Getting scarier and scarier... TONYT- for you. Signy by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline.

PJ, you either don't know very far, or you know wrong, or you're suffering from memory loss or brain damage. No nicer way to put that, sorry.

Bush didn't send out "union thugs"? Really? Nahhhh - people who wanted to protest against Bush were instead jailed for the "crime" of wearing a John Kerry campaign button. Or corraled and put into "free speech zones" half a mile or more away from where he was appearing.

Those war protesters who didn't have anyone trying to shut them up? Yeah, they weren't called "rednecks" - they were called "un-American", "terrorist", and much, much worse. They were told - not asked, TOLD - to leave the country (or "get the fuck out!" as it was usually phrased). And those "union thugs" that controlled access to Bush's rallies and screened people to keep out the protesters? Yeah, their "union" was called Homeland Security.

That "report your neighbor" hotline that Bush never set up? It's called the Patriot Act. Congress was given less than a month to read it and pass it, all the while being told that this was so life and death that they absolutely didn't need to read it, but should just trust their government, and anything less would be un-American of them. I guess you don't have to "report your neighbor" when your government has already given itself permission to look into every aspect of your life without any need for such pesky details as probable cause or warrants.

So NOW you want to know where the rest of us have been. Look way ahead of you, far, far out on the horizon. See us out there? Yeah, we're that far ahead of you. Hurry, you can still catch up if you run!

Edited to fix a few typos!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:04 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

And, just for the record, I'm not a Christian. I'm not a right-winger. I'm not a racist. All those things you are thinking of calling me right now are incorrect assumptions on your part. I am simply a realist. I try to live my life by common sense values and I don't want any interference from people not directly involved in my life.

This, again, is why I have ulcers."

That's where you lost me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings.

Hey, as far as *I* know, Obama didn't do that either. Neither did anyone else. Can you provide some evidence to support this seeming claim you're alluding to? You seem to be insinuating that others HAVE done this, but it sounds like you're too afraid to come right out and say it, hiding behind couched phrases like "as far as I know".

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:16 PM

So, ummmm... Wulfie?

You're so impressed by PJ telling you to think for yourself...

...that you just had to repeat his own words back to him?

Define "Irony".

Oh, and YOU saying "I'm not a racist"? More irony.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:37 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, Bytemite, but this sounds very much like blaming people who talk about racism for racism.

Just wanted to go on record here and say that I did not intend to imply that there is not a racial divide when I said we need to find common ground. There is a racial divide.

But so far, the only person I think who we can all unanimously call racist is the guy who called for the death of Obama, Michelle, and their two kids.

The rest, their motivations are still murky, and I don't know fully what they intended to accomplish going with guns to those town hall meetings. Frankly, the behaviour is somewhat baffling to me, but they did it, it's done, no changing it now.

If they have motivations that AREN'T racist, I only want to be sure I don't dismiss them immediately out of hand because of appearances. And I also want to be sure that people who are NOT armed, just protesting, are not lumped into a "they're just crazy, their concerns aren't valid, don't listen to them" category.

Hi everyone else! HKCavalier and I are discussing our particular argument in the back rooms. Thought that might be more appropriate then me taking over this thread. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:10 PM

Quote:

Read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that this is what he and his colleagues fought to create. We are SO off track. It angers me and breaks my heart at the same time to sit by and watch it happen. It hurts almost as much to listen to some of you so-called Browncoats spouting this kind of stuff. What the hell is up with that? What happened to belief in individual freedom? If believing that we all have a responsibility to make sure our rights aren't taken away and being willing to fight for that belief is wrong, I don't want to be right. If that makes me the bad guy, then so be it. I'm a bad guy.

So tell me, were you a "bad guy" during the reign of Bush? Can you read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that George Bush shared ANY of that man's values? You say we are off track like you just woke up and discovered that during the night Obama had run the America Valdez up on the rocks of the Alaskan shore all by himself. It hurts my heart to hear so-called Browncoats calling people like Bush and Cheney "heroes" and "patriots" and calling Obama a "socialist", a "Nazi", a "communist", and more.

There are things I disagree with Obama on, vehemently. Many of them are the same things I disagreed with Bush on. I've been consistent in those beliefs. I haven't "fallen asleep". Bush gave me insomnia, an inability to get a good night's sleep, with the way he shit on the world and the American people and our rights. And yeah, I'm still pissed about that. If not wanting to give someone a free pass for war crimes and shitting all over the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend makes me a bad guy, then fine; I'm a bad guy.

What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances! How many of you felt the overarching need to exercise that particular right under Bush? About zero-point-none, that's how many. Was that because you were being brave and supportive, or was it because you were asleep and cowardly then?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mike, not to be a heretic or anything, but George Washington was a genocidal terrorist, yeah, he and GW Bush shared more than a couple of initials.

Here's the difference between the old and the new leaders: The old ones, like Churchill, even Hitler, knew how to write, organize campaigns, construct arguments, construct sentences, pronounce words, knew words, could make intelligible sounds, had intelligible thoughts, had any thoughts... Okay, I digress, but people followed them for a reason: They had vision and the ability to communicate that vision and thus had followers. Today's leaders have followers the way Kim Jong Il has followers: Because the people have no choice.

But that doesn't make the older leaders clean. Charles Manson was able to organize followers to worship him, so was Jim Jones. I'll grant it's a lost skill, and our modern despots are just hollow shells, but are they really any more destructive?

Harry S. Truman was a powerful leader, good speaker, strong respected man, who is still quoted today. He was also a real son of bitch. Not only did he press an absurd war, intentionally murder millions of innocent civilians in Japan and indirectly China, he was always ready to start a new disasterous war. The only thing he could have done that I might have respected was stop Mao, but I digress.

Churchill, another evil bastard. Genocidal, racism, misogynist, and killed a large number of people and was indirectly but intentionally responsible for millions more. Great writer, great speaker, excellent leader, truly despicable man.

Okay, stopping now, but you get my point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ah, I see my point wasn't clear - guess that's what I get for being subtle and polite...
Either that or someone once again made the mistake of assuming I am nice.
I ain't.

Soo.... Oh-KAY then, imma be neither, fair warning.

These "threat displays" ARE a fear-reaction, bandying semantics won't change that essential fact.
Whether those fears are justified, whether the folk doing it even realise it's a fear reaction, these things are wholly immaterial to the problem at hand.
And when people fear, often they lash out at the source of that fear in hopes of wrecking it's power to harm them.

When I likened to to the behavior of a small child or animal, I wasn't being metaphorical, I was callin it direct, they've been so well trained to bite one hand and lick the other that now that the OTHER one is holding their leash, they're pissin themselves in fear, and do you know why ?

Cause where were they, all the while that the former administration was ramming a shit sandwich down the throat of 'the other guys' at every turn and corner, damn the law, fuck the constitution ?

Why, jacking it with one hand, shakin pompoms with the other, cheering so rabidly they were practically foamin at the mouth rah-rah-hoorah-murrriKAH!

And now that the tables have turned, there's that same sandwich on THEIR plate, and it makes am all manner of weak in the knees to look at it.

Tell me folks, what's the FIRST reaction of the big bad school bully when someone meaner, tougher, nastier comes along ?

Threats.

Of course, I have my own opinion on how to handle THAT, and I mostly cribbed it from Ender Wiggin, but that's on a personal, rather than political level.

What Obama should NOT do, is pay Danegeld to their fears, cause payin Danegeld results in... (everybody with me now) ...paying Danegeld, so that's right out.

Was *I* the prez, I would grab a camera crew and the two quickest/fastest shots on my protection detail and go right out there, right up to one of em, and firmly, but respectfully, call him down on his conduct while acknowledging his rights - using the same tone a CCW instructor would to someone who just negligently muzzle-swept the class, adult to adult, this is unacceptable.

You want the power, you take the risks, understand ?

So you back him down, double points if he starts dodging eye contact, triple if you get the aw-shucks-shuffle, cause that admits WRONG, it admits GUILT, or at least guilty thoughts, and mind you, on camera, national TV - you blow the thin veneer off his sawbuck redneck ignorance while firmly and politely reprimanding his conduct.

That'd cut this off before it gets out of hand, but addressing them all and cutting all support right out from under them, instead of handling it piecemeal in dribs and drabs like they're doin now.

Remember, I know the mindset, and THIS is why the Republican Party as such must be destroyed - reform from within, WTF are you people smoking ?

That'd be like some kid in the 1400's wanting to reform the royal court by joining it, they ain't never gonna let you CLOSE enough to the power to do a single goddamn thing while trotting you out like a good little bootlicker for an example, giving you a stroke or two to keep you in line while laughing at you behind closed doors - and if you DID have political power and influence of your own initially, the FIRST thing they will do is drag you down with em and cover you with so much shit you'd be forced to defend even their most heinous actions out of pure self-defense!

Bar fight rules, people, once you down em, you get the boot in and finish the job before you turn your attention elsewhere, or in the case of someone really evil, drop a knee, pop the boxknife out of your shoe and take em from ear to ear - else you're just askin for trouble.

You think they're done for ?
Oh HELL no, where are all the neocons and their pet jackboots ?
For that matter, the Rappys and the Finns ?

Hiding under a rock, prayin no one kicks it over, hoping against hope for short memories and the damn naive foolishness of forgiveness and unity and all that bullshit that lets them sleaze back into power and stick the knife in, again, and again, and again - we fucked it up with Bush, with Johnson, with Nixon - how far back do I have to go, Adams ?!

Anyhows, what these folk REALLY fear the most, even more than the current administration - is being held accountable by us, the fellow countrymen who's back they helped sink the knife in, supporting that administration in returning the favor.

Do we really wanna make the mistake of not finishing the job AGAIN ?
How MANY times must future generations pay the bitter bloodprice of the former ones failures ?

We can worry about the Dimwitcrats once we expunge the poison that's savaging our reform efforts before it reforms into another toxic administration, every single one worse than the last.

Is that clear enough, now ?

-Frem

PS. Every time someone says "Chairborne Ranger" picture me cutting loose with Forquet from my wheelchair - that's just hi-larious.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:33 AM

Quote:

PS. Every time someone says "Chairborne Ranger" picture me cutting loose with Forquet from my wheelchair - that's just hi-larious.

You, sir, are one Chairborne Ranger I would NOT mess with. For one, you're far more devious than I. And secondly, you're better-armed.

Nope, when the smoke clears, I want you on my bank-robbing team. Or better yet, I wanna be on yours, 'cause you've got the more thorough plan!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:41 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by PlainJayne:
All I'm saying is this: when it does, we all have some tough choices to make about where our loyalties really lie. I will be out there on the side of freedom. And as I've said before, if that makes me one of the bad guys, so be it.

I'd really like to understand where this anger and (misdirected imho) passion comes from. I've asked Wulfenstar but did not get a direct answer, more fuzzy youthful anger, "our gov is being taken over and you won't do anything!"

First: who here is not on the side of freedom??! Unless of course you are referring to Big Insurance, they are the only ones out there that I come in contact with that are severely restricting my rights and my health and my bank account. What freedoms are you losing or have lost?

Second: I could have missed it, I live in a pretty quiet part of the country, please cite some examples of all this TYRANNY that seems to be encroaching on you. Some specific changes you have had to make to live under the new oppression would be helpful.

Me - I think that the ones yelling at the townhalls and here have other issues, other deep seated anger that the desperate right have found a way to tap into, they've essentially found (stumbled on is more likely) a way to give you permission to get ugly and vent. "2nd Amendment" and "Tyranny" are just flimsy smoke screens - it's a basic class in crowd manipulation and you guys are the crowd.

I know you'd turn that around and say we're the ones being manipulated - maybe. But I'm willing to go this route to see what this admin can do on health care at the very least. I guarantee that unless you're being fed by big insurance then you are being robbed by them. They are one of the biggest villians in this country and they are the major player threatening your freedom.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:20 AM

While I'm not with the right, I have to say that I agree with them that our government has a lot of power that I do not trust them with. And it's not really about healthcare, though because of the other stuff, I'm wary about giving them healthcare.

Paradoxically, I *WANT* a public option, because I put big corporations like these insurance companies in the same category of "do not trust" as I do the government (mostly I'm beginning to doubt that they're separate in the first place), but my perception is that this reform is actually sabotaging both the public option as well as already existing options, to give us LESS choice and force us to use the insurance companies.

But you asked about tyranny. You asked about specific examples of oppression. You're looking around at the internet and seeing free speech and you're asking, "Wha? Just how exactly do you people think you're being repressed?"

As I respond to you, I am sitting in a cubicle. I'm working a decent job, that I trained for with college, in a field that would allow me to help my community, to keep people from getting sick from pollution spills. I am being paid money, which I use to buy food and pay rent.

I have to pay student loans, and I am ever so grateful that I've been smart enough so far to avoid debt and have to work multiple jobs to keep up with the demands on me. Others are not so lucky as me.

Would I do this job if I had the choice to? Yes, I think I might, though I also think I might branch out into other areas if I had the option, because sitting at this desk for ten hours a day has contributed such to a pre-existing back condition that I herniated a disk in my lumbar spine.

So, like many other Americans, I work a job that is proving to be deleterious to my health, because I have no choice BUT to work a job. I can choose HOW I am to work, but I still have no choice BUT to work. Some even don't really have a choice in HOW they are going to work for a living, because of issues such as social class, geographical location, social pressures, and etc.

Another example of repression is the education that we are made to conform to. People don't have free speech so much as we're taught WHAT to say.

AND, we are given two sides of a debate to mold what we say, told to choose one, and then we feel as though we have actually MADE a choice. We haven't, because the choice was set up to begin with, because the differences we are told exist don't exist. There aren't Democrats and Republicans, there's just two facades covering authoritarianism.

These are the basic and most obvious examples. But let's talk about this administration. How are they oppressing us?

I am extremely disappointed in Obama. His administration has decided to continue with past violations that the previous administration established, such as wire-tapping and waterboarding. He has chosen to prop up companies that have been managed poorly instead of allowing them to fail, cementing in my mind that the government and big corporations are intertwined to the extent that the needs of the corporations are held to a higher priority than the needs of the people.

And now, now he would like to do this with insurance companies, or so I see it, something with a direct impact on our health and lives.

This is a good idea?

The most frightening forms of tyranny are the ones that a population has been trained to not notice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:09 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
While I'm not with the right, I have to say that I agree with them that our government has a lot of power that I do not trust them with. And it's not really about healthcare, though because of the other stuff, I'm wary about giving them healthcare.

This would be the same power the Right just had? I don't like giving them healthcare necessarily, but the current option is madness.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Paradoxically, I *WANT* a public option, because I put big corporations like these insurance companies in the same category of "do not trust" as I do the government (mostly I'm beginning to doubt that they're separate in the first place), but my perception is that this reform is actually sabotaging both the public option as well as already existing options, to give us LESS choice and force us to use the insurance companies.

Sorry Byte, I can't follow your logic - they brought up the whole public option to begin with just to sabotage it? Seems to me the point is to introduce options (freedom), not reduce them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But you asked about tyranny. You asked about specific examples of oppression. You're looking around at the internet and seeing free speech and you're asking, "Wha? Just how exactly do you people think you're being repressed?"

As I respond to you, I am sitting in a cubicle. I'm working a decent job, that I trained for with college, in a field that would allow me to help my community, to keep people from getting sick from pollution spills. I am being paid money, which I use to buy food and pay rent.

I have to pay student loans, and I am ever so grateful that I've been smart enough so far to avoid debt and have to work multiple jobs to keep up with the demands on me. Others are not so lucky as me.

You do have debt in the form of the student loans - I assume you mean other debt. I appreciate that that can put a bit of a crimp in your options and reduce your sense of freedom, but those loans were yours to take, they were not forced on you. I don't see the repression other than perhaps the one that was self-imposed, you had freedom of choice.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
[BWould I do this job if I had the choice to? Yes, I think I might, though I also think I might branch out into other areas if I had the option, because sitting at this desk for ten hours a day has contributed such to a pre-existing back condition that I herniated a disk in my lumbar spine.

So, like many other Americans, I work a job that is proving to be deleterious to my health, because I have no choice BUT to work a job. I can choose HOW I am to work, but I still have no choice BUT to work. Some even don't really have a choice in HOW they are going to work for a living, because of issues such as social class, geographical location, social pressures, and etc.

I don't honestly know how to respond to this without it sounding a little terse, or preachy, so sorry - but stop whining? You do have options. Hitch'em up and go for it, the only repression I see is self-imposed. Mixed-race/black man in the whitehouse? Sometimes you just have to decide to make changes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I am extremely disappointed in Obama. His administration has decided to continue with past violations that the previous administration established, such as wire-tapping and waterboarding. He has chosen to prop up companies that have been managed poorly instead of allowing them to fail, cementing in my mind that the government and big corporations are intertwined to the extent that the needs of the corporations are held to a higher priority than the needs of the people.

And now, now he would like to do this with insurance companies, or so I see it, something with a direct impact on our health and lives.

This is a good idea?

The most frightening forms of tyranny are the ones that a population has been trained to not notice.

a - no magic wand, can't just say, "reset all the bad stuff the past administration started." It takes time, Washington D.C. TIME. I think there are a lot of us (including Obama) that are equally impatient. The right is not exactly helping.

b - corporate/financial bailouts - you and I will never know the consequences of not doing that - I'm ok with that.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:44 AM

Quote:
This would be the same power the Right just had?

I am not making a partisan argument. I do not identify as Republican or libertarian, and I am not threatened by a Democrat being in the white house by virtue of them being a Democrat.

I didn't like the powers that the Republicans had, either.

Quote:
I don't like giving them healthcare necessarily, but the current option is madness.

The current option is madness, reform is needed, but the problem is that any MEANINGFUL reform is being diluted to the point where it is no longer helpful, while the problems in the system are being exacerbated.

What we have right now is bad. But if there's going to be change, I'd like it to be a change for the better, not the worse.

Quote:
Sorry Byte, I can't follow your logic - they brought up the whole public option to begin with just to sabotage it? Seems to me the point is to introduce options (freedom), not reduce them.

There's two ways I can see of looking at this.

The first is that the people sabotaging the public option aren't the people who brought it up. Although really, in this country, ANY suggestion of a public option would inevitably have been sabotaged.

And the second is that strengthening the insurance companies was the point all along. By introducing a weak public option plan that will not work, people are forced to go to the insurance companies. The appearance is given of having TRIED to create a public option to appease the masses when it was never a possibility in the first place. And it also taints any future suggestions of creating a WORKING public option.

Quote:
You do have debt in the form of the student loans - I assume you mean other debt. I appreciate that that can put a bit of a crimp in your options and reduce your sense of freedom, but those loans were yours to take, they were not forced on you. I don't see the repression other than perhaps the one that was self-imposed, you had freedom of choice.

I don't honestly know how to respond to this without it sounding a little terse, or preachy, so sorry - but stop whining? You do have options. Hitch'em up and go for it, the only repression I see is self-imposed. Mixed-race/black man in the whitehouse? Sometimes you just have to decide to make changes.

If I did not take the student loans, I could not have gone to college. By not going to college, I can anticipate that I would NOT have been able to get this job, because it required a degree in the field I graduated in.

My other option was to not go to college and take the job of an unskilled laborer on wages that do not meet the standard of living, which would quickly increase debt and credit problems. There are people out there barely treading water, unable to keep up with their bills despite working multiple jobs, and that is a systematic problem.

I don't see a choice. Not for them, and not for me.

What change do you propose? Not working? Theft? I have no problem with my job, apart from the fact that I recognize I only GOT the job because I had no other choice. Changing jobs would not change this fact. And it doesn't change facts for people who don't like their jobs but have no choice but to work them and be exploited.

Quote:
a - no magic wand, can't just say, "reset all the bad stuff the past administration started." It takes time, Washington D.C. TIME. I think there are a lot of us (including Obama) that are equally impatient. The right is not exactly helping.

Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs. Oh, and let's not forget PREEMPTIVE DETAINMENT. That was his brainchild.

Quote:
b - corporate/financial bailouts - you and I will never know the consequences of not doing that - I'm ok with that.

I never said anything about the consequences of doing this versus not doing this. I was talking about my opinion on WHY I think this was done, because you asked me WHY I think our government is tyrannical. Do the reasons why the corporations were bailed out not matter? If you take it at face value and believe that the corporations were bailed out to save the economy, I'd say it matters. And if you believe like I do that that corporations control both the government AND the economy, or perhaps just work together with the government to do so, then I would say that it matters, because both government and corporations have very little respect for the rights of the average individual citizen/consumer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:50 AM

Apparently I need to ask again, since it seems to have been missed the first time I asked. And then it looks like PJ and Wulf missed it again when Pizmo asked it, so let's hope the third time's the charm...

Quote:

What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances!

List ALL of the rights that Obama took away from you in the last 8 months. Hell, list ONE of them.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I note for the record that neither person was arrested.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:04 AM

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wiretapping. Granted, it was Bush who instituted it, but Obama continued it, and I am HELLA pissed.

He didn't give the right BACK, for certain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

A Professor once said to me...(paraphrasing here)

"When I was growing up, (during the 60s and 70s), the mantra was "Change the World!" We screamed it from the top of our lungs. We were convinced that our generation was going to change things. We happily chanted that from Woodstock to Haight/Ashbury. And we DID. We did change the world.

But in the years since, I've realized that we didn't have the whole message.

It should have been "Change the world, FOR THE BETTER!"

Oh we got the "Change the world" part, but I cannot honestly say that we made it a better one."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:21 AM

Quote:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.

Quite right. He could have, and he damned well SHOULD have. But did you honestly think he WOULD? As some of us pointed out way back when, that's the number one reason you don't let ANY President of government have that power over you. You don't give it to them, and you for goddam-sure don't SIGN IT OVER TO THEM UNDER LAW, because they are never, EVER going to voluntarily give it back.

So while I'm deeply disappointed that Obama didn't stop this shit, I can't say I'm completely surprised.

Quote:

Oh, and let's not forget PREEMPTIVE DETAINMENT. That was his brainchild.

Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
A Professor once said to me...(paraphrasing here)

"When I was growing up, (during the 60s and 70s), the mantra was "Change the World!" We screamed it from the top of our lungs. We were convinced that our generation was going to change things. We happily chanted that from Woodstock to Haight/Ashbury. And we DID. We did change the world.

But in the years since, I've realized that we didn't have the whole message.

It should have been "Change the world, FOR THE BETTER!"

Oh we got the "Change the world" part, but I cannot honestly say that we made it a better one."

'

What is it that you find to be so much worse than it was in the 60s and 70s? Be specific.

And who was this "professor"? Are you saying you're one of those ivory tower ivy league elites the right keeps blathering about?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:57 AM

Quote:
Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.

Hmm. Didn't realize. All right then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

My oh my oh my. I don't NEED to be here, as it turns out, all I need to do is sit back and let others make the arguments for me. And no, it's not that I didn't think for myself, it's that they came to the same conclusions I did. Which of course won't stop me from adding my two cents' worth.

Quote:
"As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline. I haven't vilified Obama in eight months, he's done that himself. It stuns me rigid that people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. They're all so blinded by hatred for Bush and the so-called Right Wing Nut-jobs that they can't even see what's going on in front of them today. Let it go. Look around you and see what is going on in the real world, not what the news tells you, but what you really see. Stop dividing up into Republican and Democrat camps and look at what is happening in this country!"

That's already been refuted, but I would add pointing out to you the material I offered in another thread, about what happened to people who merely wore Kerry buttons or t-shirts against Bush to Bush rallies. That will provide specifics to counter your argument. Oppression of free speech was extremely prevalent during the Bush years.

Quote:
"These "threat displays" ARE a fear-reaction, bandying semantics won't change that essential fact. Whether those fears are justified, whether the folk doing it even realise it's a fear reaction, these things are wholly immaterial to the problem at hand. And when people fear, often they lash out at the source of that fear in hopes of wrecking it's power to harm them."

I would add, as have others, that the fear you so rightly recognized has been created, manipulated and encouraged by those who stand to gain in both power and finance by doing so: trained, paid organizations whose job it is to do so, encouraged by those in politics who find it useful to call the acting out representative of all America.

Quote:
"I think that the ones yelling at the townhalls and here have other issues, other deep seated anger that the desperate right have found a way to tap into, they've essentially found (stumbled on is more likely) a way to give you permission to get ugly and vent. "2nd Amendment" and "Tyranny" are just flimsy smoke screens - it's a basic class in crowd manipulation and you guys are the crowd."

I don't think they "stumbled upon" anything; it began during the campaign, quite deliberately by Palin being used as attack dog to fire up the base, and has continued unabated since. They, at least, recognize the racism which is still prevalent in our society, however subconsciously, and from the very beginning found ways to stir it up.

Quote:
"a - no magic wand, can't just say, "reset all the bad stuff the past administration started." It takes time, Washington D.C. TIME. I think there are a lot of us (including Obama) that are equally impatient. The right is not exactly helping.

b - corporate/financial bailouts - you and I will never know the consequences of not doing that - I'm ok with that."

Word. It's exactly how I feel.

Quote:
"The current option is madness, reform is needed, but the problem is that any MEANINGFUL reform is being diluted to the point where it is no longer helpful, while the problems in the system are being exacerbated."

Again: word. I'm ashamed of Obama for getting SO stuck on "bipartisanship" that they are manipulating him into giving away the store. I'm ashamed of the Dems for not standing up to it and making him understand that there IS no bipartisanship possible with the "party of no" and people who will pretend to negotiate with no intent whatsoever of voting for ANYTHING, no matter how much you give away. Where are the viable options--ANY options--proposed by the right?

Quote:
"When I was growing up, (during the 60s and 70s), the mantra was "Change the World!" We screamed it from the top of our lungs. We were convinced that our generation was going to change things. We happily chanted that from Woodstock to Haight/Ashbury. And we DID. We did change the world.

But in the years since, I've realized that we didn't have the whole message.

It should have been "Change the world, FOR THE BETTER!"

Oh we got the "Change the world" part, but I cannot honestly say that we made it a better one."

Absofrigginlootely. But we at least tried; today's young people seem to have nothing they believe in and behave nihilistically rather than standing up for any beliefs. It appears to be the older and middle-aged folk for the most part who are clinging to the past, however bad, and being brainwashed into fighting change.

What is worse than in the 60s? Actually, quite a bit. Just one example is that protesting and demonstrating openly, once accepted, were found to be tools which could be utilized to silence others, rather than what they were originally intended to be.

Another is that liberalism HAS contributed to the breakup of the family; "free love" didn't do America any good. Admittedly it opened up careers and possibilities for women, but we'd have to weigh what we lost in return. Mind you, while not a "womens' libber" and someone who worked from 17 on, I never intended to marry or have a family and I wouldn't deny other women the freedom it accomplished. But I think we didn't realize what would follow and I think if we did, we'd have tried to work for a better outcome--if there OOULD be one...

Gawd I love it here! I realize now it's partly because of the balance; not only are reasoned (and some unreasoned) arguments presented, but there are enough on both sides to have a debate, not just one side vilifying and ganging up on the few on the other.

________
Together we are more than the sum of our parts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And most of us here know how to dig in and hold on to their beliefs.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.

Hmm. Didn't realize. All right then.

Actually, it's NOT all right. I agree with you that this kind of shit is a long, LONG way from all right. I don't cut Obama any slack for doing the same shit that Bush did, and if he wants ANY support from me, he needs to take solid, concrete steps to ending this bullshit, NOW.

So we're really not so very far apart on most things, I think.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:41 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.

"President Barack Obama reaffirmed April 29 his position that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture and defended his decision to ban use of the technique. Speaking at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office, Obama again said that the US has "rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and banning torture without exception," affirming a statement from his inaugural address."

Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it."

Wow.....

Let me guess... British?

or Israeli?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:30 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it."

Wow.....

Let me guess... British?

or Israeli?

Heh, you really do have a good sense of humor. Irish Scotch German mix actually - and nothing gets me as barking mad as when I see MY countrymen act so obtuse, afraid, or simply bat f*cking stupid.

Speaking of which, you sound like you are more afraid of your gov than the Taliban? That's like backwards?

What is ironical about your stance, is that from what I see the current gov is trying to do exactly what your prof said, change the world for the better. Since I don't have your list of the day-to-day struggles you're facing under Obama's oppressive machine, let's start with health care - what do you pay for health care? You do have health care right?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:53 AM

The Taliban isn't HERE. Why the hell SHOULD I be scared of them, apart from being a woman? The Taliban may be a bunch of nutty theocrats, who aided and abetted Al-Qaeda, but they never actually attacked us.

But since I think you're talking more about terrorist attacks in general... I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die in a terrorist attack. I'm just not gonna waste my time worrying about something so unlikely to happen... Especially since all the efforts of the CIA and FBI didn't do much good in the first place, and they had all the pieces of the puzzle in front of them WITHOUT anything fancy. I have my sneaking suspicions that supplying Homeland Security an overabundance of information from completely innocent people isn't going to help much. Nope, this isn't about counter-terrorism, this is about big brother watching. The fact that this is a Bush policy ought to make that PAINFULLY obvious.

I think we ought to solve our domestic issues before we go muddling somewhere else. And we have 'em, serious ones. And OBAMA is not helping, he's just same ol' same ol' status quo. Screw him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.

"President Barack Obama reaffirmed April 29 his position that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture and defended his decision to ban use of the technique. Speaking at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office, Obama again said that the US has "rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and banning torture without exception," affirming a statement from his inaugural address."

Any word yet on whether the Defense Department has actually issued desist orders?

Until then it's just talk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:22 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Byte: My Taliban comment was directed at Wulfenstar actually.

Yes, my concerns are for all terrorists in this country.

Yes, agree again, George Bush's implementation of wire tapping had to be suspect, that's why I suggested it's not the tapping but the people doing it that we should be concerned with.

I say again you are extremely naive to think that wire tapping isn't fundamental to national security.

Byte said: "I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die in a terrorist attack. Sorry, but I'm not gonna waste my time worrying about something so unlikely to happen..."

No, you'd rather waste your time worrying about some gov agent listening to your conversations. It's really not about you.

"My fellow Americans... Today marks the dawn of our newest policy toward global terrorism. In light of the latest statistics, we've decided to suspend all counter terrorist monitoring and focus on building a large lightning deflector..."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:31 AM

Um, why, exactly, would they care about me? I'm nobody. If I'd said anything they really didn't like, or they thought I was a threat, you think I'd be posting this stuff? o.0

No. I'm not concerned about me. I'm concerned about the smart people who KNOW STUFF who I might never hear their voice because they've been determined to be dangerous.

I'm worried about the people hurt by city officials I've had to work with who want to find legal loopholes to steal property out from rightful owners because they want to beautify their cities.

I'm worried about the people who don't care about anything around them or their communities, because it's in the best interest of government and business to make sure we stay in our little boxes and work work work and buy buy buy and never question anything they do.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What is ironical about your stance, is that from what I see the current gov is trying to do exactly what your prof said, change the world for the better. Since I don't have your list of the day-to-day struggles you're facing under Obama's oppressive machine, let's start with health care - what do you pay for health care? You do have health care right?

I think something we aren't seeing eye to eye on here is the definition of better.

Yeah, the current administration is TRYING to make things better, in the way that they THINK is better. They have good intentions.

But if you're on this message board, I can only assume you've seen the movie Serenity. That's the kind of "better" those of us who don't trust the government are wary of. We see these people as wanting more control because they think they know what's best for us, and we're pretty sure we're going to end up with something worse than we started out with.

For further insight on why we think the way we do, I'd point out the books 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:42 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"But if you're on this message board, I can only assume you've seen the movie Serenity. That's the kind of "better" those of us who don't trust the government are wary of. We see these people as wanting more control because they think they know what's best for us, and we're pretty sure we're going to end up with something worse than we started out with.

For further insight on why we think the way we do, I'd point out the books 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World."

FUCKING AMEN.

Not that Im a religious fanatic or anything.... BUT DAMN RIGHT!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:46 AM

By the way, y'all DO all realize that the Jefferson quote that gets used so often by "freedom-loving" Americans in protest of their government was actually said by Jefferson in response to what happened in Shays' Rebellion, right? Shays and his followers (Shaysites or "Regulators" as they were called) were protesting the crushing debt and taxes they were saddled with by the government in the wake of the Revolutionary War. Sam Adams, that great "patriot", wrote up a riot act and decreed that they should be rounded up and imprisoned without trial (he supported suspension of habeus corpus, too), and if necessary, executed for treason and sedition.

The "rebellion" was over pretty much before it began; an army fired a single volley into the militia gathered by Shays, and they scattered and ran away, effectively ending their rebellion.

It was in the aftermath of this that Jefferson made his famous statement, and it was made IN FAVOR of expanding the power and reach of a larger central government, not in favor of the rebels. The rebels were the ones Jefferson was in favor of spilling the blood of.

If you don't believe me, look it up. When you quote Jefferson in this way, you're actually arguing that those "patriots and tyrants" who show up with their guns should be imprisoned and executed without trial or charges, because their blood will refresh us all.

Is that the way you MEANT for it to sound?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:47 AM

I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.

What has he done that has directly affected you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Byte has it right, and I am bringing up the heavy artillery to back that argument, which is NOT going to be pleasant, mind you.

How about this...

Tally up the acts of mayhem committed upon the american people by the taliban, al qeada, and all those merry little satellite and splinter factions, and they WONT EVEN COME CLOSE...

To the amount of mayhem done unto the american people by their so-called protectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_jewels_(Central_Intelligence_Agenc
y) <- Add Manually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Don't even get me started - since COINTELPRO would have never been exposed if not for the outright "illegal" acts that our predecessor organization carried out in order to do so.

And speaking of our merry little jihadists, why not ask yourself about KSM's guys, old Ramzi Youssef and the 1993 WTC bombing - questions like WHERE DID THEY GET THE FRIGGIN BOMB ?

Would you like to GUESS ?
Or how bout I tell you.

Emad Salem, an FBI plant, obtained it for them via the FBI, wired it up for them, and then was ordered NOT to sabotage it when he offered to do so cause the FBI wanted to set his ass up as a patsy to cover up the fact that without their bomb, their expert, KSM's goon squad had *NOTHING* and the bombing never would have occured at all.

They also ignored him when he tried to tell em about Bojinka, and when KSM was rounded up via properly served and executed warrant, and then interrogated in a hands-off by-the-book fashion, chose to ignore not only what he told em, but the hardcopy evidence seized along with him was left in a basement to rot since it didn't jibe with the political agenda they were serving at the time.

And shall we talk about the FBI's little field trip to the Soviet Union and abject fascination with SORM I & II, and how they clobbered their own shoddy clone and called it CARNIVORE ?

And how Congress issued THREE SEPARATE DIRECTIVES ordering them to never build it, disallowing funding for it, and explicitly stating they were never to use it or any comparable technology on the american people - something they *IMMEDIATELY* ignored, funded out of black budget, then instantly wired into every goddamn provider they could find with a combination of threats, extortion and blackmail - which was retroactively legalized by the patriot act but up till then was in breach of their charter and made them officially a rogue organization equivalent to a mafia ?

Which brings in the question of who is really in charge when it's plainly not possible for our government to call these bastards into questions on their actions, IF they even bother to inform that government what they are, and most of the time lie about it ?

Tell me, how MANY valid subpeanos is the USDOJ currently ignoring, again ?
Then again, given that they were founded upon a pack of corporate strikebreaker goons (Pinkertons), that's no surprise, the apple never does fall far from the tree does it now ?

You wanna stop terrorism, fine - start by bombing Langley and Quantico, not Tehran, cause that's where the primary THREAT is, from our so-called protectors, who instead of protecting us commit terrorism against us.

That's a valid, proven, quantifiable FACT, that our so-called protectors have committed more terrorism against our country and our people than ANY other source on the entire goddamn planet, and it doesn't include the terrorism they've engaged in against OTHER countries and their people, not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change

Compared to us, the taliban, al-qeada and all the rest of em are a bunch of half-ass pikers stealing change out of the church collection plate.

And so the very idea of US, the very font of the worst of it all, waging "war on terror" is just fucking laughable, since if we really meant it the very FIRST folk who need to swing from a rope are just an arms reach away now, aren't they ?

Me, sheeeeit, I'll measure the rope and tie it myself, so long as we get to hang them DEA fuckers with actual hemp, for a side order of poetry to the justice.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:07 AM

Psst, Frem, link is broken on the CIA article. Site is being stupid about the parenthesis on the end.

Also, "Freedom of Information Act."

*Loud laughter*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You have to add it manually, it's a known issue with either our board, wiki, or the HTML between, but any link with a para at the end, it has to be added manually, alas.

Like Serenity, our board does have it's little homey quirks, it does - at least OUR primary buffer panel ain't fallen off yet.

EDIT: Yeah, FOIA is every bit as much a joke as begging permission for a permit to protest, innit ?

The CCI-FBI was a front for our predecessor group, which I'll not name, but did pass on some of it's unfinished business (like Kissinger) to us when it's last living member capped it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the
_FBI
The problem with exposing these bastards today is that in doing so you reveal your penetration level and methods, so it's far smarter to drop hints until it gets picked up and kicked around the rumor mill enough to obfuscate the original source when it finally DOES come out.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:50 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently I need to ask again, since it seems to have been missed the first time I asked. And then it looks like PJ and Wulf missed it again when Pizmo asked it, so let's hope the third time's the charm...

Quote:

What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances!

List ALL of the rights that Obama took away from you in the last 8 months. Hell, list ONE of them.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Mike

Uh...I now suffer from a bald patch...?

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:59 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:51 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.

What has he done that has directly affected you?

This just...

"I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration."

I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.

I don't think things have greatly improved, not yet. I do think there is great potential for improvement though, more so than ever, especially if the dirt f*ckers on the right (Rush et al) would just get out of the way. Ultimately, the prez is one guy, he can't get it done by himself.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:57 PM

Quote:
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.

And how would I eat?

You seem to keep making the mistake that I'm complaining about my job and am not self-fulfilled.

I'm not. I'm grateful to have the job that I do.

I'm complaining that I am a cog in the machine, and had no choice in the matter. And I'm complaining that there are some people who have things MUCH much worse than I do, and that their problems are systematic.

For example, slums.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:03 PM

Wulfie, are you really that scared of being overrun by scary black people?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:08 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

so, no health care?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.

What has he done that has directly affected you?

This just...

"I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration."

I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.

I don't think things have greatly improved, not yet. I do think there is great potential for improvement though, more so than ever, especially if the dirt f*ckers on the right (Rush et al) would just get out of the way. Ultimately, the prez is one guy, he can't get it done by himself.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

Well, for one thing, Obama has distinctly NOT invaded any more nations. That's not much, but it's something. Talks may be renewed with North Korea seeking nuclear disarmament; in fact, two North Korean diplomats have been cleared to meet with Bill Richardson in New Mexico. And Iran may be warming to talks with the U.S. Cuba, too.

As for what will DIRECTLY affect me the most? Well, healthcare reform would be huge.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.

And how would I eat?

You seem to keep making the mistake that I'm complaining about my job and am not self-fulfilled.

I'm not. I'm grateful to have the job that I do.

I'm complaining that I am a cog in the machine, and had no choice in the matter. And I'm complaining that there are some people who have things MUCH much worse than I do, and that their problems are systematic.

For example, slums.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?

Like I said, I must be missing your point.

You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?

Like I said, I must be missing your point.

No. I didn't. My argument, as I've said before, is not ABOUT Obama's administration, but rather the way our country simply works.

Mine is a complaint about capitalism and exploitation.

I would have volunteered to do my job, because I think it's a worthwhile job. But there's an economic incentive attached to everything that I disagree with on principle.

The system is set up based on the belief that if everyone had their basic necessities met, they wouldn't do anything. People are made to have to participate in drudgery in order to have their basic needs meet, and sometimes even that isn't quite enough to cover everything.

And a side effect that both corporations and the government appreciate GREATLY about this is that people have less time to participate in government and resist ideas that they disagree with. Give us busywork, while starving some of us, and make a compliant population.

I find that unethical.

Quote:
You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?

Dumpster diving is very difficult to get all the nutrients you need. Most homeless people are malnourished, even if they do dumpster dive and aren't just straight out starving.

I find theft to be unethical as well.

My point, ultimately, is the same point I make elsewhere. We need a different system. Up until then, ALL of us are cogs, I am a cog. Just because I chose to earn money and eat (which is not really a choice at all) doesn't mean I have to like being one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?

Like I said, I must be missing your point.

No. I didn't. My argument, as I've said before, is not ABOUT Obama's administration, but rather the way our country simply works.

Mine is a complaint about capitalism and exploitation.

I would have volunteered to do my job, because I think it's a worthwhile job. But there's an economic incentive attached to everything that I disagree with on principle.

The system is set up based on the belief that if everyone had their basic necessities met, they wouldn't do anything. People are made to have to participate in drudgery in order to have their basic needs meet, and sometimes even that isn't quite enough to cover everything.

And a side effect that both corporations and the government appreciate GREATLY about this is that people have less time to participate in government and resist ideas that they disagree with. Give us busywork, while starving some of us, and make a compliant population.

I find that unethical.

Quote:
You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?

Also. Dumpster diving is very difficult to get all the nutrients you need. Most homeless people are malnourished, even if they do dumpster dive and aren't just straight out starving.

I find theft to be unethical as well.

My point, ultimately, is the same point I make elsewhere. We need a different system. Up until then, ALL of us are cogs, I am a cog. Just because I chose to earn money and eat (which is not really a choice at all) doesn't mean I have to like being one.

Thank you for the clarification. I knew I must be missing something, and you've just made it clear.

Sadly, I don't have any great answers for you. Life sucks, but it tends to beat the alternatives. Sorry.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:46 PM