A Statement

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, August 17, 2025 15:39
VIEWED: 7092
PAGE 1 of 1

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:10 PM

"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

YINYANG

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:46 AM

I have a few ideas, but first I want to make sure I understand what the statement means. Is this statement saying that loss of freedom or loss of privacy are higher wrongs than the loss of life? Because the loss of life is the greatest loss of freedom possible. Although I guess it is pretty bad to lose freedom and privacy while still being alive, I believe death is worse because without life freedom and privacy don't and can't exist. Also, if you're alive, you can fight to gain or re-gain freedom and privacy - and even if you don't succeed you still have choices, however limited.

Another way I've interpreted the statement is that, no matter how many lives will be lost, no one should have their freedom or privacy taken away. I agree to an extent. Voluntary and temporary loss of freedom and privacy is acceptable for preservation of life, and even involuntary could be okay except in cases of misuse. (For example: as much as I understand why, some of the things done during the Civil War by the Union were awful.) This is an "the ends don't justify the means" statement, and I agree with it more than I disagree.

My $0.02 (not adjusted for inflation)

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 1:34 AM

Hello,

Well gee... If we take that statement as the absolute that it presents itself...

We could no longer put dangerous criminals in jail. Their freedom and privacy would be worth more than the lives of their victims.

I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:09 AM

Like most sweeping absolute statements it sounds good on paper but fails in practice.

LEADB

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:39 AM

If everyone is dead, I guess then they are -really- free.

If one person is left alive, I suppose he/she is truly free. Unless aliens come down or something ;-)

So, since I have no interest in seeing everyone on the planet dead except for me, I'm prepared to accept some limitations on my freedoms (eg: I agree to have my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater -severely- restricted)

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

Someone decides to kill me and steal my stuff. If I kill him in self-defense, I'm pretty much depriving him of his freedom. This does not compute.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:50 AM

"I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet."

I am.

Quit outlawing and vilifying self defense, and put em in the morgue instead.
Problem solved.

"Anything is possible, if you're free."

-Frem

PS. And if you're wondering what the heck we're talking about... here.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:02 AM

If it saves one life it's worth it all...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:18 PM

I believe this statement refers to the idea that the loss of life (say in a terrorist attack) is not worth the loss of privacy and freedom (as say in cell phone monitoring, cameras on every corner, email monitoring ect ect).

Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

I dont believe it refers to the criminal/victim relationship.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:11 PM

Quote:
Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

You can't, and a lot of people think that's why the terrorists attacked. I think that's part of it. But I think mostly they just wanted to give us a taste of what they face every day - i.e. living in fear.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:55 PM

I fear all is going according to their plan...

Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Freedom is never given
Freedom is never free
Freedom has always been fought for, and paid for with blood.

Freedom has not been the natural order of Man on Earth...enslavement has. That's the history of the world.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:38 PM

The British are some of the most "monitored" people ont he planet. Yet it has done nothing to stop the randomn (or non-randomn) terrorist.

Are we heading for the same fate?

The question becomes, how much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice for ANY reason? With cameras everywhere, the government spying on all of our email and cell phone conversations, and the various new laws given by the Patriot Act, are we no longer a free country?

Also, is it too late to get these freedoms back? Can we do it in a legal manner? Or, if not, what are the options left to us?

RUE

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:43 PM

In a recent survey the US ranked better than Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia but worse than Britain for privacy protection. Canada was near the top for privacy protection.

http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/45647-1.html

Study: U.S. among world’s ‘endemic-surveillance societies’
01/08/08
By William Jackson

The United States fairs poorly in a recently released international report on privacy, ranking near the bottom of 47 countries surveyed and labeled an “endemic-surveillance society” with poor privacy protection and aggressive monitoring by both the pubic and private sectors.

“The 2007 findings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protections across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and declining performance of privacy safeguards,” the 2007 International Privacy Ranking concludes.

The report identifies technology as one of the culprits in the worsening situation. “The privacy trends have been fueled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global [information technlogy] companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside of judicial or democratic processes.”

The United Kingdom was rated the worst country in Europe and also listed as an endemic-surveillance society.

The ranking was produced by the U.S.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the U.K.-based Privacy International, which has been doing the survey since 1997. The full report is a massive 1,100 pages with 6,000 footnotes, but a summary of findings is available.

The United States is not the worst country measured. Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia fare worse. But, “in terms of statutory protection and privacy enforcement, the U.S. is the worst-ranking country in the democratic world,” the report said.

The U.S. ranking deteriorated since 2006, going from poor to bad in spite of the Democratic success in last year’s elections. “Despite political shift in the U.S. Congress, surveillance initiatives in the U.S. continue to expand, affecting visitors and citizens alike.” The close monitoring of international travel was rated among the most intrusive in the world. Among the findings contributing the national ranking:

No explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution and no comprehensive privacy law.

The Federal Trade Commission continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, although it issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007.

Real-ID and biometric identification programs continue to expand without adequate oversight, research and funding structures.

Extensive data-sharing programs across the federal government and with the private sector.

Congress approved a presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks and now is considering immunity for telephone companies that cooperated in illegal programs.

There are some bright spots in the report. “State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security,” the organizations found, and “democratic safeguards tend to be strong.” But countering these is the finding that a “new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle.”

If this all seems a bit too oppressive, take some heart in the fact that — just across our northern border — Canada was rated one of the best countries in terms of privacy and surveillance.

© 1996-2008 1105 Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:44 PM

All you so-called libertarians out there - are so preternaturally quiet on the issue.

Where's the outrage ?

***************************************************************
chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ...

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:47 PM

So what are our options? Legally, first.

How can we stop this, or turn back whats begun?

RUE

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:54 PM

I've got to get busy. This is an important topic for me though, so I'll be back at least by tomorrow.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

Unless its that one man's life...we all have every right to sacrifice our own lives to preserve the measure of liberty we believe we deserve. We have no right to require the same others.

If they so choose they can make the Locke/Hobbs bargain and choose security...to some extent over liberty or liberty over security. Certainly it is for this purpose that goverment was originally instituted among men...however it is not and never has been an all or nothing proposition.

In the begining everyone had 100% liberty and the freedom to do what they chose without restraint. Since that generally included taking the work of other, weaker folk without their consent the weaker folk got together to protect themselves and each other and in return had to give up a measure of the freedom of the individual for the support of the community. Since then we've been trying to figure out the right mix. It seems that mix is giving up just enough liberty to ensure just enough protection. Turns out that mix seems to change based upon particular circumstances. So a degree of flexibility and understanding must result among the members of the community.

Our inalienable rights include both life and liberty. If one is willing to risk life to preserve liberty...surely it is equally just to risk liberty to preserve life, especially since BOTH are required to effectively pursue happiness.

H

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All you so-called libertarians out there - are so preternaturally quiet on the issue.

Where's the outrage ?

***************************************************************
chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ...

Am I "so-called"?

I'm not sure I know what the 'issue' is yet. This debate is usually framed as a balance between freedom and safety, as though they are opposing forces. But I think that often this view is wrong. When we look to protect ourselves from terrorists, for example, we immediately look to how we can beef up government and suspend liberties. But maybe if we just quit fucking with them, they'd leave us alone. That approach would have it's own "sacrifices" of course - our multinationals would be on their own and forced to deal with reality, and our oil prices would go up and force us to deal with alternate energy sources effectively. But we wouldn't be nervously fending off the whiff of fascism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:19 PM

We HAVE already given up too much of our freedom and privacy. I started this thread with the hope of finding answers, solutions on how we can get it back.

Legally, first, of course.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:31 PM

I'm not sure. Democracy doesn't age well. There's very little hope for reaching a critical mass of voters with substantive advocacy. Modern political campaigning rewards a set of skills and motives that are the opposite of what most of us would want in a leader.

Changing that equation, convincing the unquestioning masses to think for themselves and unplug from the mass-media mindset, is the only path I can see.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HERO

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Modern political campaigning rewards a set of skills and motives that are the opposite of what most of us would want in a leader.

Since the choice is ultimately ours...perhaps we are simply lying about what we REALLY want in a leader.

H

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:01 PM

"Also, is it too late to get these freedoms back?"

Depends on how badly you want them, what you're willing to ante up in order to have them.

Your comfort ?
Your money ?
Your life ?

"Can we do it in a legal manner?"

To be downright blunt... no.

The laws we have even *now* make even THIS discussion technically illegal, and if you haven't read HR1955 go do so.

Even if you WERE to use legal loopholes to try forcing change on, or resist in any way, the cabal in power or the status quo, they will simply do what they have done since 1905 and outlaw any tactic or method that shows effectiveness, while pointing out all the useless, pointless options to show you how "free" you are.

Look at the history of Unions, if you want more info on that.

"Or, if not, what are the options left to us?"

Pretty simple, really, run, fight, or bend over and take it...

If yer gonna run, be smart about it and take a boat, especially if you have valuables and the tax folks know you ain't coming back - one reason most expatriates never return is that the IRS continues to levy and demand it's tax bite on your income forever and ever, even after you've left, and if unpaid, well, visiting here could get ugly.

So they've taken to getting as big a bite as they can on the way out, not to mention Dept of HomeSec will go bananas and think you criminally insane for wanting to leave, leading to all manner of ugly.

If yer gonna fight, learn HOW first, start removing yourself from their systems of easy inventory and tracking, and learn the importance of not discussing it in our nation of informers and snitches, who'd sell you out in a heartbeat to protect themselves, or for a pat on the head from the master.

And DIY, cause joinin up with someone ?
Bad idea, most of the orgs out there that haven't been crushed are there because it makes it easier to watch and sabotage (who you THINK runs a lot of em?) the discontented.

Like a submarine, run silent, run deep, leave no trace.

Or you can say bah fuggit and watch American Idol like everyone else and pretend it ain't happenin.

Thing is, by the time a public consciousness gets to be askin those things, it's more often than not too damned late to do much about it.

Study History.

-Frem

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

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:09 AM

Hello Rue,

I'm not sure what kind of noise you're looking for 'so called' libertarians to make here. The people who are 'so called' libertarians on this board make angry noises about the limits placed on their freedoms almost daily here.

I'm also not sure where you stand on the issue of liberty versus freedom. It seems you often argue both sides of that street. Probably you believe in a balance of forces.

As for 'freer' countries like Britain, where you can't buy a replica gun, nor soon a stainless steel sword, nor carry a pocketknife, nor legally defend yourself with the sewing supplies you happen to be carrying...

Freedom is measured in many ways. I'm not sure what criteria is being used as a yardstick.

In any event, I'm not entirely happy with the level of freedom I enjoy in the U.S., but I can't really think of another nation where I'd feel as free or as prosperous.

Maybe I've got crazy skewed views, but being able to drive into the desert and shoot coffee cans without being arrested is valuable to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

EVILDINOSAUR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:46 AM

as the statement is presented there, i disagree

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:05 AM

I'll be away for the balance, but I just wanted to explain what I meant:

Too many libertarians seem to be single-issue ones. Smokes, vaccines and seat-belts are common, but trivial, points of rebellion.
And also they seem too interested in looking jaded and blasé to actually do anything. Yeah, I saw this coming yeeears ago. And why make an effort ? It's all a conspiracy that goes back to a least the 60's anyway.
And too far up businesses' butt to criticize it for anything at all. Why should I infringe on corporate freedom even when it infringes on mine ? Isn't that freedom ??
And too 'individualistic' to consider a mass solution. After all, I got my gun for when it all goes down. Why should I join with anyone to actually do anything now ?

Whenever I start a thread about this it dies a quick death. Now for people like Finn, Geezer and Hero I expect that kind of response.

But for people who consider themselves lovers of freedom ??

Yeah, I'm old and cranky and this will make that even more apparent, but really - you should be ashamed of yourselves.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:40 AM

Well,

WWRD?

What Would Rue Do?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:46 PM

Rue, there are very good, and very obvious, reasons that most direct-action folks will not discuss it, especially in a public venue.

Just as I explain to Siggy, that if some folk WERE organising anything, it'd be beyond pointless if they were stupid enough to talk about it.

We live in a surveillence society currently run by a pack of facist wannabes and y'all wanna discuss your plans and out your membership publicly where any jackboot or sympathiser can see it ?

You go right on ahead, lemme know how that works out for ya.

No, some things I will *not* discuss, not here, not privately, not EVER - and this, in any specifics or details, is one of those things... I give enough general information that those who truly wanna involve themselves in something can do so, but the hell if imma hand out a free pass to the jackboots, no way.

They wanna come to the bottom of the rabbit hole, they can damn well try swimmin the concertina rolls we leave up there to keep em out.

And that's the end of me discussin the topic, I shouldn't have had to even tell ya that much, for cryin out loud.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:37 PM

I agree Frem. Completely.

My issue, and the primary reason I started this thread, was to find out if I was the only one who saw these things as a problem.

Also, to find out if there was a solution. I mean, you COULD go out and knock down the cameras....but that would only get you arrested. Then, they would put the cameras back up and stronger than ever.

You COULD leave the country...but where would you go? Canada is almost as bad...South America is closest to the Wild West in certain aspects....but as Im pasty pale and dont speak Spanish, I would stick out pretty bad. (Being kidnapped isnt really something I am interested in experiencing)

Europe is, in some ways, worse than the US.

Africa? Same problem as South America.

We can't even kid ourselves that the governement listens to us anymore. Its become the "Alliance" in Firefly speak.

So join up? Can't do that, as I'm sure the government has moles in almost any organization out there.

It needs to be said, and I hate to say it, because I hate them intensly....but the way to fight (if we had to) would be like AlQueda.

No central structure to be broken, no way of tracing it back to others.

Im just venting, mind. It just bugs the hell out of me everytime I drive to work. The road I have to take has a camera on it that snaps a picture of everyones license plate as they go by. "For our safety" of course.

*sigh

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:34 PM

You all are so silly - you'd refuse to join any group, even if it was running from a theatre fire. Yeah, you can stand there by your lonesome and burn.

Direct action ??? Give me an effin' break. How about common political action ?

***************************************************************
Oh, btw, for people who support Ron Paul - I've got a great slogan for you - Want to get things done ? What we need in another H Ross Perot !

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:08 PM

Common political action, as has already been poited out, will accomplish nothing.

Its the common political action that already got us in this mess. Now that they have the power, how are going to stop them?

And no...I dont like the lone-wolf mentality. They always get shot.

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:22 PM

You only say so 'cause you're an idiot.

Who gave us the USPATRIOT Act ? Gitmo ? Pen-registers and trap-and-trace on 10% of everyone in the US ?

So, rather than take a little step away from the fire you'd rather stand where you are 'cause that little step isn't absolutely everything you want. Sit and burn, then.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about common political action?

You know, I've been sailing those seas for the last six months or so. I've created a couple of websites, I'm active in three different meetup groups, and I donate money to worthwhile causes when I've got it. I've been to rallies, written to congress and op-ed pages, all the usual 'activist' outreach. I'm even considering registering to vote :). In a sense, I'm giving the 'system' a second chance.

And the thing is, it's even worse than I'd been assuming all those years of living underground. The simple fact is our nation sold its soul many decades ago. We crank out generation after generation of well conditioned drones who will dutifully stay on the consumer treadmill and suck up the shit oozing out of their televisions. Once you've "stocked" the constituency pond in this way, the game is up.

That's where we're at now. Winning elections, promoting any kind of "common political action", is game of unscrupulous manipulation. You don't have to play it that way, by you'll lose miserably to those without your moral hangups. And the mass of 'deciders' will never know the difference.

I share your frustration with 'single issue libertarians', the ones who'll gripe about the teacher's union and ignore the Haliburton ghouls, and I appreciate you challenging them to have the courage of their 'so-called' convictions. But please don't insinuate that libertarians remain at the fringe by choice.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:31 PM

What the hell are you talking about? Do you really think that if you got your boy Obabama, or Hillary, in office that it will make a lick of difference? Hell, they are part of the party that WANTS BIG Governemnt.

As I pointed out before, it doesnt matter WHO is in office....they will ALWAYS push for more power. Its just the nature of the political beast.

Also, did all those rallys and demonstrations, and whatnot that were had around here, on the Mall, at the WhiteHouse ect....make ANY difference in terms of whether the war will end? Of course not.

Did changing the House and Senate make any difference either? Noooooo....

So what "Political Action" are you talking about?

ZZETTA13

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:37 PM

“The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE man’s privates!!”

I agree!
Sorry Wolfenstar! Just a joke.
Gorram I’m in a silly mood today!

Z

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:38 PM

SergeantX

I truly appreciate your heartfelt and sincere reply.

I've never been maintream - with one or maybe two exceptions none of the people I've ever voted for have ever won at any level. But I've come to the conclusion that it's time to change - you really DO have to pick the lesser of evils. And the next time around the lesser of them. And over time one hopes, with a series of small steps - you'll actually get somewhere worthwhile. But you have to be in it for the long haul.

I too do what I can. And when I can't I give thousands a year (usually over $5000 total) to groups that are fighting the fights I don't have time for. The EFF http://www.eff.org/ is THE ONLY group fighting for our rights in the electronic age. And what does that mean, you might ask ? Three examples - they are fighting for no phone taps, no government databases. and no downloaded spy files from corporations.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:57 PM

Took a look at the link you put up Rue. Good job in finding them.

Still....how did we allow this to happen? Im GenX, and it seems that our parents and forebears created this. Now its our mess to clean up.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But I've come to the conclusion that it's time to change - you really DO have to pick the lesser of evils. And the next time around the lesser of them. And over time one hopes, with a series of small steps - you'll actually get somewhere worthwhile. But you have to be in it for the long haul.

I think the track record of this approach speaks for itself. The change over time just doesn't move in the direction you suggest. Every time we voluntarily concede to a choice between corporate-cocksucker "A" and corporate-cocksucker "B", we lose ground.

The slim difference between the status-quo candidates just isn't worth the effort. A vote for a candidate I DO believe in, win or lose, is worth much more than endorsing the false choices offered up by those who would rule us. But as long as the vast majority of voters are busy trying to suss out the second-most-evil candidate, there's really not much point.

It may be that we can change the system to get around these false choices. Approval Voting, and other alternative schemes, could do something positive in that regard. But these kinds of initiatives come up against the same wall - complacent, willfully ignorant voters that believe what they're told, or are at least willing to accept the lies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:21 PM

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:
Now that they have the power, how are going to stop them? And no...I dont like the lone-wolf mentality. They always get shot.

Pure speculation here, but.... Creating significant change almost follows the laws of conservation of momentum: You can either have a small group of people taking extremely effective action, a medium-sized group of people putting in a signifcant amount of effort, or nearly everyone making a small change. And I can give you successful examples of all three, from palace coups and armed insurgencies, to NGOs and successful mass movements (civil rights, environmental, womens' rights) all the way to "orange revolutions".

But in fact, a successful path to change needs all three. The environmental movement was given a tremendous boost by "the Fox":In Illinois, a man going by the name of "The Fox" plugged drainage pipes, capped factory smokestacks, and dumped industrial waste from a U.S. Steel plant into the office of the company's chief executive. (1) As long as activists don't cross that invisible line and turn more people "off" than "on" to their message, the extreme examples of a few help legitimize the goals of the many. There is a big "however" to this scenario: However, a movement has to have a reliable media outlet.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100390

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:47 PM

"I think the track record of this approach speaks for itself. The change over time just doesn't move in the direction you suggest. Every time we voluntarily concede to a choice between corporate-cocksucker "A" and corporate-cocksucker "B", we lose ground."

So there would have been no diference between Gore and Bush ? Kerry and Bush.

C'mon man, say something at least a little in touch with reality !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:08 PM

No there wouldnt, Rue. Except we would ahve looke at 9/11 as a police action, not an act of war (which it was).

The guys at the top are just puppets.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So there would have been no difference between Gore and Bush ? Kerry and Bush.

I'm sure I see less differences between them than you do, but that misses the point. Bush's victories, especially the second time around, are the net result of 'lesser-of-two-evils' thinking. This is where that kind of logic leads us, over time. Our election process has become one of voting out of fear rather that voting our conscience. We vote for the candidate who will screw us slightly less than the other one. Either way we get screwed.

Our voting system has devolved to something like the old Soviet elections, only instead of one candidate, we get two. Those with the money, power, and will to herd the masses will ensure that only candidates deemed safe for the status quo are perceived as mainstream. All others will be portrayed as fringe or, 'unelectable'. The media (and those who manipulate them) have perfected the art of the self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when it comes to public opinion. Until we tackle that fact, the rest of it is moot.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:47 PM

Thanks for your reply which was more measured and complete than I deserved.

I have to be busy for the several hours but I hope to get back on this, if not today then tomorrow.

But I'd like you ask you a question about a slightly related topic, and that's the role of 3rd party candidates.

My observation is that 3rd party candidates are extremely valuable in the House and Senate. They can shift the direction of legislation by joining - or withholding - their support for any dem or rep legislation. So while they couldn't get anything through on their own, they could steer the country.

But as presidential candidates - until those parties themselves become significant - they are a waste of voter intention and can lead to disastrous results.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
they [third-party presidential campaigns] are a waste of voter intention and can lead to disasterous results.

Think about what you're saying. More choice leads to disastrous results? If that's the case, then our election system is indeed broken.

One of the key elements to this situation is that we've let the two major parties rig the game. There should be no concept of a third party, or fourth or fifth, for that matter. In the context of the current political "reality", we desperately need someone besides the republocrats calling bullshit on their rigged system. If that means one of them takes a hit on occasion (ala Nader), so be it. It's just a natural byproduct of their corrupt little game. It's certainly not the fault of the voters, or candidates, who act on their conscience rather than political expediency.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 11, 2008 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I share your frustration with 'single issue libertarians', the ones who'll gripe about the teacher's union and ignore the Haliburton ghouls, and I appreciate you challenging them to have the courage of their 'so-called' convictions. But please don't insinuate that libertarians remain at the fringe by choice.

Thank you Sarge.

My outrage was petitioning on the streets when I wss 8 months pregnant to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot. My outrage was spending countless hours and money trying to shore up our state's party so candidates who stood for freedom had a chance to run. My outrage was setting up meetings and handing out flyers in the real world. And after all that, we still couldn't get on the ballot in our state because the two-party system set up stupid inane laws to keep us out.

--------------------------
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
-- Source unknown

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 12:55 AM

"Think about what you're saying. More choice leads to disastrous results? If that's the case, then our election system is indeed broken."

If NOT being a parliamentary system means being broken, then yes, at the Pres/VP level it is broken. B/c the Pres/VP offices are 'winner take all', it leads to that kind of result. Congress is not that way however, which leads to a different result - a multiple-party friendly environment.

So, I don't attribute it to malfeasance on the part of the parties - they have a lot of other things to answer for, but not that. It's just a natural outgrowth of how the system was set up in the first place.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 11, 2008 1:14 AM

Oh, you wanna know what you can do WITHOUT risking your neck so much then, eh ?

Well, you wanna stomp some status quo arse on an aboveboard plane, like, right away ?

Here.
http://www.iww.org/

And why ?
http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/qanda

Study the history, find out WHY the four pole alliance, once nearly destroyed, is quietly being rebuilt once again - and see the real face of the powers that be, an empty noose with your name on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

Show those corpie bastards the red card, and watch them tremble, if you dare.

-Frem

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

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 1:17 AM

And if you think both parties are exactly the same and it doesn't make a difference - here's what the lovely repubicans are bringing you - on top of the USPATRIOT Act, Gitmo, 10% of all US calls being traced, Iraq, and the unitary executive, of course -

Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/washington/10scotus.html?_r=1&oref=s
login

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: January 10, 2008

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is not an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute ... was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.

__________________

So, are you ready to submit to a biometric government ID process in order to vote ?
For all you Dulcineas out there singing 'it's all the same ...', you could not be further from the truth.

***************************************************************
Silly ignorant children.

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 11, 2008 1:51 AM

Rue,

I am appalled that this standardized ID is being created and mandated. I have been appalled by it since it was announced.

I now have the first concrete examples of what you mean when you say people should 'do something' and 'organize.'

These concrete examples consist of

1) Supporting Civil Liberties organizations.
And
2) Voting Democrat, the lesser of two evils.

If there are other examples of your 'walk the walk' philosophy, please let me know.

It turns out I may actually be forced to vote Democrat for the first time in my life this election, because some of the alternatives seem so horrific as to be beyond consideration. It will depend on who makes the final cut.

I do have to agree with some of the people who despise voting for the lesser of two evils. If you vote 75% evil every time, you gain 3/4ths additional evil with every vote. Yay! It's better than voting 100% evil in the same way that dying from cancer over the course of 6 months is better than dying in an unexpected accident.

This election has been a painful one for me, because it is the first election where I actually bothered to invest any time or effort into one of the candidates and their political positions. So far, I've accomplished nothing more than I usually do, but I gained a great deal of additional disappointment.

So, Rue, I'll probably vote for that lesser of two evils, and I'll be donating to Civil Liberties organizations. And so I'll join you in your superior position of dealing our nation the death of a thousand cuts, and throwing pebbles at tanks.

But I won't laugh my morally superior ass off at the 'children' just because they have the simple sense to realize I'm not accomplishing anything, either.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 2:18 AM

AnthonyT

Unless there's a revolution, you'll be doing what you can.

Think of it this way - do you remember what got the Argentine junta out ? Not guns. It was old ladies standing in the plazas with signs asking about 'the disappeared'. Not confronting anyone, not yelling, just - standing. That's what happens when you do what you can and you're in it for the long haul.

And it is SO much better - even smarter and more moral - than saying - what difference will it make anyway ? It's all the same.

***************************************************************

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 3:34 AM

I don't buy it Rue. Most of above evils you mention, and they are definitely that, occurred with the tacit approval of the Democrat controlled congress. So I'm not seeing these big differences you're suggesting. They shouldn't need a majority to act out against these things, but now that they've had the upper hand for two years, the Democrats have no excuse.

In 2004, I followed something like your logic and rallied for Kerry, if a bit begrudgingly. Because at that point, we KNEW what kind of a bastard Bush was. Just about anything but Bush would have been a dramatic improvement. But he's leaving office.

All we have now are unknowns. I have no idea how any of the mainstream candidates will behave once in office because: Every damned one of them are used car salesmen. Even if you believe them, they don't present anything like a clear philosophy of government. They pick and choose sides on the various issues to strategically satisfy constituencies. How do you ever know what someone like that is going to do? And why in the world would you assume a Democrat has any more moral authority, or would be any more likely to provide intelligent leadership, after the party's underwhelming performance in recent years?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 11, 2008 4:56 AM

Oh you mean those Democrats who promised to get us out of Iraq, like, immediately if they secured a majority in congress.

Hmmm, how's that workin out for ya, then ?

You're going to a card sharpers house, and playing on his table, with his deck, and somehow expecting to do something other than lose... that's just silly.

Make em play by YOUR rules, and as for peaceful protest, BWAHAHAHAHA, better bring a gas mask and a taserproof jacket just in case you dare leave the "Free Speech Zone" in the basement of some parking garage miles away from the event to get a sandwich or something.

Ask the Bonus marchers, or the IWW, or any other peaceful protest that annoyed the powers that be just how well that went for the protestors - ask how well it went in Florida, where they were UTTERLY CRUSHED, brutalised, and beaten down...

Versus Seattle, where they fought rough and tumble, and not only won the day, but *because of that* did so with LESS violence over all, and not all in one direction, than when they decided to "play nice" in Florida.

To be blunt, what are you gonna do at your peaceful protest when the riot batons, the gas, pepperball rounds and the like start flying at you, just lay down and take it, show the status quo that it works ?

Nonviolent protest ONLY works when your opponent and their political backing has a conscience, and in this day and age, our current cabal, the corporate lords, I defy you to tell me with a straight face that playing on their conscience will do you any good.

As for simply laying down and taking it, even Ghandi had some strong words about that.

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

Nonviolence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of nonviolence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence. Translation from swordsmanship to nonviolence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Nonviolence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission.
-Mahatma Gandhi

So what's your strategy for when (not if, but when) the riot shields and billyclubs come out then ?

Cause that is as important as anything else - if you are violently attacked simply for exercising your rights, and you throw in your hand and fold, you've accomplished naught but to send the message that you'll stand up, but only so far, and that such oppression works.

Stand up, or stand aside.

-Frem

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I believe this statement refers to the idea that the loss of life (say in a terrorist attack) is not worth the loss of privacy and freedom (as say in cell phone monitoring, cameras on every corner, email monitoring ect ect).

Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

I dont believe it refers to the criminal/victim relationship.

Man.... I like this guy.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 11, 2008 3:31 PM

It seems to me that we are at a crossroads. Non-violent political action, somewhat political action (like voting and hoping that it isnt "adjusted" or that it will even count) accepting things as they are and just trying to get by, violent action, or stockpiling a compund in Texas....

Tell me, will any of it work? Or should I just buy a plane ticket to (insert name of 3rd world country here), take my savings of 300 bucks, and live like a king?

I can buy a mansion for 60 dollars, hire an army for 80, and buy food and weapons for a year with the rest....(Im joking, of course. Trying to make a point about how ineffective Im feeling)

SIGNYM

Friday, January 11, 2008 3:56 PM

Quote:
Nonviolent protest ONLY works when your opponent and their political backing has a conscience, and in this day and age, our current cabal, the corporate lords, I defy you to tell me with a straight face that playing on their conscience will do you any good.

Yes but/ and ... You need several things for a direct action to work:

1) AN OUTLET TO THE PRESS
I've seen nonviolent protests work, even when the response was brutal... but only when the cameras were rolling and the image played day in and day out. Kent State. Civil rights marches. Indian independence from Britain. I've seen nonviolent protest fail, not by being crushed but by being ignored to death. Do you remember the 1977 million-woman march on Washington supporting the ERA? Of course not. The difference between a protest "failing" and "winning" is not the police response or the level of violence but the amount of press. (Sometimes violence brings press coverage as in Seattle. But sometimes it doesn't, as in Florida.) So if you're going to have a protest, bring your own cameras, and send the image to every outlet. Embed the foreign press if you can- they're less biased than ours when it comes to our "internal matters". Write your own newspaper, but whatever you have to do GET THE IMAGES OUT THERE.

2) A SYMPATHETIC AUDIENCE
If your audience doesn't give a rat's patooties about you or your cause it doesn't matter if a million of you are killed by a tactical nuke on live TV. Your audience will just say: Glad those troublemakers/ terrorists/ bastards are dead! You need to prepare the ground a bit. You need good writers and orators... a Rachel Carson or a Germaine Greer or a MLK.

3) MUSCLE
SOME of this movement has to be ready for a muscular response. Publicity stunts actually work rather well. Again, bring your own cameras. I would not post more because that would be considered "terrorism". You get my drift. But the "muscle" has to be calibrated so as not to turn popular response off.

So, let's say that our first goal is clean elections. Not "next time".... THIS TIME. Are you ready to roll? START HERE

http://civic.moveon.org/protectourvotes//
And HERE

www.blackboxvoting.org/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:07 PM

SergeantX
"Most of above evils you mention, and they are definitely that, occurred with the tacit approval of the Democrat controlled congress. ... now that they've had the upper hand for two years, the Democrats have no excuse."

I get really pissed off when people don't tell the truth. So when exactly was the Congress controlled by democrats ?

Were democrats the House majority in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 ? Or even 2006 ? (putting Democrat House control at 1 year, since the actual switchover didn't occur till January 2007.)

As for the Senate, when were the Democrats a majority ? Was is here ?

Senate
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Democrat (50 seats)
Republican (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

Here ??
Republican (50 seats)
Democrat (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

Perhaps here ?

Senate
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

Or could it be here ?

Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

PLEASE - if you're going to lay blame, at least have the honesty to get your facts straight. All it takes is a simple google search.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:18 PM

FremD

"Oh you mean those Democrats who promised to get us out of Iraq, like, immediately if they secured a majority in congress. Hmmm, how's that workin out for ya, then ?"

I get really pissed off when people don't tell the truth. So when exactly was the Congress controlled by democrats ?

Were democrats the House majority in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 ? Or even 2006 ? (putting Democrat House control at 1 year, since the actual switchover didn't occur till January 2007.)

As for the Senate, when were the Democrats a majority ? Was is here ?

Senate
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Democrat (50 seats)
Republican (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

Here ??
Republican (50 seats)
Democrat (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

Perhaps here ?

Senate
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

Or could it be here ?

Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

"... as for peaceful protest, BWAHAHAHAHA, better bring a gas mask and a taserproof jacket ..."
Just can't stand the idea that signs worked better than guns, can you ? For the record, while I used it as ONE example, there are MANY OTHER THINGS ONE CAN DO AS A PART OF THE PROCESS, and I gave other examples as well. So to you and your bogus arguments.

You know, ALL you supposed freedom lovers are so full of **it it's incredible. You'll make ANY excuse to not exercise and protect the freedom you DO have. I mean really, your views are SSOOOoooo entrenched even simple, readily available facts don't penetrate.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:32 PM

Pulled this off Wikipedia. Sounded like what I'd heard so I went with it. How is it wrong?

Quote:
Since the 2006 midterm elections the Democratic Party is the majority party for the 110th Congress; the party holds an outright majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate. Democrats also hold a majority of state governorships and control a plurality of state legislatures. In 2004, it was the largest political party, with 42.6 percent of 169 million registered voters claiming affiliation.

Are you saying Democrats have done a passable job as a minority party?

I know you're convinced the Democrats will do better, and that you prefer the liberal Democrat view of things, and that's fine. But they've been nearly equal partner's in selling out our nation and have barely lifted a finger to stop the worst of Bush's abuses.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:37 PM

"But they've been nearly equal partner's in selling out our nation and have barely lifted a finger to stop the worst of Bush's abuses."

Oh so the Democrats are still responsible no matter who really did the deed ? Give it a rest.

***************************************************************
BTW, does your bias put Robert Wexler in the same category as the republicans ? He's the democrat trying to impeach Cheney. How about Obama - who never supported the Iraq war. Does he fit into the 'just like a repubican' category ? Or perhaps Edwards, you know, the guy who said he was wrong on Iraq. Hear any repubicans saying that lately ?

KIRKULES

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:40 PM

The Democrats had strong majorities in both Houses of Congress from 1932-1980. During that time American liberties were violated regularly. The Dems have shown that their claim to support civil liberties is just a campaign slogan and once in power they abuse peoples rights worse than Republicans ever have.

Their promise to get out of Iraq was just another campaign slogan. After 48 years holding Congress it took a Republican to get us out of Vietnam.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:46 PM

And thanks for playing fact-free irrelevant distractions !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh so the Democrats are still responsible no matter who really did the deed ? Give it a rest.

Well, I'm assuming that you'll acknowledge that the Democrats have been weak in their opposition to the neo-cons. So, perhaps its just a question of how much of the blame they share. The system of checks and balances set up by our constitution is supposed to prevent the off-the-rails abuses of the current administration. But it requires conscientious leaders ready to fight the good fight.

I'll grant you the Republicans have more to answer for than the Democrats. And if the Dems had been fighting back in any substantial way over the last six years, I'd grant what you're saying. But I haven't seen it. What did I miss? That's what get's me. It takes a fringe, libertarian Republican to say the things that the Democrats should have been jumping on since before the Iraq invasion. If they had been, I'd be standing right there with you, despite my disagreements on their other policies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 7:03 PM

You know, I consider the haters of liberty to fall into several camps

the repubican partisans who'd take the country over a cliff as long as it meant 'they' got to 'win'. Geezer, Hero, Finn, Rap et al - you know who you are.

the single issue 'freedom lovers' who just can't be bothered with liberty as long as they get to keep their - gun, cigarettes - whatever

the people who are secretly happy to see gitmo, torture, the USPATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps and the rest, b/c they think it's all about terrorists and whiny liberals and it'll never come home to them - up until voter ID - in which case the whole idea of government out of control comes as a shock

the people who refuse to exercise their freedom b/c it's not exactly how they want it, so - what's the point

and various shadings and combinations thereof.

BTW, does your bias put Robert Wexler in the same category as the repubicans ? He's the democrat trying to impeach Cheney. How about Obama - who never supported the Iraq war. Does he fit into the 'just like a repubican' category ? Or perhaps Edwards, the guy who said he was wrong on Iraq. Hear any repubicans saying that lately ? How about Waxman ? Trying to dig into Bush et al misdeeds while getting blocked by repubicans at every turn.

This whole - 'they're JUST like' is, well, lame. At best.

***************************************************************
Also, it's been 'progressives' - those damn whiny liberals - who've been at the forefront on these issues. Not 'fringe libertarians'.

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... does your bias put Robert Wexler in the same category as the republicans ?

Where was he six years ago? It seems a little pointless to impeach at this point.

Quote:
How about Obama - who never supported the Iraq war. Does he fit into the 'just like a repubican' category ?

But what does he say now? He's voted for more funding, I recall reading that - which means he caved to Bush's demagoguery, just like most of the other Democrats. Are we to believe he would have done any differently if he were serving in congress when the whole thing started?.

There are some good Democrats out there. But they're too few to matter much. Again it's just a question of degree. You see the 2.5% difference between the two parties as worth consideration. I don't.

Quote:
This whole - 'they're JUST like' is, well, lame. At best.

I wholeheartedly agree

Quote:
Also, it's been 'progressives' - those damn whiny liberals - who've been at the forefront on these issues. Not 'fringe libertarians'.

I might vote for them then. Is Obama a 'progressive'?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:21 PM

Quote:
Where was he six years ago?

It Sarge X- YOu have an incredibly uninformed view of how Congress works. "Nearly equal partners", huh? Okay- who controls the committees? Why, it's the majority party! Who proposes legislation? The majority party! Who holds hearings? The majority party!

There was a Democrat (can't recall who) who wanted to hold hearings about Iraq. He was told by the Senate committee leader that he couldn't hold "hearings" but he could have a small meeting. And then he was relegated to a small basement room- I kid you not- w/ no room for the press. And the electricity "failed" partway through.

So, what should the Dems do? If they try to bring up hearings it's "not getting the job done". If they block Republican legslation and appointments its "being obstructive". "Nearly equal partners" means nothing. The best you can do is fillibuster (which, if you recall the Republicans threatened to do away with). You assume there is some sort of partnership in Congress- there isn't. The Repugs are following a scorched-earth strategy.

Now, I grant you that the Demcratic Party's vote against the Iraq incursion, US Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act etc. should have been more robust. It would have looked as if they were at least united in opinion, even if they couldn't actually block anything. But the fact is that the Democratic vote for liberty is far more frequent than the Repugs. You can reform The Dems by pressure and by vote. You can't reform the Repugs- for now they're a lost cause.

---------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:52 PM

Votes against Iraq incursion:
DEMOCRATS- Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone, Wyden

REBULICANS- Chafee

INDEPENDENTS Jeffords

Votes against the Miliary Commissions Acts
DEMOCRATS- Lincoln, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Biden, Akaka, Inouye, Harkin, Durbin, Obama, Bayh, Kennedy, Kerry, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Levin, Dayton, Baucus, Conrad, Dorgan, Bingaman, Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Reed, Leahy, Cantwell, Murray, Feingold, Kohl, Byrd

INDEPENDENTS Jeffords

REPUBLICANS Snowe (did not vote), Chafee, Wyden

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:59 PM

Is that an accurate list? I know of at least one Republican you left off.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:08 PM

"Where was he six years ago? It seems a little pointless to impeach at this point."

From Wexler's Home page

"A Case for Hearings

On November 7, 2007 the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin."

So - the House - under the Democrats - sent a resolution to impeach Cheney, and Wexler is trying to move it along. I don't really know what else you could expect out of him, especially 6 years ago considering the process that can only be invoked by the majority. Read that a couple of times so you can get what it means. 6 years ago impeachment was not AT ALL possible. You going to blame democrats for that ?

Now, going to his biography:

"During his tenure in Congress, Wexler has authored numerous bills including the Honor Thy Parents Act, which proposed an inexpensive and comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, and the Social Security Forever Act, which extended the life of the Social Security trust fund for future generations. Wexler is committed to providing health care to all Americans and ensuring that senior citizens have access to the high quality care that they deserve.

Congressman Wexler is a nationally recognized advocate for the integrity of our election system. Following the 2000 presidential election controversy in Florida that centered in his district, Congressman Wexler has worked to ensure that all election machines produce a voter verified "paper trail." Wexler has filed federal and state lawsuits asking that a paper trail be mandatory, and during the summer of 2007 Wexler joined Florida Governor Charlie Crist as the state's historic paper trail legislation was signed into law."

He has good ideas, BUT - as a minority-party congressman they couldn't get anywhere.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

On to the next

"(Obama's) voted for more funding, I recall reading that - which means he caved to Bush's demagoguery, just like most of the other Democrats."

Or maybe he's doing what he said he would do:

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

Strange that, a politician who does what he says he will do, and it being held against him as a liability. Do you find that strange as well ?

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

"There are some good Democrats out there. But they're too few to matter much."

Hmmm ... it seems that the House democrats - with a solid, though not veto-proof - majority are actually doing stuff you wouldn't find repubicans doing. And never did find repubicans doing. And never will find repubicans doing. Like voting to start impeachment investigations.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:09 PM

That's Senate vote list, not House.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:19 PM

Yes. I couldn't find a roll-call vote by the House, but the vote was pretty much along party lines and very close:

In an unusual two-step, lawmakers first voted 253-154 to approve the omnibus spending bill; they then voted 206-201 to add $31 billion for troops in Afghanistan to the measure. The combined $516 billion spending package is set for Senate debate on Tuesday.

Democrats simply had it all over repubicans on that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:36 PM

Too little, too late. Obama's just another car salesman. If his schtick works for you, great. Maybe you're right. But everything I see from him, or Hillary, points to more of the same. They're the kind of people who play the system. They do what they have to get votes. They smile and shake hands at all the right moments. They give warm, glowing speeches about hope and change and apple pie. They whip out their canned quips, supplied by their staff of 'handlers'. Everything they do is painfully phony and clearly a product of Madison Avenue psychology.

We have a system that rewards shrewd manipulators and punishes everyone else. I don't know how you can pretend it will offer us anything other than crap. Ultimately, sadly, we'll get the government we deserve. If we wake up and reject the 'reality-show' mentality of mainstream politics, maybe we'll see some improvement. But when's that happening?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:18 PM

You're completely ignoring the repubican record. And by doing that you're saying that everything THEY chose to do - doesn't matter to you.

Or maybe you really don't know what the record is, since your posts have been so wildly off track from reality. So, since you seem to be so woefully ignorant about repubicans, here are some things we DO know about your buds, for your edification:

Repubicans had the US PATRIOT Act drafted 6 months before 9/11. Do you really think Gore would have done that ?

Repubicans have made 'voter fraud' and 'real ID' their pet projects, despite strong opposition from democrats at all levels. You down with being in a biometric database just to keep your vote ? You want more of the same ? 'Cause your friends did that, all on their own.

Repubicans jury-rigged the Iraq NIE to get the Iraq vote they wanted. 'Ya know, you can't blame the democrats for voting how they voted - given the information they had. BTW - the estimate is that there were probably 4 repubicans in the loop when it came to real information. You like that ? Go ahead then, say it doesn't matter, keep enabling them.

Anyway, I have work to do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You know, I consider the haters of liberty to fall into several camps

the repubican partisans who'd take the country over a cliff as long as it meant 'they' got to 'win'. Geezer, Hero, Finn, Rap et al - you know who you are.

the single issue 'freedom lovers' who just can't be bothered with liberty as long as they get to keep their - gun, cigarettes - whatever

the people who are secretly happy to see gitmo, torture, the USPATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps and the rest, b/c they think it's all about terrorists and whiny liberals and it'll never come home to them - up until voter ID - in which case the whole idea of government out of control comes as a shock

the people who refuse to exercise their freedom b/c it's not exactly how they want it, so - what's the point

and various shadings and combinations thereof.

Just curious Rue, where do you slot yourself?

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:23 PM

Writing letters, paying big bucks, and fighting the fight to keep our liberties intact. Walking my talk. And you ?

Oh yeah, you're just a sideline slacker who has nothing better to do than troll.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Writing letters, paying big bucks, and fighting the fight to keep our liberties intact. Walking my talk. And you ?

Oh yeah, you're just a sideline slacker who has nothing better to do than troll.

And you know that how?

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:30 PM

Because you said so yourself. And who would know better than you ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:34 PM

I'm not crazy about Obama and I detest Hillary. I like Edwards because I think he's pointing to our REAL problem. But I'll vote for the lesser of two weevils if necessary, and push and shove in-between.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:38 PM

Oh, but SignyM - you forget - democrats and repubicans are exactly the same. Exactly ! There is no shade of better or worse here. And besides, the democrats have to make good on the Bush administration and repubican policies and so are locked onto them. Just like the repubican candidates. So you see, they are exactly like repubicans. Exactly !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Because you said so yourself. And who would know better than you ?

Prove it.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 10:54 PM

One last thing:

"Since the 2006 midterm elections the ... Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate."

So clearly my numbers - posted from the Senate website and taking into account resignations, governor appointments and party-switches - are in error.

Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

I bow to the wisdom of Wiki and rebuke the official record of note.

bastards

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:07 PM

Thanks Siggy, yeah Bev and Jim down at BBV are a wonder, and they got some good folk working for em, I don't really have the knowledge and expertise in that kind of thing to be much help, but I do support what they do.

As for the rest, the internet does change the game a bit, so long as it remains free - the mainstream media wouldn't touch the problems with taser and other abuses by law enforcement, but it's come to light publicly regardless.

That bein said, getting a hook into some media is a priority, but that's even harder than bending a politician, especially on a national scale where you have bastards like Sinclair and Murdochs petty little empire, and the remains of Hearsts snivelling bastards too.

Really we need to start building our own media companies, but we got precious little support on that aspect at the current time.

And a note on committe control - why do you think I am up Conyers ass all the time, hell, even his WIFE is trying to put the arm on him, while he's practically hiding under the Judiciary Committe Table.
=====================

Rue, they GOT enough seats to push the issue, especially when popular opinion is so goddamn strong in LIGHT of the media trying to bury it...

So it's not a total overwhelming majority, so what, if that bitch Pelosi ever got off her ass, if that pansy Conyers ever did, the public outcry over even a tenth part of the resultant investigation would BURY those sumbitches, why the hell do you think their approval rating is in the crapper ?

Cause they begged those seats on the promise that they would put an end to this madness, and when they got em they rolled over and played dead, cause in the end they figure they can carry 2008 and then all this front loaded executive power falls into their hands, which is what they want.

They don't wanna cut the leash, they just wanna change who's holding it and I TOLD YOU THAT, TWICE, just before those elections, I'm quite sure Sarge remembers me saying exactly that.

And hell yes I am mocking peaceful protest, when folks stage a peaceful protest and get PLOWED UNDER, violently, by agents of the state, and it doesn't even make the news - you have not accomplished a damned thing but get your ass kicked, and by not defending yourself once attacked like that, hell yes it DOES send the message to the status quo that brutal repression works.

In case you somehow managed to miss it, I can and have held signs along with other folk, but only folk who aren't going to curl into a little ball and beg for mercy when their legal rights are stomped on.

Like Ghandi said, nonviolence doesn't mean you are UNABLE to strike, it shows the maturity of not wanting to settle things that way if you do not have to - but he also advocated defending yourself, with violence if need be, should you BE attacked.

You wanna do something, fine, do something, but be prepared to stand in your own defense or don't bother - maybe that's not how you look at it, but I do... and to sit there busting MY chops when you know damn well I am attacking the root of the problem at the earliest point of intervention is idiotic.

I do what I can on the here and now, but my primary focus is on breaking the chain of abusive and dehumanising conditioning that makes children into those sociopathic corpo climbing drones who contribute to the process, and YOU KNOW THIS, or you damn well should by now, and it's damned thankless work and a lot of it freakin dangerous as well as traumatising to anyone who does do it, one reason I have such a soft spot for Protect.org

But the means and methods are something that will not be discussed not only because it would compromise the process, but let me be blunt, you do NOT want to know, just scratching the surface on some of this shit would give you nightmares for weeks, I guarantee it, do you really WANT to hear a blow by blow account of how a 7 year old was brutalized and slowly crushed to death for the horrible "crime" of blowing bubbles in her milk ?

You wanna bust my chops so bad, you go visit some of these fucking

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:47 PM

FremD

You walk your talk.

I just can't see NOT voting AGAINST the repubican policies b/c the democrats aren't 'good enough' for you. That's like handing over a signed blank check for more of the same.

***************************************************************
That pretty much sums it up for me.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Because you said so yourself. And who would know better than you ?

Prove it.

Bump for Rue, still waiting.

RUE

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:58 PM

Has to do with de-lurking to ... stir stuff up.

Not, to contribute, not to discuss, not to express - naaahhh, just to be a twerp. BTW, I did a google search under de-lurking to stir - no quotes or anything. And by gum, there you were at the top of the search. You made quite and ass of - I mean a name for - yourself with that.

***************************************************************
Gooood joooob.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Has to do with de-lurking to ... stir stuff up.

Not, to contribute, not to discuss, not to express - naaahhh, just to be a twerp. BTW, I did a google search under de-lurking to stir - no quotes or anything. And by gum, there you were at the top of the search. You made quite and ass of - I mean a name for - yourself.

Talk about an irrelevant distraction.

You do know the difference between a fan-site and real life right? Or are you too much of a doofus to figure it out?

Tell me how you know anything about what any of the Posters on this site do in real life? I've seen you make broad generalizations about a number of people which I'm guessing you are basing solely on a few anonymous posts from a fan-site.
How do I know you write letters and spend money in defense of liberty? Am I supposed to take your word for it? And who do you write letters too? Where does your money go? Do you have certain hot button issues which you focus on? Do those include smoking and gun ownership or are you a hypocrite?

SERGEANTX

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:13 AM

Quote:
Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100

I bow to the wisdom of Wiki and rebuke the official record of note.

bastards

Since your numbers are from 2005-2007, it may be that they don't include the midterm election. It's not really a big deal one way or another from my point of view. They'd already let us down long before then anyway.

Anwway, I'm not saying they are exactly the same. But they're the same basic animals at the core. Both parties want a large, powerful government and they want to control it. I think that's why you don't get my ambivalence toward the 'differences' between the parties. To you, they're real differences because both the Democrats and Republicans both agree about the big powerful government part. To you, the important part is how to use government power. To me, it's how we can go about getting rid of as much of it as possible.

From my point of view neither party is addressing the central problem. Until we reign in the overgrown and overreaching government policies in general, the situation will be unacceptable. As I said, I was willing to vote Democrat to get Bush out of office. But I see no point in wasting my vote on someone I disagree with when it's a coin toss which one would be better.

We'll see. If it comes down to Giuliani vs Edwards, I'd probably entertain voting for Edwards. But Clinton vs Giuliani is a tossup. We'll all lose big if those two get it.

To get back to your original question, it may be clear by now that I think the threat of the third party run is good thing. It's about the only damper on our freefall right now. It would be even better if we could changed the system so that it wasn't rigged.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:31 AM

Quote:
But they're the same basic animals at the core.

Ah, the infamous "they". A couple of people in the Republican party are downright decent. A few more (IMHO) in the Dem party are also downright decent. Support them with money come election time, even if they're not from your state.

There used to be a poster who has long since disappeared. Bright guy, self-professed tomato farmer in upstate NY if I recall correctly. He used to say that the best way to swing the Presidential vote is not with a third-party candidate but in the primaries. That's when a small group can make a HUGE difference. But AFA Congress is concerned, I think third parties would are a GREAT idea. We should see more of them.

PS: BDN, you've gotten better but a lot of your old posts were rather trollish.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:37 AM

SergeantX

"I think the threat of the third party run is good thing."

In Congress - yeah. For the WH - not so much. And first you have to get the sick bastards out. We can squabble about the niceties later.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, the infamous "they". A couple of people in the Republican party are downright decent. A few more (IMHO) in the Dem party are also downright decent. Support them with money come election time, even if they're not from your state.

Sure, I'm overgeneralizing, and we should definitely get behind the few that don't completely suck.

Quote:
He used to say that the best way to swing the Presidential vote is not with a third-party candidate but in the primaries. That's when a small group can make a HUGE difference.

Ayup, I was part of those conversations and I'm walking that path currently. Why else would I tarnish my "good" name by registering as a... ahem

Republican?

But a third party challenge keeps parties at least somewhat interested in the desires of the minority.

Quote:
... but a lot of your old posts were rather trollish.

moi?

guess it depends on whether I'm typing under the influence or not.

You haven't really improved, btw, but, you know, keep working on it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:45 AM

Quote:
moi?

NO NO!!! I'm sorry! That was to BDN!!! Let me edit my post... post-haste!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:46 AM

Oh dear, I think SignyM meant BDN.

And when it comes to trollish - not sure if I count but I do get VERY heated when discussing the topic. At least I'm on topic though !

***************************************************************
Best that can be said. Oh, and I express my opinions. No guessing about what they are.

Oh yeah - and to add to that - when Bush got handed the WH the first time he promised to be a 'uniter not a divider' and to 'to restore dignity to The White House.' Very shortly after that it became 'my way or the highway' (Paul O'Neill 'The Price of Loyalty') and a nastier set of political thugs, liars and crooks had never been assembled.

So I get how people mouth platitudes and make promises they fully intend to break - just to get into the WH.

Should it happen on an egregious scale with a democrat as it did with the repubicans I will join all you naysayers. But if it doesn't - and I'm thinking I'm right - I will say I told you so and at every opportunity.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:53 AM

"I just can't see NOT voting AGAINST the repubican policies b/c the democrats aren't 'good enough' for you. That's like handing over a signed blank check for more of the same."

Too bloody true, I *did* vote for Granholm, but she bought that through smashing a ring of predators I had been trying to bring down for years - and she did it in six weeks.

Not to mention being sick of Engler and his shite, not the least of which was the Metrocars deal, which directly impacted ME negatively via my employment.

Second time around, well, what did they have.. DeVos ? and his connection to Amway and that nutter Erik Price of Blackwater USA, who has recently been thrown OFF the IMA/IPOA, often mockingly regarded as the "Merc Council".

It sure didn't help his case to show up disheveled and hung over to a debate with a woman ever so capable of handing him his ass verbally even on his BEST day, neither.

I adore Jenny, but yanno, I don't think she's ruthless enough for politics, she still expects people to do their job, even when sandbagging it is of more political benefit... the budget crisis showed that, and it also showed the MI Rethugs were fuckin liars, since we seem to have a budget SURPLUS rather than the deficit they SAID we had, once the numbers came out - and they pulled that shit to bait the Dems into raising taxes so they'd look bad.

Jenny wants to apply that surplus by cutting gas taxes, giving us poor fuel dependent folks a break, but those same sandbagging, lying, backstabbing Rethugs are fighting it tooth and claw cause they wanna earmark it for some juicy pork... grrr.

I hate both sides equally, but when I DO have an opportunity of any kind to hack this crap off at the knees, I take it and hammer it down all the way, you bet.

-F

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:58 AM

THIS DOUBLE POST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BIG BROTHER.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You only say so 'cause you're an idiot.

Who gave us the USPATRIOT Act ? Gitmo ? Pen-registers and trap-and-trace on 10% of everyone in the US ?

So, rather than take a little step away from the fire you'd rather stand where you are 'cause that little step isn't absolutely everything you want. Sit and burn, then.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Wow Rue. I don't think I've ever seen you attack anyone before.

I'm assuming from prior conversations that we've had here that you don't condone the Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc..... What are you doing about it?

Not trying to pick a fight with you or anything. Honest qustion. I know you lump me in this category, so I'm just curious what advice you would give me since your frustration is not only with Wolfenstar, but with me and others like me as well.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:17 AM

Sorry 6-ix, but I took a look at your posts with the pictures all in a row and all I could think of was - wow, if they were each just a little different from the other you could flip them really fast and watch 'em move.

Mostly I try to be informed about the issues and records so I'm not going on feel-good commercials, distractions and lies. And I give money - till it hurts - to the one organization that seems to be doing anything at all about it - the EFF. And write, write write those letters. To senators, and representatives and newspapers. And keep my eyes out for candidates that are better on liberty than the incumbents. (Feinstein is a democrat and she sucks. I swear she thinks she represents the state of Israel, not California. I can hardly wait till someone challenges her. They WILL get the biggest checks I can write.) Support their candidacies. And write, write write some more of those letters. Mostly, I do what I can.

BTW, I'm curious myself. To me repubican intentions to reduce liberty were very clear. That's why I railed against the US PATRIOT Act, sneak and peak, illegal wiretaps, gitmo, torture, signing statements, so-called voter fraud, data-mining and databases, and the like. But the silence here was deafening.

Did none of these make any alarm bells go off with you ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:57 PM

IMHO the Dems are rather split. There are Dems who just want to make our cage a little fluffier while taking away any real say in anything. I count Hillary in that camp. Last thing I want is to be tossed into the maw of the health insurance industry, just like I didn't want to be tossed into the maw of the internationals.

I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who promised to pull out of NAFTA, gut the MCA and USPAT acts, rescind the DMCA, and trash all of those "business-friendly" government mandates that strip us and lay us bare for the rape. Unfortunately he has a snowball's chance in hell.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, August 17, 2025 3:39 PM

Trump isn’t the main villain in Texas’ gerrymander scheme
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-isnt-the-main-villain-in-te
xas-gerrymander-scheme/

The biggest, bestest, most beautiful bill in the world pushes national debt past $37 trillion
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/08/13/trump-bill-debt/

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill predicted to cause debt and delayed care
https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-predicted-
203655716.html

Gerrymandering arms race on horizon
https://www.miningjournal.net/opinion/editorial/2025/08/gerrymandering
-arms-race-on-horizon/