REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama The Evil Tyrant

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, January 17, 2014 13:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5190
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Saying a rant *can* be a credible argument doesn't mean yours necessarily was.


No, it wasn't necessarily. However. Demonstrating that it is NOT credible would actually take some effort and counter arguments.

I'd actually be curious as to an actual discussion about the benevolence and non-benevolence of instances and actions and policies of Obama, but it seems like everyone just wants to grab some popcorn and watch Nick play matador.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:43 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Anyway. I have logical objections to the idea that something can be "confidential" if a hamster with brain damage could figure it out based on the public record.

Cites: Wikipedia or something, who cares anymore.

There is a documentary about how political parties "mislead", in all senses of that word, called The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear. The examples used are not so ancient that no one cares and not so recent that the truth can't be known about which calculated political statements were designed to mislead.

Download 3 hours of BBC2 documentary: http://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-Episode1BabyItsColdOut
side

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Obviously, a 3 hour documentary might not appeal to you because of length or style. This is from the end of the first hour of it:

ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN, speaking through an interpreter: "A concentration of world evil, of hatred for humanity, is taking place. And it is fully determined to destroy your society. Must you wait until the young men of America have to fall defending the borders of their continent?!"

Voice Over: "This dramatic battle between good and evil was precisely the kind of myth that Leo Strauss had taught his students would be necessary to rescue the country from moral decay. It might not be true, but it was necessary, to re-engage the public in a grand vision of America’s destiny, that would give meaning and purpose to their lives. The neoconservatives were succeeding in creating a simplistic fiction—a vision of the Soviet Union as the center of all evil in the world, and America as the only country that could rescue the world. And this nightmarish vision was beginning to give the neoconservatives great power and influence."

Professor STEPHEN HOLMES, Political Philosopher: "The Straussians started to create a worldview which is a fiction. The world is not divided into good and evil. The battle in which we are engaged is not a battle between good and evil. The United States, as anyone who observes understands, has done some good and some bad things. It’s like any great power. This is the way history is. But they wanted to create a world of moral certainties, so therefore they invent mythologies—fairytales—describing any force in the world that obstructs the United States as somehow Satanic, or associated with evil."

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:27 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yep, and that's what treaties are for.

If they are going to be accused of terrorism, if we intend to not hold them indefinitely, don't you think that the place for them to be tried is in the country where they supposedly committed their crimes by the standard of law that they culturally accept and where the evidence and witnesses are?

If some admit they were involved in terrorism, and they probably will because these guys believe being killed for that makes them martyrs, then everyone knows they're guilty. If it turns out some were just fighting because the Taliban or a warlord forced them, or they were falsely implicated by a neighbor with a grudge, they'll probably make that defense and that can be investigated. But one thing is for sure, they're probably not going to say one way or another to us.



What treaties are these that allow the US to drop people back into a country that does not what them? The vast majority of those still at Gitmo have been cleared but there is no where to put them. It not a simple as you think it is.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

9_9

Quote:


U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 2.
Clause 1

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitu
tion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief

-_-



Okay, now find the part about congress having the power of the purse. Or tha fact that congress that put up road blocks for the transfer of detainees. Yes, Obama is the Comander in Cheif of the military, but that power does have it limits. There is even a debate on if the President can order the military to engage in warfare without congressional approval.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
What a surprise, whatever evidence and logical progression I post is summarily dismissed by Nick. Surely I didn't foresee that in any way whatsoever. Which is precisely why I didn't try very hard.



I dismissed it because it does not come close to proving your claim of a puppet government. When ever you are presenting evidence were you have to "read between the lines" your going to miss.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pretty much what I was saying. What Snowden released was information about programs known as PRISM and MUSCULAR, which the operations, methods, and intentions of which were detailed in various legislation (including the Patriot Act and FISA) that gave the NSA and other intelligence agencies those powers.

He also released information that suggested that the United States, UK, and Germany were collaborating in internet datamining and intelligence gathering efforts. Also he released information that suggested we were spying on public officials and ambassadors of allies, also known as "diplomacy." Both of which can be summarily described as "well duh."

He did mention the existence of the court and the court orders. As far as I can tell there was only one single (very redacted) court order leaked, in regards to the the judge approving screening all the metadata that NSA had gathered. Which is also kinda painfully obvious, 'cause I mean what exactly are they going to do with all that data, sit on it? Print it out, make paper forts, play tabletop football?

It is possible however that he "stole" more orders than that, as he supposedly copied about 1.7 million files.

Hilariously, because of public backlash, the NSA and the FISA court are actually going to start declassifying some of their documents now.

Anyway. I have logical objections to the idea that something can be "confidential" if a hamster with brain damage could figure it out based on the public record.

Cites: Wikipedia or something, who cares anymore.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

"Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer specialist, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee, and former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who disclosed classified NSA documents to several media outlets, initiating the NSA leaks, which reveal operational details of a global surveillance apparatus run by the NSA, its Five Eyes partners, and numerous commercial and international partners."

The information he leaked was more information than contained in the Patriot Act or any other source of public information.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

However taking such a broad difinition means that anything that comes after "Vote for me because..." is propaganda.


Yep.



Than calling thing propaganda has no punch. It removes any type of negative connotation making your point moot.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The read between the lines thing was for your benefit, because I knew exactly how you were going to dismiss the pakistan thing. It's actually flat out on the lines as opposed to in between them, but I wasn't going to bother getting into another argument about it because it's not even relevant.



Than don't make broad stament that you can't back up. Nothing you posted indicates a puppet government in Pakistan, just the trouble relationship between the US government the Pakistan governement and the Pakistan military.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, that's pretty much another example of what I'm saying in action. The more iterations of voting you have, the less chance each candidate has overall. Whether we're talking primaries or the general elections. Apparently we don't disagree there.

It's precisely why the party system is idiotic and mishandled. They band together for support and money making, but then dilute their chances for the actual elections. If there weren't parties and people just voted for individual campaigns, there'd still be corruption, but you wouldn't have this ridiculous dilution of choice. And you wouldn't have a system that could be manipulated by the leaders of the party for whatever they think is their best platform and strategy and candidate.



Get rid of parties and you are still going to have groups of individuals that pool resources to try and get certain people elected and certain agenda's passed. Those who could not win a primary would not come close to winning a general election. So having primaries does not reduce anyone's chances because getting elected is not based on chance, it based on votes.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You did the moment you said "Rants can be credible arguments, nice try." But I didn't need you to say that for me to know what you were implying.

That IS reading between the lines, and I'm very good at it.



Reading between the line is a form of assumption. You know what they say about assuming things right?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:06 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Okay, now find the part about congress having the power of the purse. Or tha fact that congress that put up road blocks for the transfer of detainees.


Which is not something I ever denied or argued against. And still doesn't address the technically complicit argument.

Quote:

When ever you are presenting evidence were you have to "read between the lines" your going to miss.


Just because it will be unlikely-to-impossible to find a US ambassador or secretary of state admitting upfront that "yes, Pakistan is currently a puppet state we are using for the War on Terror," and an official from Pakistan who will say "yep, that's totes true", unless I personally hacked their email, doesn't mean that my analysis is logically flawed or even wrong.

Sometimes you won't find direct confirmation, especially in regards to foreign affairs and diplomacy. Sometimes, you have to piece together the available evidence and use Occam's razor a little bit.

Quote:

The information he leaked was more information than contained in the Patriot Act or any other source of public information.


The information he STOLE was more information than was contained in any source of public information. The information he LEAKED was already blatantly obvious and easily obtainable from public information.

Quote:


Than calling thing propaganda has no punch. It removes any type of negative connotation making your point moot.



That doesn't make any point moot.

Propaganda sometimes being factual does not mean that facts cannot be used to manipulate (hence propaganda).

Quote:


Than don't make broad stament that you can't back up.



The problem we have, and that I specifically have with you, is that it CAN be backed up, but because of the nature of the internet arguments we have, it can never be backed up to your satisfaction.

But since I am to the point of no longer caring again, I'm gonna make any ole broad statement I want to whenever I want to.

Quote:

Nothing you posted indicates a puppet government in Pakistan, just the trouble relationship between the US government the Pakistan governement and the Pakistan military.


Yeah, a memo that says "pls help us Americans, military coup threat" totally suggests that they are completely independent and not reliant on us for anything, definitely not keeping them in power.

Quote:

Get rid of parties and you are still going to have groups of individuals that pool resources to try and get certain people elected and certain agenda's passed.


Sure. I already said there would still be corruption.

Quote:

So having primaries does not reduce anyone's chances because getting elected is not based on chance, it based on votes.


This is some basic probability and statistics. It doesn't particularly matter the method of selection. If we sequentially threw knives at candidates to select the last one standing, instead of voting, what I'm saying would still apply. Only in a particularly more final manner.

An example. There are five candidates running for a senate position. If all of them were evenly matched in terms of public perception the day of the election and everyone had their favourite candidate, mathematically they'd each have about a 20% chance of winning.

Now let's say they're members of the same party and they go through a primary first. After that, they're pitted against a member of the other party, who also is evenly matched in the public polls, and that person was the only candidate the other party fielded (which pretty much doesn't happen, but bear with me here).

Mathematically, the chances of any one of those candidates in the primary going on to win the election overall becomes (1/5) x (1/2), or 10%. Which, you'll notice, is a lower probability than 20%.

Now, this is very much simplified, because in real elections and primaries the races are not necessarily close and the outcomes are not random, but rather swayed by a number of factors. But it is still a mathematical certainty that a process of successive selection would impact the probabilities overall.

http://www.ehow.com/how_8119611_calculate-probability-consecutive-even
ts.html


This is also why the odds against correctly guessing every bracket for march madness are enormous.

http://www.businessinsider.com/perfect-march-madness-bracket-2013-4

Quote:

Reading between the line is a form of assumption. You know what they say about assuming things right?


That given sufficient premise and supporting information, an assumption can be a valid basis for a logical argument. Which I've told you before and you never learned the lesson.

In fairness, right now we are clearly both subject to the assume --> ass-you-me clause. Also we are involved in an internet argument which exacerbates the perception.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


To me, tyranny is on the far end of a spectrum. Obama isn't there, isn't nearly there.
Someone said it, but I can't find the post to quote - just because you disagree with someone's policies doesn't make them a tyrant. You may even think that aforesaid policies are unConstitutional. Still doesn't make them a tyrant. I live outside the bounds of the US Constitution, as do most of the worlds population. Doesn't define tyranny.

Thats not to say the US doesn't sometimes mosey up that spectrum. I'd say Bush pushed you forward, and Obama hasn't done enough to pull you back, but it isn't tyranny. Not yet. At least not how I define tyranny.

If Obama suddenly declared himself President for life, started rounding up all opposition and had them shot or imprisoned, shut down media outlets, removed all freedom of speech...that kind of says tyranny to me. Trying to implement a public health care system, even if its a disaster, not so much...



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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Also, when you arguments start to be more about the structure of the argument rather than the content, I'd say give it up.

Also why should ad hominem's always be a bad thing. If someone is batshit crazy, you do discount their argument. Of course you do.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:13 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

At least not how I define tyranny.


We have different definitions of tyranny. It doesn't mean one definition or the other is invalid.

Quote:

Also, when you arguments start to be more about the structure of the argument rather than the content, I'd say give it up.


I'd like to, except people telling me to give up makes me not give up. You know how it is.

Quote:

Also why should ad hominem's always be a bad thing.


Because they're irrelevant to whether or not the argument is true/valid/sound.

In honestly, a lot of the structural complaints I've been throwing around do themselves count as ad hominems, but considering how frustrating the particular tactics I'm complaining about are, I need to vent about it.

It'd be pretty similar if one of you tried to cuss me out for always turning around comments into insults against me. I mean that shit DOES get annoying and tedious, right?

Quote:

If someone is batshit crazy, you do discount their argument. Of course you do.


I hope to enjoy being entirely discounted soon then.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:50 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


We have different definitions of tyranny. It doesn't mean one definition or the other is invalid.



You know what "definition" means.... right?


Quote:

I hope to enjoy being entirely discounted soon then.



Then you must be having a blast.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:24 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You know what "definition" means.... right?


Yep, I do. And some words do in fact have more than one definition for them, which is why I have been saying there's more than one way to specifically meet the definition of tyranny.

For example:

1. a. government by a tyrant or tyrants; despotism
b. similarly oppressive and unjust government by more than one person
2. arbitrary, unreasonable, or despotic behaviour or use of authority: the teacher's tyranny
3. any harsh discipline or oppression: the tyranny of the clock
4. a political unit ruled by a tyrant
5. (esp in ancient Greece) government by a usurper
6. a tyrannical act

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny?s=t&path=/

You're all focusing on the definition that involves quashing criticism by cutting people's hands off or killing whole populations and villages for dissent.

But it can also be a nebulous kind of oppression that ignores existing protections under the law as well or applies them unjustly or unevenly. Both can accurately be described as tyranny.

Further examples, using both real world and fictional governments:

Hitler /Nazis - tyranny
Stalin /Soviets - tyranny
Big Brother/ 1984 - ?
Animal Farm - ?
Brave New World - ?
The Sleeper Awakes - ?

I would say those are all examples of tyrannies, but I suppose the rest of you would disagree.

Quote:

Then you must be having a blast.


Oh yes. When you stop giving a damn what people think about you and start saying what you really think and feel, it can be liberating. And people will think you're crazy.

But it doesn't mean you're always wrong on something. Unless you want to be wrong on occasion, you know, for the lols.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:43 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


BTW I didn't mean to imply you were insane, but that sometimes one can get too caught up in classical debating jargon you can easily lose the thread of the argument. I think that's whats happened here, but carry on by all means.

what I have observed is that words can lose their impact if they are defined too broadly - its a beef of mine about what happens to language these days. And I think its political in nature, largely. If you define tyranny too easily - then it loses its punch when you try to describe, say North Korea, if you've used the same word to describe any government with unjust elements.

I think I had the same discussion here regarding the word 'violence' in which posters claimed that restraining a child from running across the road as violent.

The beauty of English, and probably all languages, but I only know this one is they have words that describes nuances of a situation. So that you can distinguish between a government with unjust elements, and a tyranny.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:56 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

BTW I didn't mean to imply you were insane


I don't deny it either way and I'm not offended. I merely propose an objection to the idea that someone can be assumed to be wrong because of reasons of insanity.

Even a broken clock, which normally has no bearing on time or reality, is right twice a day.

Quote:

what I have observed is that words can lose their impact if they are defined too broadly -


I think that language is and has always been flexible, and considering all the other existing definitions for tyranny, it's perfectly all right to use the term tyranny to describe even low key kinds of tyranny.

Because you can always use more colourful language and epithets to describe the really awful ones. Such as, perhaps, "murdercracy" or "genocidal douchebag tyrant". That conveys it pretty well I think.

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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:52 PM

BYTEMITE




I think that if I ever became some manner of official or leader, I would like to take "genocidal douchebag tyrant" as my public title.

In fact, I know exactly what campaign of genocidal atrocities I'd perform as acting leader first.

Not very many people know this, but I'm really racist against vampires.

And not sanguinarians, because those are just humans pretending to be vampires. And not just the average bloodsucker, because it's not like you see me running around outside with Raid to wage war on the Mosquito Incursion, even though vampires are arguably worse than mosquitos because mosquitos don't smell like those those eggs they bury for a couple months over in China.

I'm talking about those flamboyantly whiny vampire romance prettyfaces. And after that, unicorns and both the Summer Court and the Winter Court, because those sparkly jackasses are in cahoots and a threat to civilization as we know it.

I would have my evil secret police round up a single copy of every single piece of vampire romance propaganda, and lock them up indefinitely to serve as an example to all the others.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You're all focusing on the definition that involves quashing criticism by cutting people's hands off or killing whole populations and villages for dissent.

But it can also be a nebulous kind of oppression that ignores existing protections under the law as well or applies them unjustly or unevenly. Both can accurately be described as tyranny.

People think "tyranny" means the violation of democracy, that (somehow) as long as people have "the right to vote"... that if they're not being hauled out of their homes for having deviant thoughts ... that everything is "OK".

But, really. Bulk spying on Americans? International trade agreements, negotiated by corporations but not citizens? The right to kill citizens after secret star chamber proceedings? People being killed everywhere in the world, by the hundreds of thousands? When has "the will of the people" been implemented lately?

At what point is this NOT a tyranny?

It's been a victory for "liberal democracy" to separate "political rights" from "economic rights". According to liberals, "political rights" are legitimate rights, but people don't have any "economic rights" at all. Liberals have bought into the neoliberal viewpoint.


There is a concept called "inverted totalitarianism" (I fail to see what's so "inverted" about it; it seems pretty totalitarian to me). All you liberals might want to look into it

Quote:

Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and he uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illustrate the similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.[1][2][3][4] In Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.[5] In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in their government by excess consumerism and sensationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism


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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:



I think that language is and has always been flexible, and considering all the other existing definitions for tyranny, it's perfectly all right to use the term tyranny to describe even low key kinds of tyranny.

Because you can always use more colourful language and epithets to describe the really awful ones. Such as, perhaps, "murdercracy" or "genocidal douchebag tyrant". That conveys it pretty well I think.



i think its catastrophising, something the right appear to do with Obama and his policies.

I mean really, the right call Obama a tyrant not due to the list that you and Signy came up with, which applies to every American President since ww2 frankly, but the fact that he has implemented a health care system that looks somewhat public in nature. Looks a daft one to me, but I get it was a compromise. That's the nonsense of how language is used.

I think rather than call Obama a tyrant, you'd be better off acknowledging the vast amount of power that America wields and often misuses in the world, economically, militarily and culturally, regardless of who is Pres. You can do it, you're an American. Last time I tried to point this out I was just about shouted off the board for being an Amerikahater.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:55 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I think rather than call Obama a tyrant, you'd be better off acknowledging the vast amount of power that America wields and often misuses in the world, economically, militarily and culturally, regardless of who is Pres.


Um.

I'm pretty sure that's what a significant portion of my argument in this thread was about, that the US government is an imperialist tyranny, and as part of that government, Obama is technically a tyrant. Or at least there was this whole THING about Pakistan as an example of imperialism, and my assertion that all politicians we have are universally terrible and cooperate with economic powerhouses and pressures to involve the country in terrible things against the will of the public.

But thanks for the concise summary of my position. And the jab at Americans, that was also pretty good.

I don't really blame you for not reading the thread, as you didn't actually miss a whole lot.

Quote:

Last time I tried to point this out I was just about shouted off the board for being an Amerikahater.


We did that because you were comparing Halloween and trick-or-treating in Australia to explosive deadly wars and cultural genocide.

However I respect your capacity to carry a grudge.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 6:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA



And here I thought you'd be familiar with Dreamtroves goalpost-moving tricks already....

-F

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I think its catastrophising, something the right appear to do with Obama and his policies.

I mean really, the right call Obama a tyrant not due to the list that you and Signy came up with, which applies to every American President since ww2 frankly, but the fact that he has implemented a health care system that looks somewhat public in nature.

So rather than addressing the right wing's view of Obama, how about addressing tyrants and Obama? It isn't catastrophising to say that Clinton set the stage for the economic violation we're now experiencing, from NAFTA to the passing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, DOMA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999. It isn't catastrophizing to say that Bush further set the stage by allowing China into the WTO, arrogating the powers of the Unitary Executive, starting the illegal wiretapping by splicing into the AT&T San Francisco router, imprisoning people without charges, not to mention cutting taxes for the wealthy and spending a trillion+ dollars on an unnecessary war.

If someone had said (in fact, someone HAD said) what would happen as a result, they would have been accused of "catastrophizing". But they would have been right, no?

So here we are: another President, and another set of catastrophes-in-the-making. What the President does is important, and when he (or she) misuses tyrannical power, then he (or she) is a tyrant. The fact that it happens so frequently doesn't make it any better, just more accomodated.



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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:25 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Which is not something I ever denied or argued against. And still doesn't address the technically complicit argument.



Yes it does. It is part of the reason that Obama's powers as commander and chief of the military does not fit the definition you gave, and means he does not have the power to just close gitmo.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Just because it will be unlikely-to-impossible to find a US ambassador or secretary of state admitting upfront that "yes, Pakistan is currently a puppet state we are using for the War on Terror," and an official from Pakistan who will say "yep, that's totes true", unless I personally hacked their email, doesn't mean that my analysis is logically flawed or even wrong.

Sometimes you won't find direct confirmation, especially in regards to foreign affairs and diplomacy. Sometimes, you have to piece together the available evidence and use Occam's razor a little bit.



It means you can't prove your claim. Plus using logic and Occam's Razor would leave us with just what the stories you posted talks about, a government with a troubled relationship with it's military and the US. Believing they lead to a puppet government you have to as you said read between the lines which is adding things that are not there, exactly what the razor is against.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The information he STOLE was more information than was contained in any source of public information. The information he LEAKED was already blatantly obvious and easily obtainable from public information.



Sine I post a link saying that he leaked classified information you are now simply being willfully ignorant.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That doesn't make any point moot.

Propaganda sometimes being factual does not mean that facts cannot be used to manipulate (hence propaganda).



It does because you are trying to use propaganda to put the political system in a negative light, but using such a broad definition takes that away. Unless you are going to argue that sharing any information is negative, since that can change people's minds.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The problem we have, and that I specifically have with you, is that it CAN be backed up, but because of the nature of the internet arguments we have, it can never be backed up to your satisfaction.

But since I am to the point of no longer caring again, I'm gonna make any ole broad statement I want to whenever I want to.



Many of your claims can only be backup in your mind...since you are good at reading between the lines (read as make shit up).

You can post whatever you like and I can call you out on it.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, a memo that says "pls help us Americans, military coup threat" totally suggests that they are completely independent and not reliant on us for anything, definitely not keeping them in power.



Helping keep them in power, most likely. That does not equal a puppet government.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
This is some basic probability and statistics. It doesn't particularly matter the method of selection. If we sequentially threw knives at candidates to select the last one standing, instead of voting, what I'm saying would still apply. Only in a particularly more final manner.

An example. There are five candidates running for a senate position. If all of them were evenly matched in terms of public perception the day of the election and everyone had their favourite candidate, mathematically they'd each have about a 20% chance of winning.

Now let's say they're members of the same party and they go through a primary first. After that, they're pitted against a member of the other party, who also is evenly matched in the public polls, and that person was the only candidate the other party fielded (which pretty much doesn't happen, but bear with me here).

Mathematically, the chances of any one of those candidates in the primary going on to win the election overall becomes (1/5) x (1/2), or 10%. Which, you'll notice, is a lower probability than 20%.

Now, this is very much simplified, because in real elections and primaries the races are not necessarily close and the outcomes are not random, but rather swayed by a number of factors. But it is still a mathematical certainty that a process of successive selection would impact the probabilities overall.

http://www.ehow.com/how_8119611_calculate-probability-consecutive-even
ts.html


This is also why the odds against correctly guessing every bracket for march madness are enormous.

http://www.businessinsider.com/perfect-march-madness-bracket-2013-4

Quote:

Reading between the line is a form of assumption. You know what they say about assuming things right?


That given sufficient premise and supporting information, an assumption can be a valid basis for a logical argument. Which I've told you before and you never learned the lesson.

In fairness, right now we are clearly both subject to the assume --> ass-you-me clause. Also we are involved in an internet argument which exacerbates the perception.



Nice try but seldom are candidates equal in standing, never do you have whole fields that are. Calculating the probability of consecutive events you still are still looking at random events. True you may have different probabilities for each one, but they are still random. Even with the NCAA brackets you have some randomness. Very few people pick random people to vote for. If a candidate cannot get a majority of voters to vote for him, or at least more than the other candidates, they have zero chance to win. Run the race as many times as you want that the candidate will never win.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:04 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

It is part of the reason that Obama's powers as commander and chief of the military does not fit the definition you gave, and means he does not have the power to just close gitmo.


That's what a commander in chief is. He is in command of all the minutia, regulation, deployment, management, and executive orders of that military. That he is also at the whim of the economic or political restraints on the military does not negate what a commander in chief is.

If an army was in the field starving because their home nation couldn't spare the money to feed them, and didn't have the means to extricate them, their commander in chief would still be the commander in chief.

He has a responsibility to close Gitmo, and has not, because of the economic conspiring of others. I have not disagreed with that. But it is my perception that he is guilty by way of inaction, and as such complicit in the tyranny that is Gitmo.

Quote:

Sine I post a link saying that he leaked classified information you are now simply being willfully ignorant.


I'm using a different definition of what constitutes classified information - anything that could be considered widely known by the public even before the leak could not really be considered classified.

Quote:

It does because you are trying to use propaganda to put the political system in a negative light, but using such a broad definition takes that away.


Manipulation is negative. Propaganda is manipulation. Facts used to manipulate (propaganda) is negative.

Quote:


Helping keep them in power, most likely. That does not equal a puppet government.



Yes, it does. If they need help from a foreign power to stay in power and prevent collapse or popular revolution/military coup, then by definition that is a puppet government.

Quote:

A puppet state is a country that is officially independent, but not in practice. Puppet governments are usually kept in power by military force provided by an occupying country. Puppet state is a biased term. It is used to denigrate the government of the alleged puppet state.


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

We removed their national debts to secure an agreement to base military operations from their country and fly predator drones at their borders, and they are unpopular enough with their people that they need to ask us for help to keep them in power.

They are a puppet government that is entirely beholden to us for their existence, via economic means and support, who have to capitulate to our demands or lose that support, and in the near future may very well require military support to remain in power if this memo is to judge by.

Quote:

Very few people pick random people to vote for. If a candidate cannot get a majority of voters to vote for him, or at least more than the other candidates, they have zero chance to win. Run the race as many times as you want that the candidate will never win.



I was not saying that people pick random candidates to vote for. I was saying that serial selection reduces the probability of any one particular outcome at the final end result.

The reason I used a very basic example was to get the mathematical principle across. The reason I then used the march madness brackets as another example was to demonstrate that this still applies even in a non-random sampling.

Also, your "they have zero chance to win if they can't get the majority of voters to vote for them" argument not only shows a questionable understanding of probability, but also demonstrates an incomplete conception as to how our election system works.

A candidate can win without a majority vote, it's called the electoral college.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:52 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That's what a commander in chief is. He is in command of all the minutia, regulation, deployment, management, and executive orders of that military. That he is also at the whim of the economic or political restraints on the military does not negate what a commander in chief is.

If an army was in the field starving because their home nation couldn't spare the money to feed them, and didn't have the means to extricate them, their commander in chief would still be the commander in chief.

He has a responsibility to close Gitmo, and has not, because of the conspiring of others. He is guilty by way of inaction, and complicit in the tyranny that is Gitmo.



He has not because he can't. Which has been explained to you why he can't. Again you are just refusing to admit this.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Manipulation is negative. Propaganda is manipulation. Facts used to manipulate (propaganda) is negative.



...and by that logic anyone trying to sway another person's opinion is a negative. Congratulations you just dove off the deep end.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yes, it does. If they need help from a foreign power to stay in power and prevent collapse or popular revolution/military coup, then by definition that is a puppet government.

Quote:

A puppet state is a country that is officially independent, but not in practice. Puppet governments are usually kept in power by military force provided by an occupying country. Puppet state is a biased term. It is used to denigrate the government of the alleged puppet state.


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

We removed their national debts to secure an agreement to base military operations from their country and fly predator drones at their borders, and they are unpopular enough with their people that they need to ask us for help to keep them in power.

They are a puppet government that is entirely beholden to us for their existence, via economic means and support, who have to capitulate to our demands or lose that support, and in the near future may very well require military support to remain in power if this memo is to judge by.



For whom to stay in power? You make it seem as the Pakistan government is the puppet and the Pakistan Military is being kept at bay when the US works with and has support for the strikes within both parties. There are pictures of US drones stationed at a Pakistani military base.

The Pakistan military say they will attack drones, but gets memos about upcoming attacks and than clear the air space for them. We are not propping one side up over another, we are working with the people within a very fractured goverment and military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I was not saying that people pick random candidates to vote for. I was saying that serial selection reduces the probability of any one particular outcome at the final end result.

The reason I used a very basic example was to get the mathematical principle across. The reason I then used the march madness brackets as another example was to demonstrate that this still applies even in a non-random sampling.

Also, your "they have zero chance to win if they can't get the majority of voters to vote for them" argument not only shows a questionable understanding of probability, but also demonstrates an incomplete perception as to how our election system works.

A candidate can win without a majority vote, it's called the electoral college.



Elections are not based on probability. So yes some candidate can have a zero chance winning even if they can get some votes. Your March Madness example is flawed because within the games themselves there are random events. Not so much with voting.

Yes, a candidate for president can win without a majority vote of the people, but cannot without a majority vote of the electors. So the same thing applies if a candidate can't convince enough people in a combination of states to vote for him he can't win no matter how many time the race is re-tried.

You are trying to apply mathematical principals regarding probability of random event to events that are not random.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So here we are: another President, and another set of catastrophes-in-the-making. What the President does is important, and when he (or she) misuses tyrannical power, then he (or she) is a tyrant. The fact that it happens so frequently doesn't make it any better, just more accomodated.



As I asked Byte what is your definition of tyrant? Even definition I find is a person that acts without regard to the law, which means the vast majority of what you posted does not fit.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, January 17, 2014 12:01 AM

BYTEMITE


At this point, it has become entirely clear that we will both be entirely unable to ever agree or concede, and that further conversation on these subjects will consist entirely of yet more "yes it is, no it isn't" back and forth.

I also anticipate a 100% probability that one or both of us will be exposed to ridicule.

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

Friday, January 17, 2014 10:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seems the whole using the power of the federal govt to unduly target US citizens because of their political views is textbook definition of tyrannical.




Including, perhaps, "free speech zones" and the assertion that "if they are not with us, they are against us."


You're confusing Dem Party policy with Bush's war on terror proclamation ,right after 9/11.

Quote:


Not every tyranny has to be on The Hunger Games or the Taliban level of tyrannical in order to qualify. Sometimes tyranny is subtle.



Oh,no doubt it CAN start out very subtly. On this, we agree.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

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

Friday, January 17, 2014 10:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You're confusing Dem Party policy with Bush's war on terror proclamation ,right after 9/11.


I'm aware those were Bush policies. I was being coy.

My theory holds that the US has been a tyranny for a while, at least as long as there's been secret courts and illegal surveillance activities by the intelligence agencies. Which probably started as soon as they EXISTED, during Hoover's time, but which snowballed in earnest sometime around or after Ike's famous warnings about the industrial military complex. Maybe when Kennedy was assassinated.

I mean, okay, you'll probably take the Republican presidents out of the argument, but do you think Clinton wasn't a tyrant? What about other democratic presidents through the 60s to modern times?

And then even when there were Republicans as presidents and you wouldn't agree they were tyrants, there were probably Democrats in Congress who you would.

I'm merely non-exclusive in my condemnations and applying the standards to EVERY politician. Because I hate politicians.

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

Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Actually, the free speech zones were started right here in ATL, thanks to DEMOCRAT Mayor Andrew Young, at the '88 DNC convention. ( I believe that's where Clinton was all but booed off the stage, for talking too damn long, and Rob Lowe was caught having sex with a 16 year old girl in a hotel room. )

But yes, tyranny has been around in our govt for a long time. Well before Obama. Hell, the 'Fairness' Doctrine is pretty damn tyrannical , and that goes back to 1949 !

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

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

Friday, January 17, 2014 1:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


M52- From Wikipedia
Quote:

A tyrant (Greek t??a????, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls most everything.


From FreeOnline Dictionary
Quote:

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.



Obama meets these definitions. As did Bush II. We can discuss the lineage if you're interested, but I agree with BYTE that this probably dates back to JFK, who vowed to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." and who was assassinated for his trouble.

In any case, a PLAIN READING of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, would lead you to expect that you have the right to free speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure (requiring a warrant describing the cause, and the things and places to be searched, signed by a judge), and a jury trial by your peers before conviction and punishment.

So who would have thought that the Appeals Court would have just ruled that broadband providers have no obligation to provide EQUAL access to their lines because requiring a free and open internet would have violated the broadband providers' "free speech" rights? That's not even counting the "free speech zones" and the militarized reaction to peaceful protests and demonstrations.

That massive, undiscriminate hoovering up of text messages, emails, phone data, and online posts, and aggressive placement of spyware on personal computers (begun under Bush) .... how does that fit under the 4th Amendment? Where is evidence of a crime having been committed? Where is the warrant? Obama, (who referred to himself as a "Constitutional Law professor") should know that it doesn't meet the original intent of the amendment.

And the ability to detain citizens without charges (begun under Bush), which led to Obama's proposition of indefinite preventive detention, and finally the rationalization that he could execute citizens abroad without trial and conviction, after secret proceedings ("Trust us, these were bad guys") have completely contravened the concept of habeas corpus.

At the same time, we have an open-ended declaration of war (The Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists) and military authority (Patriot Act, National Defense Authroization Act of 2012) which allows the President to invade any nation at any time, for any reason, and engage in war-footing internal surveillance and political control.

As far as government secrecy, Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. And the only "reforms" that Obama engages in are the ones that he is absolutely pushed into by widespread whistleblowing and massive negative press. This is not a President who operates in a transparent manner and upholds the intent of the Bill of Rights. Any of his "reforms" are grudging and minimal. So, for example, I guarantee you that whatever NSA reforms Obama proposes will be cosmetic.

Everything that is NOW recognized as a serious problem and significant breach of our Constitution was brought up when it FIRST became known. But people who brought up these real, significant issues were ridiculed as "catastrophizing" because... hey, where were the bodies on the streets? Where were the political prisoners? (They were in Iraq, Guantanamo, Baghram, and black sites throughout the Middle East and Eastern Europe but- what the hell? It wasn't HERE, right?)

That's on the political/ military side.

As far as the economy goes, all of the laws and agreements being passed by Congress and signed by the President, or ruled on by the Supreme Court have left us, as individuals, voiceless and powerless in the face of vastly superior wealth. Corporations appear to have all of the rights, but none of the responsibilities of real authentic people. All of the laws are written in their favor, including tax law. As a result, they have gained vastly superior economic power which they exercise without restraint on the rest of us. Not only does this meet the definition of tyranny, it meets the definition of fascism.

MAGONS- In your fight against McDonald's, did you feel that your government was on your side? And, at what point did you lose control over corporations?



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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:33 - 444 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL