust and to acknowledge the horrible enormity of it, while *at the same time* examining the processes that led up to it.

And so it should be valid to say "well, the Jews were stripped of their citizenship and ordered out of the country, too. And we all know how that ended. So let's think about whether this bill is a good idea"

Of course, being stripped of one's citizenship and deported is nothing against being killed - actually the ones who were kept from returning to Germany were the lucky ones, as we know today.

But we can't lose sight of the fact that the citizenship thing was one piece of the chain of events that finally ended in the gas chambers
And it should be possible to discuss it in detail without someone crying "wah! People got *killed* in the Third Reich! Why are you discussing citizenships at all if people got *killed*?"

Does that make it more clear?

And in the interest of full disclosure: I am German, and I do consider the holocaust to be one of the most horrible things to ever happen on this planet. This is why I consider it my task to turn over some snowballs and examine them for their danger of becoming unstoppable avalanches.
 
2012-01-07 09:10:19 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

That's the stupidest statement ever. I wasn't even able to vote until just after the 2004 election. The only Presidents I can really remember are President Obama and President Bush. I vaguely remember President Clinton, but I really didn't know a thing about politics in my early teens.

How exactly do I, and millions of Millennials, deserve this shiat?

So here we sit. The largest age-group in the United States with the highest unemployment rate, poor economy, minimal job aspects, crushing personal debt and being scolded by our parents for being "losers" while they spend our money and our grandchildren's money.

All we've actually seen are the Bush Jr. years ..... and President Obama's first turn. Now I ask you. What do you think the viewpoint of Republicans are to most people my age, and what do you think the viewpoint of Democrats are to most people my age?


ehehehehehehehhe
you millennials are so cute. have you disowned your parents who have created this farked up problem?
have you actively worked to destroy the people who created the problems? have you been working for politicians who want to fix these problems? have you been shunning everyone who supported the politicians who created these nightmares?

meh
whatever

at least the people protesting the viet nam war got shot, arrested and killed during their protests
 
2012-01-07 09:12:19 PM  

BSABSVR: Wayne 985: Don't waste time getting angry over dumb blogs

It's not that it's dumb blogs, exactly. It's that these ideas go from fringe to mainstreams easily.


You know, I'd like to argue with that, but I can't. I have to confess that I never thought allegations of "death panels" would go mainstream either.
 
2012-01-07 09:19:10 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: bugontherug: That means accepting that you can't get all beneficial outcomes, and it also means casting your vote to minimize harmful outcomes.

Lesser evils are OK then?

No. Not any more. Do not vote for democrats or republicans if you want change.


Allow me to retort:

1) In the American system, if you don't vote for the lesser evil, you get the greater evil. Unfortunately, we do not have a system that rewards voters who vote for their first choice. Instead, we have a system that punishes voters who fail to vote against their last choice. Voting for a third party with no plausible chance of winning, or refraining from voting, is not only impotent, but counterproductive. Maurice Duverger articulated the reasons why in the middle of the last century.

Link (new window)

2) Thus, voters who stick to one of the "big two" parties have rationally calculated their vote to maximize beneficial outcomes according to their values. For example, I disagree with the indefinite detention law. But however much I dislike it, neither voting third party nor refraining from voting has any realistic chance of producing a different policy outcome. Not only that, but I generally agree with the Democrats on most other issues, and I strongly disagree with the Republicans on many more .Therefore, voting for a third party with no realistic chance to win, or refraining from voting, fails to maximize beneficial outcomes for me. Not only will the indefinite detention policy not change because of it, but by doing so, I increase the likelihood of maximizing harmful outcomes.

However angry indefinite detention makes you, it makes no sense to impotently vote third party, or not to vote. Not only will it fail to produce the change you want, but it will increase the likelihood of many other changes you don't want. That's the basic reality of our system. Successful rational actors adjust their actions to suit reality, rather than blanking it out with heady utopian pipe dreams.
 
2012-01-07 09:32:41 PM  

Amos Quito: bugontherug: The idea that "there's no difference between the parties" is one belied by even a casual look at actual facts.

Of course there is a difference between the "two parties", just like there is a difference between the "good cop" and the "bad cop".


There's also a difference between pre-CARD Act credit card terms, and post CARD Act credit card terms. Between pre-student loan reform terms, and post student loan reform terms. For homosexuals who want to serve their country, between pre-DADT repeal, and post DADT repeal. For victims of sex discrimination, between pre-Lily Ledbetter Act, and post Lilly Ledbetter Act. For people with pre-existing conditions, between pre-PPACA, and post PPACA. And many many more.

You can't just discount these differences with a quip. They're real, lasting policy changes that would not have happened but for the Democratic tidal waves of 2006-2008. They affect millions of Americans in meaningful ways. Letting Republicans win, especially with large majorities, will result in rollback of at least some of them. So if you're a borrower, a homosexual, a person who doesn't want to face sex discrimination, or someone who wants health insurance, the differences between the parties are important, even if there are some unfortunate similarities.
 
2012-01-07 09:41:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Is this a Kim Kardashian thread?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 580x870]


Ok, this just made my day. Thank you sir.
 
2012-01-07 09:55:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Dwight_Yeast: Same thing is true of the NDAA,

The NDAA isn't a problem, it's a defense appropriations bill. The problem is a couple sections of it. And what Congress managed to do was to get it to Obama so late that if he vetoed it there was no way Congress could either override the veto or put together a new bill before the old NDAA, there's one for every fiscal year, expired. Which would mean the DoD has no money for things like, oh, covering paychecks.


In other words- Congress intentionally got Obama the bill too late, because they KNEW he had to sign it regardless of if there was 'troublesome' language in it or not?

And you don't see a problem with that?
 
2012-01-07 11:21:09 PM  
FTA: This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being "hostile" against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States."

Good. The first people to be expatriated should be all the TSA and DEA employees.
 
2012-01-07 11:23:27 PM  

Wayne 985: threeoclockrock: LOL. Let me help you. The communist party in China is also in power in the government. Guess what happens to people who protest the communist party there. They are treated as criminals.

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not. In case it's not, Communist China was never a free or democratic society, as we've been since our inception.


Hmm... my bad.

Ok, my point is that there is a difference between a political party and the organization that consists of the government. A political party will use its power in government to stay in power. They do this by criminalizing behavior that supports opposing political partys.

The party justify this charge by claiming the dissident was attempting to overthrow the government.

My concern is that the same can now happen in America should a single party get control of the government. Our peers can no longer judge our guilt regarding charges of "terrorism." What stops a political party from using its influence in the government to reduce the influence of another political party via charges of "supporting terrorism?"

OWS has received baseless charges of terrorism from a predictable group of the political spectrum. What restrains these people from going beyond pepper spray and arrests? Due process.
 
2012-01-07 11:27:22 PM  

bugontherug: Amos Quito: bugontherug: The idea that "there's no difference between the parties" is one belied by even a casual look at actual facts.

Of course there is a difference between the "two parties", just like there is a difference between the "good cop" and the "bad cop".


There's also a difference between pre-CARD Act credit card terms, and post CARD Act credit card terms. Between pre-student loan reform terms, and post student loan reform terms. For homosexuals who want to serve their country, between pre-DADT repeal, and post DADT repeal. For victims of sex discrimination, between pre-Lily Ledbetter Act, and post Lilly Ledbetter Act. For people with pre-existing conditions, between pre-PPACA, and post PPACA. And many many more.

You can't just discount these differences with a quip. They're real, lasting policy changes that would not have happened but for the Democratic tidal waves of 2006-2008. They affect millions of Americans in meaningful ways. Letting Republicans win, especially with large majorities, will result in rollback of at least some of them. So if you're a borrower, a homosexual, a person who doesn't want to face sex discrimination, or someone who wants health insurance, the differences between the parties are important, even if there are some unfortunate similarities.



Pay attention to the bolded above.

Both parties carry "carrots" and "sticks" which appeal to / repel certain segments of society.

Those skilled at manipulating these carrots and sticks are able to use issues that appeal to specific segments to segregate us into opposing camps that soon become myopically focused on the "needs" and "desires" that they feel will best serve the interests of their specific group.

Obviously what the goose perceives as "good" isn't necessarily perceived as "good" by the gander, so PERCEIVED rifts are easily artificially created by promoting one position or another. The natural result is infighting among the populace over issues that certainly SEEM important to the affected group(s), but the actual goal of the manipulator is NOT promoting one agenda or another, but to create the division and the infighting.

Distractions.

I'm sure that you're tickled with some of the things that the "Obama Administration" has done, as others cheer when Republican do things that they PERCEIVE promote THEIR interests.

But while you're busy fighting with "the others" on special interest issues,, you fail to pay heed to the significance of what is clearly happening, regardless of who is in "power", and that is the relentless creep toward Centralized Authoritarian Control.

Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS.

Amirite?

But what happens when the show is over, and you walk out of the theater to face the cold reality that NEITHER party had the "best interests" of their constituents at heart, they just played the vying interests of the people like a fiddle to con you into surrendering every right and liberty you THOUGHT you had in their effort to empower their self-serving oligarchic desires?

If you want to understand what is going on, you need to reject your myopia, and try to imagine the perspective of those who mean to rule.

Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, they're all just tools for manipulation.

And they're VERY good at it.


/They've been practicing
 
2012-01-08 12:28:40 AM  

GAT_00: cman: No way this will pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Haha, yes it will.


Yes, it will. The SCOTUS doesn't even consider the law anymore, they just hold things to a vote based on what they feel the law should be. Someday they won't even bother with the show of having "lawyers" present "arguments."

One of them even wrote in their majority opinion (I've forgotten who and on what, so like, whatever, I guess) that ruling the other way would make it harder to catch terrorists. Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERPRETING THE LAW.
 
2012-01-08 12:50:04 AM  
But there's the pesky Constitution - in particular, section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2012-01-08 12:56:29 AM  

thisispete: But there's the pesky Constitution - in particular, section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


i assume an argument would be for the federal government, not a state.
 
2012-01-08 01:36:50 AM  
Joe Lieberman hates our freedom.
 
2012-01-08 03:49:07 AM  

Trance750: The sad fact is most people don't even care, until it happens to them. The level of apathy I see every single day, makes me cringe.


And yet here we all sit, doing nothing.
 
2012-01-08 03:55:42 AM  
Lunaville: He should have vetoed it.

For what it's worth there's already a bill to overturn the bad parts of the NDAA. Fark, introduced by a Republican member of the House.
 
2012-01-08 05:26:04 AM  
shows like The West Wing are going to be hilarious in this farked up era of social collapse. "Oh we pretended we were a modern society".
 
2012-01-08 07:08:02 AM  

Amos Quito: Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS.

Amirite?


No, you're not right. You don't seem to be reading my posts. I dislike the erosion of our civil liberties. But irrationally casting your vote to increase the likelihood of bad outcomes only makes things worse.

The way you effectuate the kind of change you're seeking is not to give the government lock, stock, and barrel to the party with the historically worse civil liberties record. It is to advocate, and change public opinion. When a substantial, sustained majority agrees with you, policy change will follow. For example, we didn't get DADT repeal (a civil liberties issue you seem to ignore) by letting Republicans win. And it wouldn't have happened at all had even one more Republican been elected to the Senate. We got DADT repeal because public opinion changed, and the better political party was given the power to repeal it.
 
2012-01-08 07:17:54 AM  
Did ya ever notice it's Joe Sixpak and his 4 year old daughter that get pulled aside by TSA as potential terrorists, while the middle easterners snicker and get on the plane unscathed.

They are afraid of YOU, not the Taliban.
 
2012-01-08 07:22:00 AM  

Amos Quito: ZOMG! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SECRETLY AGREE ON EVERYTHING, AND ONLY PRETEND ISSUE DIFFERENCES SO THEY CAN STAY IN POWER! ZOMG!


And let me guess--you're a Paulite?

Some sociopaths who literally care nothing about their constituents get elected. But fewer than you seem to imagine. And our system is designed to handle even them. We don't need politicians who care about their constituents, because if a politician is sufficiently indifferent to the will of his constituents, he's accountable to the political process.

Most politicians are normal if egotistical people who have real values, care at least some for their constituents (though like most people, they care for themselves more), and entered politics because they wanted to attain wealth and status, yes, but also advance their values. There's no grand conspiracy, though there are many smaller conspiracie competing with each other to advance different agendas. Policy differences reflect sincerely differing opinions over the concept of "the good," not just between their constituents, but between the politicians themselves.
 
2012-01-08 07:26:31 AM  

bugontherug: Amos Quito: ZOMG! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SECRETLY AGREE ON EVERYTHING, AND ONLY PRETEND ISSUE DIFFERENCES SO THEY CAN STAY IN POWER! ZOMG!

And let me guess--you're a Paulite?

Some sociopaths who literally care nothing about their constituents get elected. But fewer than you seem to imagine. And our system is designed to handle even them. We don't need politicians who care about their constituents, because if a politician is sufficiently indifferent to the will of his constituents, he's accountable to the political process.

Most politicians are normal if egotistical people who have real values, care at least some for their constituents (though like most people, they care for themselves more), and entered politics because they wanted to attain wealth and status, yes, but also advance their values. There's no grand conspiracy, though there are many smaller conspiracie competing with each other to advance different agendas. Policy differences reflect sincerely differing opinions over the concept of "the good," not just between their constituents, but between the politicians themselves.


On this point, I think of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is certainly a pathological narcissist. But even pathological narcissists like Gingrich have real visions of the good. And they don't all agree with each other. They compete with each other to advance their visions of the good.
 
2012-01-08 08:49:40 AM  

bugontherug: Amos Quito: Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS.

Amirite?

No, you're not right. You don't seem to be reading my posts. I dislike the erosion of our civil liberties. But irrationally casting your vote to increase the likelihood of bad outcomes only makes things worse.

The way you effectuate the kind of change you're seeking is not to give the government lock, stock, and barrel to the party with the historically worse civil liberties record. It is to advocate, and change public opinion. When a substantial, sustained majority agrees with you, policy change will follow. For example, we didn't get DADT repeal (a civil liberties issue you seem to ignore) by letting Republicans win. And it wouldn't have happened at all had even one more Republican been elected to the Senate. We got DADT repeal because public opinion changed, and the better political party was given the power to repeal it.


You are what is wrong with America today.

"My team is better than yours!" is an idiotic way to look at the world. Usually politicians do what is most politically popular for them to do. Thats why you have these closeted gay Republicans voting against their own people.

American memory is short. By November, you will forget about the Democrats that pushed for NDAA and vote to reelect them.

/Go fark yourself you farking tool
 
2012-01-08 09:44:17 AM  

cman: bugontherug:
American memory is short. By November, you will forget about the Democrats that pushed for NDAA and vote to reelect them.


Boy, you got that right. But like I have always said, as long as there is a freezer stocked with beer and a working TV, most people couldn't care less about what happens in their own front yard, much less what happens anywhere else.
 
2012-01-08 10:39:00 AM  

cman: You are what is wrong with America today.

"My team is better than yours!" is an idiotic way to look at the world. Usually politicians do what is most politically popular for them to do. Thats why you have these closeted gay Republicans voting against their own people.

American memory is short. By November, you will forget about the Democrats that pushed for NDAA and vote to reelect them.

/Go fark yourself you farking tool


Gooood. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

[cackle]

Your hateful condescension reveals only your empty, emotionally impulsive thinking style. If you can read this thread, and conclude anything other than that I'm a thoughtful advocate who simply holds a different opinion than yours, then candidly, you are incapable of adult reasoning. You should disabuse yourself of the notion that even partisans have a stunted, sports fan view of politics. Democratic and Republican voters both contemplate political realities according to their values, and vote accordingly.
 
2012-01-08 10:43:56 AM  

cman: American memory is short. By November, you will forget about the Democrats that pushed for NDAA and vote to reelect them rationally calculate how to cast your vote to maximize the likelihood beneficial outcomes according to your values, realize that third party voting achieves nothing, and vote to reelect Democrats.


FTFY.
 
2012-01-08 11:09:35 AM  

bugontherug: Successful rational actors adjust their actions to suit reality, rather than blanking it out with heady utopian pipe dreams.


Channeling John Nash is impressive, but there seems to be a misunderstanding.
I wont vote for democrats or republicans because I'm gong to write in my dog's name in the general election.

It's the only sane course in the context of a dysfunctional political system.
 
2012-01-08 11:36:07 AM  
Well, those Tea Baggers in Congress will have to lose their citizenship, too.

/and hopefully kicked out.
 
2012-01-08 11:40:33 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: bugontherug: Successful rational actors adjust their actions to suit reality, rather than blanking it out with heady utopian pipe dreams.

Channeling John Nash is impressive, but there seems to be a misunderstanding.
I wont vote for democrats or republicans because I'm gong to write in my dog's name in the general election.

It's the only sane course in the context of a dysfunctional political system.


HotIgneous Intruder: bugontherug: Successful rational actors adjust their actions to suit reality, rather than blanking it out with heady utopian pipe dreams.

Channeling John Nash is impressive, but there seems to be a misunderstanding.
I wont vote for democrats or republicans because I'm gong to write in my dog's name in the general election.

It's the only sane course in the context of a dysfunctional political system.


It may surprise you to learn I had to google John Nash. Recognized him once I looked him up though.

Unfortunately, irrational voting won't help solve systemic dysfunction. But you can take consolation knowing that if you're middle class or lower, or mainly hold center to left values, irrational voting will increase bad policy outcomes for you.

If, by contrast, you're a conservative, voting third party or dropping out of the system will work wonders for you. Give it a try.
 
2012-01-08 11:42:30 AM  

vernonFL: Why am I not surprised to find Lieberman's name on this POS?


Do you think Al Gore wants to walk up to him and pimp slap Lieberman's ass over this?
 
2012-01-08 12:19:32 PM  

bgddy24601: vernonFL: Why am I not surprised to find Lieberman's name on this POS?

Do you think Al Gore wants to walk up to him and pimp slap Lieberman's ass over this?


Al Gore said a while back (and I don't recall the exact verbage) but it was something to the effect of treating global-warming deniers the same that we would treat a national traitor
 
2012-01-08 12:45:02 PM  

bugontherug: Amos Quito: Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS.

Amirite?

No, you're not right. You don't seem to be reading my posts. I dislike the erosion of our civil liberties. But irrationally casting your vote to increase the likelihood of bad outcomes only makes things worse.

The way you effectuate the kind of change you're seeking is not to give the government lock, stock, and barrel to the party with the historically worse civil liberties record. It is to advocate, and change public opinion. When a substantial, sustained majority agrees with you, policy change will follow. For example, we didn't get DADT repeal (a civil liberties issue you seem to ignore) by letting Republicans win. And it wouldn't have happened at all had even one more Republican been elected to the Senate. We got DADT repeal because public opinion changed, and the better political party was given the power to repeal it.



Above I asserted that you would be willing to submit to Centralized Authoritarian Control IF you believe said control would serve your perceived interests.

You denied this, and then immediately turned around and showed that you ARE more than happy to submit to said control when you believe the Controllers are serving your perceived interests, demonstrating that you are indeed more than happy to tolerate the lashings of the stick IF the carrot is sufficiently tempting.

The primary mission of those in power is to maintain, consolidate and increase their power. It is the nature of the beast.

Did the overall power of the Centralized Federal Government increase or decrease under Daddy Bush? How about under Clinton? Under Baby Bush? What about under Obama?

During each of these administrations countless issues of "importance" have been dangled before our eyes, presenting us with one false dichotomy after another. Sometimes these issues are resolved to your perceived "satisfaction", other times not, but in each instance we have seen that Central Authoritarians gain MORE power even as the power and rights of the States and THE PEOPLE is steadily diminished.

We find ourselves so mesmerized with the "issues" that the Handlers of Tweedle (D) and Tweedle (R) use to manipulate and divide us that we fail to realize that the primary goal of the Authoritarians is being achieved in every case.

We willingly sell our birthright for bowl of lentils.
 
2012-01-08 12:50:53 PM  

Trance750: bgddy24601: vernonFL: Why am I not surprised to find Lieberman's name on this POS?

Do you think Al Gore wants to walk up to him and pimp slap Lieberman's ass over this?

Al Gore said a while back (and I don't recall the exact verbage) but it was something to the effect of treating global-warming deniers the same that we would treat a national traitor



Only a Centralized, Authoritarian World Government can possibly save us from Global Warming.

Fortunately we all know that such Centralized Authoritarian regimes are always benevolent, and always serve the best interests of the people as a whole.

www.thefamouspeople.com


/Father knows best
 
2012-01-08 12:59:17 PM  

bugontherug: bugontherug: Amos Quito: ZOMG! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SECRETLY AGREE ON EVERYTHING, AND ONLY PRETEND ISSUE DIFFERENCES SO THEY CAN STAY IN POWER! ZOMG!



One might observe that the price of widgets at Wal*Mart may increase on the same day nationwide.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the managers of all Wal*Mart Stores "secretly conspired" to simultaneously raise the price of widgets?

Or might there be another explanation?
 
2012-01-08 02:07:14 PM  

Amos Quito: bugontherug: Amos Quito:

Above I asserted that you would be willing to submit to Centralized Authoritarian Control IF you believe said control would serve your perceived interests.

You denied this, and then immediately turned around and showed that you ARE more than happy to submit to said control when you believe the Controllers are serving your perceived interests, demonstrating that you are indeed more than happy to tolerate the lashings of the stick IF the carrot is sufficiently tempting.

You are aware that other people know how to read, right? It's really hard to lie when you can scroll up and see what you actually said.

Maybe you're just insufficiently competent with English to understand the meanings of basic words. Here. I'll repost what you said, and review it with you:

"Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS."

Relevant language bolded. Do you see how "having no problem with" is different than "willing to submit to?" A slave in the old South was willing to submitto slavery. But that doesn't mean he had no problem with it.

Does that help you? Do you understand the concept of "different?"

In any event, now that I've read an intelligent analysis of the indefinite detention law written by an informed technocrat, my objection to it is substantially diminished. Take a look, if you're really interested in learning something.

Link (new window)
 
2012-01-08 02:09:36 PM  

Amos Quito: bugontherug: bugontherug: Amos Quito: ZOMG! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SECRETLY AGREE ON EVERYTHING, AND ONLY PRETEND ISSUE DIFFERENCES SO THEY CAN STAY IN POWER! ZOMG!


One might observe that the price of widgets at Wal*Mart may increase on the same day nationwide.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the managers of all Wal*Mart Stores "secretly conspired" to simultaneously raise the price of widgets?

Or might there be another explanation?


It's not clear to me what sort of analogy you're making. Are you asserting that price inflation proves the vast DemoPublican conspiracy? Because yes, there are many other explanations for price inflation.
 
2012-01-08 02:35:28 PM  

bugontherug: Amos Quito: bugontherug: Amos Quito:
Above I asserted that you would be willing to submit to Centralized Authoritarian Control IF you believe said control would serve your perceived interests.

You denied this, and then immediately turned around and showed that you ARE more than happy to submit to said control when you believe the Controllers are serving your perceived interests, demonstrating that you are indeed more than happy to tolerate the lashings of the stick IF the carrot is sufficiently tempting.

You are aware that other people know how to read, right? It's really hard to lie when you can scroll up and see what you actually said.

Maybe you're just insufficiently competent with English to understand the meanings of basic words. Here. I'll repost what you said, and review it with you:

"Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS."

Relevant language bolded. Do you see how "having no problem with" is different than "willing to submit to?" A slave in the old South was willing to submitto slavery. But that doesn't mean he had no problem with it.

Does that help you? Do you understand the concept of "different?"



Thanks for the semantic clarification.

Unfortunately you missed entirely the nuts and bolts of my point: That under ALL recent administrations - regardless of who sits in the Executive office OR who holds the majority in Congress - power has relentlessly shifted AWAY from the States and the People, and has moved toward Centralized Authoritarian Control.

I had hoped that you would understand the significance of this shift. Apparently not.

bugontherug: In any event, now that I've read an intelligent analysis of the indefinite detention law written by an informed technocrat, my objection to it is substantially diminished. Take a look, if you're really interested in learning something.

Link (new window)



Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to study it in depth, but a cursory glance seems to show the author telling us that we shouldn't be worried about being farked up the arse by NDAA, as he seems to explain that we've actually been being actively farked up the arse for a LONG TIME, but we weren't aware as the local anesthetic has yet to wear off.

Apparently NDAA just allows the Authoritarians to thrust a bit deeper, is all.

Most reassuring.
 
2012-01-08 03:39:18 PM  

Trance750: inkblot: It's not part of a larger bill this time, so it will most likely get vetoed.

Yeah I don't think Obama will want this sitting on his desk when it comes Election time


Like the NDAA?

vernonFL: Why am I not surprised to find Lieberman's name on this POS?


Joe Lieberman will sit alongside Joe McCarthy in the pages of history for promoting the most dangerous policies this country has (or almost has) every enacted.
 
2012-01-08 03:49:15 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

Same thing is true of the NDAA, which I suspect is why Obama signed it: the first time some asshole tries to use it, it will go up for a SOCTUS challenge and even the current, hyper-conservative court will shoot it down as unconstitutional.


Is that sort of like "I'm for it because I'm against it"? If this were Bush and someone said him signing it is for the reason you just stated, you would be outraged at such an insulting and dishonest apology, and rightly so.

Are you naive enough to believe that a president signs horrendous and unconstitutional acts for the sole intention of having them shot down in the SC? That doesn't even make sense. If it's UPHELD, then he has in fact implemented permanent TYRANNY.
 
2012-01-08 03:55:48 PM  

thisispete: But there's the pesky Constitution - in particular, section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It's probably worth noting in this regard that the selfsame folks who are proposing the denationalisation of American citizens for "Terrorist support" have also at the same time been calling for the revocation of the 14th Amendment--under the claim, of course, that they merely want to remove jus solis citizenship and prevent "anchor babies".

(I'll also note that as written, the law could have a much broader effect than one suspects. Someone has already mentioned this could have, shall we say, Unintended Consequences--anyone who's given to World Vision or volunteered for the Peace Corps, for one, could be stripped of citizenship if it's been found that they somehow "materially supported" someone who happened to be on a list of designated nationals or in a designated terrorist group--and no, they're NOT just talking on Al Qaeda; there are quite a number of groups that are US-designated terrorist orgs that have nothing to do with Wahhabist or Twelfther Islamist religionationalism.

(For example, the IRA is still considered a terrorist org (and apparently has received a fair amount of support from Irish communities on the East Coast); the PKK, a Kurdish insurgent group in Turkey, is considered a terrorist group; at least two groups in Iran actively opposed to the current regime are considered terrorists; at one point (and this may still be the case) the Chiapas indigenous insurgency against the Mexican government was a designated terrorist group, and in past groups fighting against Gen. Efrain Rios Montt's genocidal regime were ALSO considered international terrorists. Hell, just a few weeks ago the British government declared Operation Wall Street's operations in the UK to be an "international terrorist group", so folks participating in OWS protests being designated "terrorists" ISN'T all that far-fetched.

(And as written, pretty much anything as simple as donating to an aid group whom was nondiscriminatory in providing aid to all--and whom in course of their aid operations happened to give charitable assistance to someone who's a member of a US-designated terrorist group--WOULD be pretty much enough to start denationalisation.)

/pretty much saw this coming all the way back in 1980--one of my earliest memories, no shiat, is of dominionists crowing how they pretty much planned to denationalise LGBT people, "feminists", "witches", "socialists" and "secularists" when they took over--for purposes of eventually casting them out or killing them
//why yes, they were big supporters of the Montt regime, and the Contras in Nicaragua too--to the point of funneling aid to the Contras under the guise of a "mission to the Miskito Indians (who'd been Christianised since the 18th century and who were largely Baptists)
///saw this coming like a friggin' freight train when one of the leaders of the largest pentecostal denomination in the US (which is also hardcore Jesus Camper) actively called for the denationalisation of "secularists"--Jesus Camper code for "non-dominionists who believe in separation of church and state"--on national television a few years back
////will honestly NOT be one bit shocked to hear for someone calling for the denationalisation of anyone who isn't a dominionist as a major stumping point in the Presidential primaries--Gingrich damn near has done it already, in fact...ONLY took 'em forty years to finally come out of the closet on it
 
2012-01-08 03:57:05 PM  

wolvernova: Dwight_Yeast: Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

Same thing is true of the NDAA, which I suspect is why Obama signed it: the first time some asshole tries to use it, it will go up for a SOCTUS challenge and even the current, hyper-conservative court will shoot it down as unconstitutional.

Is that sort of like "I'm for it because I'm against it"? If this were Bush and someone said him signing it is for the reason you just stated, you would be outraged at such an insulting and dishonest apology, and rightly so.

Are you naive enough to believe that a president signs horrendous and unconstitutional acts for the sole intention of having them shot down in the SC? That doesn't even make sense. If it's UPHELD, then he has in fact implemented permanent TYRANNY.



SCOTUS doesn't even have to "uphold" it.

They can simply ignore or decline to "hear" it.
 
2012-01-08 05:54:57 PM  
Even if this bill passes into law (which is about as unlikely as a meteorite striking Joe Lieberman straight on his head), there is no way this passes constitutional muster, especially for native born citizens.

The 14th Ammendment is unambiguous: If you were born in the U.S. you are a citizen of the U.S....period. You are protected by the U.S. Constitution which INCLUDES due process.

The entire supreme court would have to be on LSD to even come close to enough votes to uphold this law as constitutional.
 
2012-01-08 06:56:10 PM  

Amos Quito: bugontherug: Amos Quito: bugontherug: Amos Quito:
Above I asserted that you would be willing to submit to Centralized Authoritarian Control IF you believe said control would serve your perceived interests.

You denied this, and then immediately turned around and showed that you ARE more than happy to submit to said control when you believe the Controllers are serving your perceived interests, demonstrating that you are indeed more than happy to tolerate the lashings of the stick IF the carrot is sufficiently tempting.

You are aware that other people know how to read, right? It's really hard to lie when you can scroll up and see what you actually said.

Maybe you're just insufficiently competent with English to understand the meanings of basic words. Here. I'll repost what you said, and review it with you:

"Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS."

Relevant language bolded. Do you see how "having no problem with" is different than "willing to submit to?" A slave in the old South was willing to submitto slavery. But that doesn't mean he had no problem with it.

Does that help you? Do you understand the concept of "different?"


Thanks for the semantic clarification.

Unfortunately you missed entirely the nuts and bolts of my point: That under ALL recent administrations - regardless of who sits in the Executive office OR who holds the majority in Congress - power has relentlessly shifted AWAY from the States and the People, and has moved toward Centralized Authoritarian Control.


No, he understood your point perfectly, and rebutted it. Because you are of low moral character, you attempted to shift attention from your losing argument with a personal attack. Then, when he showed where you were being dishonest, you attempted to shift attention from your own character defect by falsely claiming he didn't understand you.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report