Getting scarier and scarier... TONYT- for you. Signy
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 14:11
VIEWED: 19297
PAGE 1 of 3
This gun thing has really got me bothered. First there was the guy at the Obama event last week carrying a handgun--now I see he's been tied to Arizona milita groups:
Gun toter at Obama rally tied to Arizona separatist groups
The man who brought a gun to President Barack Obama's town hall meeting on Tuesday is a former Arizona resident with ties to an extreme right-wing group that calls for "resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."
William Kostric, 36, formerly of Scottsdale, stood outside the New Hampshire meeting on healthcare with a gun holstered at his thigh and holding a sign proclaiming that "it is time to water the tree of liberty."
The quote, often referenced by militia members and those in separatist movements, refers to Thomas Jefferson's famous call for vigilance: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
Records show that Kostric is a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People Foundation, which has a stated goal of "returning America to it's founding principles."
On its Web site, We the People's founder, Robert Schulz, says: "Our recent initiatives have focused largely on questioning the federal government's abuse of its Constitutional powers to incur debt, tax labor, create currency by fiat, conduct war and police the peace," We the People says on its Web site.
While the group maintains that it is not concerned with politics or personalities in office, Schulz is a proud supporter of the birther movement (those folks who believe that Obama wasn't really born in the United States and shouldn't be president) and We the People joined a lawsuit challenging Obama's presidency based on his citizenship.
Kostric could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But records show he recently moved from Scottsdale to New Hampshire.
Kostric's My Space page is replete with paeans to militia groups.Among his heroes, Kostric lists Randy Weaver, the anti-government separatist and end-time believer whose wife and son died during a shoot out with FBI agents at Ruby Ridge.
NOW, while having breakfast this morning, I hear about this one:
Man Carrying An Assault Rifle And Pistol Outside Obama Event
(Late update: CNN now reports that there were two men carrying assault rifles, reportedly AR-15s, outside President Obama's event in Phoenix.)
A man was seen carrying an assault rifle and a pistol outside the VFW Convention in Phoenix where President Obama spoke today, a local newspaper reports.
Local police said it's legal under Arizona law, but two officers kept close by him.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
The man, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."
Apparently the man giving the interview was also carrying a pistol
There's something wrong here, and it's discomfiting. A friend asked me why we didn't see this during Bush's term; of course the answer is easy. If anyone had tried, they'd have been whisked off to Gitmo or someplace and never heard from again. Just show's ta go 'ya, in my opinion, who the real "dictator" was around here recently (yes, I'm biased; bite me! 
It bothers me, with the racism still evident in all that's happening with the birthers, the deathers, the town halls, etc., the fact that militias are on the rise, and all the anger and upheaval the state of the economy and nation has brought about...It worries me.
Together we are more than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm willing to see these people at face value, and not just assume they have an agenda beyond what they're claiming.
There's a difference between Republicans and Libertarians, you know. And the average citizen, well, they're not manipulative enough to lie about their political beliefs.
Are some of them right wing extremists? Yeah. But to look at a person and one sign, or carrying a gun, and say that makes them a birther, or pro-life, or racist, or believe in death panels... There's no way of knowing that.
I for one do believe that this country is in trouble. I'd hoped it could be resolved peacefully, through the legislative process, but more and more I'm seeing the complete resistance of the powers that be to change. It was true in the Bush administration, oh yes, and Obama is almost worse because he pretends like he's not doing the same things. But he is. He's okayed wire-tapping and water-boarding to continue, and what about Gitmo? Still open? Hmm.
I won't ever take up a gun. I won't ever hold a gun, because I think it's wrong to take life, and I think building a system based on threats and violence... Well, that's what got us where we are now.
If things destabilize, people will get hurt. I don't know if you can justify change if it hurts people. The road to hell and good intentions and all that.
But if I can see a way clear to gather together something new and good as things are coming apart, without hurting anyone? Then I'm going to be helping.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."
Im sure, to cowards, the thought of armed resistance to tyranny is horrifying.
However, I'm grateful that the American spirit of freedom, and resistance to subjugation, is still strong.
Count me in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By your statement, Bush should have been shot within the first year of office.
"Resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think he and Cheney should have been arrested by the citizens and detained somewhere for the remaining seven years. Maybe put on a tiny little leaky boat with a fishing net and sent out into the ocean if we were feeling poetic.
Although the idea of making them wear black hoods in some dank dungeon somewhere makes me SMILE.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."
Im sure, to cowards, the thought of armed resistance to tyranny is horrifying.
However, I'm grateful that the American spirit of freedom, and resistance to subjugation, is still strong.
Count me in.
So tell us all, Wulfie, why are YOU still here, when you should be out there on the front lines with your guns?
Oh yeah... it's because you're a coward.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL
I agree with the stuff about Bush.
Sorry that Im late to the party. But hey, at least now I'm paying attention to whats going on.
And, as to the front lines...
Well, gotta stock up first, right?
(I keed I keed)
Look, truth be told, Bush did some heinous sh*t and should have been made to pay for it. But, noone was paying attention. Now we are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, a woman/man (?) after my own heart. Everything you said in your last post. Along with Sygnym's "By your statement, Bush should have been shot within the first year of office". And then some.
I'm not happy with Obama, and he is slowly losing my "hope and change" belief; let's say I'm angry with him right now, and trying hard to hang on and give it time. Eight months ain't much in a lifetime, and compared to what we had...
But I don't take anyone at face value as being part of something else unless they say so. It' is ALL the stuff that's going on that makes me uncomfortable, not any one group but many, not any one political philosophy but many, not any one person with a gun, but many, etc.
It's terribly ironic to me that Obama is being called the names he is, given the past few years and the short time he's been in office. Why the hue and cry now, when everything Obama's done so far, Bush did so much MORE of and did so much WORSE? It's weird, the only thing I can think of is a combinaiton of those people out there whose racism is still so deeply ingrained they'll take anything that might make him not "be", and that people of one political philsophy are far more intense than the other...? Does anyone else have any better answer?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think we've seen what all Obama's doing. The media has the attention span of a two month old puppy. On a sugar high. ON CRACK.
The lies Bush and Cheney constructed started to fall apart because they suck at lying. Look at Cheney with his continuing blathering on about the necessity of what they did. HOW did these people trick most of America? It boggles my mind. Anyone with the tiniest smudge of critical thinking skill could look at Colin Powell's power point presentation and see the gaping holes in the intelligence and the hand waving he was having to do. I guess when the puppeteers are done with you, they cut you loose to fend for yourselves, eh?
But Obama... I have the distinct feeling, with his silvered tongue, that he may be the world's greatest liar, because he can make things sound true. I think he's Cheney with charisma.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gawd I hope you're wrong. The idea of ANYONE of cheney's mentality being back in power is TRULY terrifying. I don't see Obama like that; if anything, my first concerns about him seem more likely; I liked him but was afraid they'd eat him up. I think his intentions are good, but I don't know if he'll manage to pull anything off, especially with his penchant for "compromise in the name of bipartisanship".
How could they trick the people? One of my bumperstickers: "How could 52 million people be so stupid?!" Ignorance and stupidity: the single easiest things to manipulate.
As to the Bush/Cheney Administration, uh, incompetent some? Easy to fool the masses sometimes, harder to keep it up when you've got cronies in office who don't know what they're doing...IMHO
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ha, incompetence true enough. Though sometimes I wonder if they just 1) didn't care and 2) wanted us scared.
But no, the media wouldn't eat Obama up. And not because they're a "liberal" media (no such thing) or because of his race, either. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck and other right-wing manipulation pawns who try to pretend they're libertarian and aren't didn't pull punches, though that's not saying much because they have zero credibility.
The media couldn't attack Obama because they don't WANT to attack Obama. They want him in power, the people running the media, and I'm terrified to even imagine why that might be.
Ask yourself if you really think anyone in the media has tried to attack Obama. It's not because there hasn't been things to call him on. But the media hasn't reported on those things for more than a day or an hour before trying to refocus everyone's attention elsewhere.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Same thing happened with the Bush admin. The media are just cheerleaders and Bush and Obama are the captains of the team. Goooooo America!
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ask yourself if you really think anyone in the media has tried to attack Obama. It's not because there hasn't been things to call him on. But the media hasn't reported on those things for more than a day or an hour before trying to refocus everyone's attention elsewhere.
I wouldn't be too worried about the evil conspiracy of the media--really, they want Obama in power precisely because the American consumer wants Obama in power. AS SOON as the American consumer turns on Obama (when/if), the media will turn him into a joke. But until such time, Obama is the star quarterback for the best team IN THE WORLD! Whoohoo!
A wise man once said, "News is the stuff they don't want you to know, everything else is just advertising." And the MSM has been in the business of advertising for most of my lifetime.
Also:
Quote:There is one way of knowing, Bytemite. A way that anyone with discernment and a desire to understand reality before it beats them to a pulp can and must use, and that is to understand context.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Are some of them right wing extremists? Yeah. But to look at a person and one sign, or carrying a gun, and say that makes them a birther, or pro-life, or racist, or believe in death panels... There's no way of knowing that.
They didn't just bring their assault rifles to a family picnic, they took 'em where the President of the United States was speaking. And not just any--and certainly not every--President, but the first ever black President of this nation. They never brought the guns before, but now they bring the guns. Why? What has changed? What is different about the present situation from the past? Y'all wanna say that these guys opposed Bush every bit as much as Obama, that government abuse of power is the problem. But their actions betray you. Anyone who's paying attention can know that it's b.s. because the previous admin. was every bit as intrusive as this admin (VASTLY MORESO, even).
So, no, that must not have been the tipping point. The context, that's what's different. They didn't bring the guns and the "Death to" signs to Bush's rallies. They bring 'em to this President's appearances.
They have singled out this President. For some deeply mysterious reason. But I guess, we can never know anything about that. Move along, Bytemite, nothing to see here...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What makes you think I like Bush? Where have I said that?
All I'm saying is don't make assumptions about people's motivations. Or am I racist, too?
Obama has received, I've heard 400x the number of death threats than normal at this time in a presidential term. And you're right, there's no secret about that, or why.
But people are taking one look at these people at these rallies and determining that because of a trend, oh, look, they MUST be racist. Or pro-life. Or WHATEVER.
That is a logical fallacy. It's called the fallacy of accident, and also has elements of the association fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/accident.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."
Im sure, to cowards, the thought of armed resistance to tyranny is horrifying.
However, I'm grateful that the American spirit of freedom, and resistance to subjugation, is still strong.
Count me in.
Me too, bitches!
I'm not in love with the thought of having to go out and shoot people, or have them shoot at me, but I will not sit idly by and let tyranny take hold in my country. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. I will resist. I will fight. I will not falter in my belief that freedom is worth dying for.
I pray it doesn't come to that, but if it does, expect to see me out there with the 3% who give enough of a damn to fight it.
Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"--oh, I believe that 100%. That's why I was out there demonstrating right along with them during Bush.
But where were you and all these good men when Bush was in power, abusing our civil rights, trampling our Constitution, and all the rest? I don't get that--Obama hasn't even BEGUN to do the kind of things Bush did with impunity for eight years, yet the Right has made him the anti-Christ in eight MONTHS. Weird...
"I will not sit idly by and let tyranny take hold in my country" ... uhhh, we just had a tyrant, by every definition I've ever seen.
Tyrant (according to Webster):
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
So where was 'ya? 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I just realized your response to my first post started out "I'm willing to see these people at face value, and not just assume they have an agenda beyond what they're claiming." Did you think that's what I was doing? Because I wasn't...I have no idea what their agenda might be...it bothers me that one has ties to a militia, but I don't know beyond that.
It's the whole THING that's bothering me. All the upset we've seen since Obama's Presidency began, it's not like anything I've ever seen before, and I've been around (well, aware anyway) since Kennedy.
I put it down to what's happened to the country for eight years which has resulted in the economic impact on EVERYONE--major impact, the war, all those affected by Katrina, our standing in the world, global warming fears, the Religious Right, and on and on...but mostly the things tha hit people where they LIVE...and yes, to the racism that still lives in the hearts of many who simply cannot accept the concept of a Black President.
Whatever these PARTICULAR people think, I don't know, but it's the timbre of the country that's making it happen, and all the rest, to me. Maybe I wasn't clear about that, sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How do I put this... I agree with what you just said, and thank you for elaborating on your views of these people. I believe now that this comment:
Quote:
It bothers me, with the racism still evident in all that's happening with the birthers, the deathers, the town halls, etc., the fact that militias are on the rise, and all the anger and upheaval the state of the economy and nation has brought about...It worries me.
Gave me the wrong impression.
But I'm not so sure I didn't see anger during the Bush administration either. I think the left-wing may just be a more quiet, person by person bunch, but I saw the anger at Bush, and I saw the hate at Bush.
To be fair, I hate him too.
I think this is more an issue of unprecedented publicity and coverage than it is an issue of unprecedented unrest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Bush did some heinous sh*t and should have been made to pay for it. But, noone was paying attention. Now we are.
You're shitting me, right?
Because YOU weren't paying attention, you suppose no one else was, either?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points, everyone.
I think the folk packing openly and publicly are actually trying to point out the guardrails before this administration drives off the road and over a cliff, honestly - but they're doing it in a fashion that's perhaps counterproductive.
And there's also that given how this administration has been caught out using plants and shills already, I would not put it past them to either work that angle to discredit people - or play the game *I* do with some of the more wacky rightwingers and bait them into doing stupid shit to discredit entire political factions.
Plus there's confusion to the issue besides, like the town hall stuff - you got right wingies who just hate the black/liberal guy, you got paid shills for big pharma and the healthcare industry, unpaid shills they've baited with propaganda by playing on their own treasured ignorance and stupidity - but you ALSO have honest, forthright americans with real concerns who are severely pissed off, who get tossed into the "nutter" trashheap with the former just cause they share a single political opinion.
Folk need to realize the truth of this country's original motto - E Pluribus Unum.
Each of us speaks, for each of US - we're individuals acting in concert, and as such just because a person shares maybe ONE political opinion with another person, doesn't mean they agree on any damned thing else.
But when we ALL start agreeing on something, the combined power of that opinion is something that even the powers that be are frightened of.
And THAT, folks, is why they play divide and conquer - something we need to overcome if we're ever to be anything but their servants.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"--oh, I believe that 100%. That's why I was out there demonstrating right along with them during Bush.
But where were you and all these good men when Bush was in power, abusing our civil rights, trampling our Constitution, and all the rest? I don't get that--Obama hasn't even BEGUN to do the kind of things Bush did with impunity for eight years, yet the Right has made him the anti-Christ in eight MONTHS. Weird...
"I will not sit idly by and let tyranny take hold in my country" ... uhhh, we just had a tyrant, by every definition I've ever seen.
Tyrant (according to Webster):
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
So where was 'ya?
Thanks, Niki - couldn't have said it better myself. All these chairborne rangers, where were they for the last eight years?
Apparently, as Wulfie said, they weren't paying attention. But NOW they are, so we better look out!
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike, I was going to leave it alone.
But really, where were YOU?
Chairborne Rangers... lol I like that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Frem, I don't toss those people with concerns in the dumpster; one of the reasons I'm so pissed off about it all is that THEY are being denied their freedom to listen to and question their representatives, which is stifling of freedom of speech. I don't care whether it's left, right or middle, I want them all to have their chance to do what a town hall meeting is intended to let them do. It's not happening, and to have the disrupters screaming about their "freedom of speech" makes smoke come out my ears.
"I think the folk packing openly and publicly are actually trying to point out the guardrails before this administration drives off the road and over a cliff, honestly". Clarify, pls? Do you mean they're saying "you're nearing the cliff, we're gonna shoot you if you try to go over"? That's confusing.
I think anyone who walks around at an event with a gun is making a statement I'm not happy to hear. It's a threat, pure and simple...or it's showing off, I dunno. But with all the police around, nobody needs a gun, obviously. Since I haven't heard them doing it at any of the other town halls, as Mike said, it's about Obama. I don't know what their individual ideology is, tho' that one guy's seems to be pretty clear (the birther with ties to the militia), but a gun where not needed at a Presidential event? Sounds like a show of force, to me.
Too much is happening. Of the wrong kind. There has to be some reason for it. Look: Bush's approval ratings were in the tank, McCain/Palin played on the worst fears of everyone and riled up their base, Obama won by a landslide, the rilinig up of the base has gone on since he was elected, Republican numbers have gone down steadily as they got more and more strident and became the "party of no", and now militias on the rise and guns openly. Put it all together. Does it spell "hard-core minority" to anyone else?
I don't think it's at ALL a matter of us all agreeing on something which creates combined power, I think it's the provocation and manipulation of the worst aspect of American's mentality and stirring up of the worst Americans. People may be upset about politics, but he still has the approval of over half of us; for all this to be happening all around despite that says something about an aggressive minority IMHO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know where I was guys; out demonstrating against Iraq and all the stuff Bush was pulling. PEACEFULLY demonstrating, not disrupting other people's rights. Not carrying around "Kill Bush" signs, not hanging him in effigy. Didn't do any good, but at least we tried.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, just a thought...
If the hippie libs had protested the war as Unconstitutional, instead of just "War is bad... BOOO" or "We hate violence, guns, and all that icky stuff", or "Bush lied", or "Whaaaa, we dont like the military just like our parents didn't" .... you might have had more of a following...
Btw, now that Bush is out... and your boy Obama is in... funny how the troops immediately came home.. right? Right?
No? You mean to say they are still over there?
I mean, I know that the media has stopped covering it, AND their deaths... but they ARE stil over there, RIGHT?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Forgive me if this post was not directed at me, but if it was, Byte, you missed my point. I know perfectly well you're not a Bushy. I neither said nor implies such. And I strongly doubt that you're racist. I had a point to make and all you got, using whatever fallacious logic you favor, was that I thought YOU were a Bush supporter. Depressing. Really. Try again.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What makes you think I like Bush? Where have I said that?
All I'm saying is don't make assumptions about people's motivations. Or am I racist, too?
Obama has received, I've heard 400x the number of death threats than normal at this time in a presidential term. And you're right, there's no secret about that, or why.
But people are taking one look at these people at these rallies and determining that because of a trend, oh, look, they MUST be racist. Or pro-life. Or WHATEVER.
That is a logical fallacy. It's called the fallacy of accident, and also has elements of the association fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/accident.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
One thing: no one's taking "one look" at these folks--we've been getting plenty of looks for well over a year now, since Palin & Co. first started grooming them. It's got nothing to do with healthcare. It's got nothing to do with "Obammar's gwanna take away ar guns!" And if, just IF, some particularly dim-witted and barely principled libertarians think they can ride the coat-tails of the loony racist white nationalists to political visibility by joining their protests, isn't it their own damn fault if the American people get the wrong idea?
Why the hell would a rational person go to a townhall meeting about health care to make a statement--and an obscure and threatening statement at that--about his 2nd Amendment rights? Counterproductive doesn't even begin to cover it.
Every libertarian I've ever met--including yourself--take TREMENDOUS pains to distance and distinguish themselves from the right wing statists. What self-respecting libertarian would join such a crowd without even waving a li'l "I'm a libertarian, damn it!" poster to help us understand??? They're plants or they're right wing wackos.
Motives as transparent as these can be discerned, no assumptions required.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Mike, I was going to leave it alone.
But really, where were YOU?
Chairborne Rangers... lol I like that.
Let's say I was NOT "not paying attention".
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You know, just a thought...
If the hippie libs had protested the war as Unconstitutional, instead of just "War is bad... BOOO" or "We hate violence, guns, and all that icky stuff", or "Bush lied", or "Whaaaa, we dont like the military just like our parents didn't" .... you might have had more of a following...
Well, as you've said, you really WEREN'T paying attention. As long as we were killing people less white than you, why SHOULD you pay attention, right? All was good and right with the world, as far as you were concerned.
Of course, if any of you so-called "libertarians" really cared anything at all about the Constitution and the rule of law and the infringement of personal liberties, you'd have been right there alongside the rest of us. But you're not really about that, much as you may claim to be, are you, Wulfie?
I'm sure you never noticed any of us protesting the Patriot Act, either, right? Sure, never happened because YOU weren't paying attention, despite all your "libertarian" beliefs.
Quote:
Btw, now that Bush is out... and your boy Obama is in... funny how the troops immediately came home.. right? Right?
No? You mean to say they are still over there?
I mean, I know that the media has stopped covering it, AND their deaths... but they ARE stil over there, RIGHT?
Much as I wish we would just pull out completely, tomorrow, that's really not a viable option. That's why you don't rush headlong into war - because you can't really rush headlong OUT of it when you decide it's not working out the way you'd hoped.
As for the media not covering it, maybe you're listening to the wrong media. Hint: Fox is not your friend. For all their talk and bluster about "supporting the troops" while your butt-buddy Bush was in office, they really could give two fucks about the soldiers now that they've been mired in the sandbox for the last six-plus years.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, I'm not libertarian.
Second, I thought you were bringing up how the media supported Bush as a counterpoint to my examples of how the media is supporting Obama, and thus insinuating that I'm neglecting the Bush years out of personal bias.
Third, the tone of your post as I read it set me on edge because I felt you were being condescending to me... Oh, Bytemite, you don't think these people are racist? but it's so obvious! *emoticon of head banging against wall*
If you didn't mean to come across that way, then my mistake, but that's impression I got, and that's why my response was tetchy. Nothing raises my hackles faster than if I feel like I'm not being respected, I get enough of that from my oh so loving family.
There are crazies coming out of the woodworks. I make no mistake nor quarrel about that. But we're also lumping together the concerned individuals coming to these townhall meetings with legitimate thought out concerns WITH the crazies. Assumptions like that shut down the communication dialogue that allows people to actually figure out just what the problem is and find solutions.
I mean, not everyone who goes to a townhall or who expresses a strong political opinion, be it left-leaning or right is necessarily crazy or ignorant, but because they're outspoken, they receive only mockery from the media. And the media is just deliberately fanning the flames and dividing everyone when we should be trying to seek common ground.
A political rally or discussion should be open to all people without fear of being labeled a nutjob, or racist, or associated with other negative or uninformed political stances simply because of the other people who may be attending.
But I guess my level of intelligence is "depressing" and I'm not sure why I've earned your ire when I was under the impression that we agreed on a lot of things, so I'm going to pull out now.
EDIT: Of the argument, not the entire RWED board. >_> Whoops!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm not libertarian.
There are crazies coming out of the woodworks. I make no mistake nor quarrel about that. But we're also lumping together the concerned individuals coming to these townhall meetings with legitimate thought out concerns WITH the crazies. Assumptions like that shut down the communication dialogue that allows people to actually figure out just what the problem is and find solutions.
Thank the right-wing crazytalkers for that. They're the ones who decided to rile up the nutbags and send them out to the town halls with the SPECIFIC intention of shouting down any reasoned debate with talking points that were distributed by "grassroots" organizations that were set up and are wholly funded and run by lobbying groups.
Quote:
I mean, not everyone who goes to a townhall or who expresses a strong political opinion, be it left-leaning or right is necessarily crazy or ignorant, but because they're outspoken, they receive only mockery from the media. And the media is just deliberately fanning the flames and dividing everyone when we should be trying to seek common ground.
Yes, I absolutely will mock you if you show up with your "Obama = Hitler" sign. If you're shouting "I don't want socialism, and DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" I will mock you mercilessly, because you're too stupid to be in a debate about these issues.
Quote:
A political rally or discussion should be open to all people without fear of being labeled a nutjob, or racist, or associated with other negative or uninformed political stances simply because of the other people who may be attending.
Yes, you should be able to speak - and I mean SPEAK, not yell - without being labeled a nutjob or a socialist by uninformed people who may be attending.
I'll go ya one further. You shouldn't be able to attend these meetings without a valid voter-registration card showing that you live in that state or district. Hey, I didn't hear the right-wingers complaining when Bush screened his crowds and screened the questions well beforehand. Can't we at least make sure that the people coming out to yell and holler are at least voters who live in that congressional district? After all, if you can't vote in that district, why do you even care how that congressional representative votes?
Quote:
But I guess my level of intelligence is "depressing" and I'm not sure why I've earned your ire when I was under the impression that we agreed on a lot of things, so I'm going to pull out now.
I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to respond. Your level of intelligence is far from "depressing" - it's downright REFRESHING. You have questions, as well you should. I applaud that, even though I may not applaud your conclusions. And you've certainly not "earned" my ire, that's for sure. What you've earned is my respect; while we disagree on some things, you've been more than civil (and more civil than I) on every post I can recall.
Pulling out would be our loss, and I'm hoping you'll stick around. Even a cynical old codger like myself has a few tricks still to learn, and you sticking around would be a good thing, cause you've got knowledge to share.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf, they did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Video of angry black militia gangmember carrying M16 to Obama rally:
http://www.breitbart.tv/exercising-my-rights-man-explains-why-he-carri
ed-rifle-near-obama-event/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If the above was referring to
"If the hippie libs had protested the war as Unconstitutional, instead of just "War is bad... BOOO" or "We hate violence, guns, and all that icky stuff", or "Bush lied", or "Whaaaa, we dont like the military just like our parents didn't" .... you might have had more of a following..."
Yes, we did. Constantly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Look, truth be told, Bush did some heinous sh*t and should have been made to pay for it. But, noone was paying attention. Now we are.
As long as it was a white cowboy in charge, the wingnuts couldn't be bothered to pay attention. But put a brother in there, and they're all about keeping a watchfull eye on Government.
No, not transparent at all. No siree.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You know, just a thought...
If the hippie libs had protested the war as Unconstitutional, instead of just "War is bad... BOOO" or "We hate violence, guns, and all that icky stuff", or "Bush lied", or "Whaaaa, we dont like the military just like our parents didn't" .... you might have had more of a following...
Btw, now that Bush is out... and your boy Obama is in... funny how the troops immediately came home.. right? Right?
No? You mean to say they are still over there?
I mean, I know that the media has stopped covering it, AND their deaths... but they ARE stil over there, RIGHT?
Why not just post "I'm ignorant" every time you feel the need to speak.
Sheesh, man, are you really that dumb?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok.
Im the last dumb guy in this country who believes in things known as "personal accountability", "freedom" and "faith".
I can live with that.
Oh, but wait.. I'm not.
There are actual people who hold to those truths too.
So, maybe...just maybe... there really is "HOPE" (the real stuff).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nikii
Quote:
one of the reasons I'm so pissed off about it all is that THEY are being denied their freedom to listen to and question their representatives, which is stifling of freedom of speech. I don't care whether it's left, right or middle, I want them all to have their chance to do what a town hall meeting is intended to let them do. It's not happening, and to have the disrupters screaming about their "freedom of speech" makes smoke come out my ears.
Oh yes, shouting someone down isn't at all about freedom of speech, that's about control - it means you want to shut them up, rather than engage their argument, and is about as stupid and counterproductive a thing as I have ever seen.
And worse, it buries the people with real, actual concerns they're pissed off about cause the powers that be and the downshouters are too busy laying salvos on each other for anything even remotely resembling rational discussion.
Free speech that ain't - I give ya that, cause in order to argue, you must LISTEN, and neither the Gov Shills or the Downshouters are even TRYING to.
But there's angry, pissed off, concerned folk among them too, gettin all the madder cause their concerns are not being addressed, as well.
Quote:
"I think the folk packing openly and publicly are actually trying to point out the guardrails before this administration drives off the road and over a cliff, honestly". Clarify, pls? Do you mean they're saying "you're nearing the cliff, we're gonna shoot you if you try to go over"? That's confusing.
I think anyone who walks around at an event with a gun is making a statement I'm not happy to hear. It's a threat, pure and simple...or it's showing off, I dunno. But with all the police around, nobody needs a gun, obviously. Since I haven't heard them doing it at any of the other town halls, as Mike said, it's about Obama. I don't know what their individual ideology is, tho' that one guy's seems to be pretty clear (the birther with ties to the militia), but a gun where not needed at a Presidential event? Sounds like a show of force, to me.
Regarding this...
Why does a person display, but not use a weapon ?
Why does a small animal show you it's teeth, but not bite you ?
Those kind of "threat displays" are the equivalent of a skunk doing a 180 and stamping it's feet, it's a headsup that you have done something to threaten or frighten them in a major way, which in combination with lack of an effective escape route or mitigation, causes a threat display not as an aggressive response, but as a defensive response.
This administration, coming on the heels of the last one, and instead of decently shitcanning the policies and abuses, taking that ball and running for the end zone ?
That scares the HELL out of people whether they admit it or not, and that is what this is, a visual display of that fear and concern in what I personally feel is an inappropriate manner, but these folk feel their concerns are NOT being addressed and felt a desperate need to bring attention to that fact, which if you have ever dealt with children - you'd know how human nature becomes when a need for attention is denied and the attention getting escalates into inappropriate behavior and stupidity.
Same thing, writ large, all it is.
Same response too, either you pound the kid into submission, which is indirectly the font of very MANY of our social issues...
Or you address the freakin concern before it gets out of hand.
Wulf
Quote:
If the hippie libs had protested the war as Unconstitutional, instead of just "War is bad... BOOO" or "We hate violence, guns, and all that icky stuff", or "Bush lied", or "Whaaaa, we dont like the military just like our parents didn't" .... you might have had more of a following...
*SMACK*
Pay ATTENTION Pinky, cause obviously you missed us so-called hippie libs doing *exactly fucking that* but buried under so much propaganda and harassment you'd have to really dig to find any of it.
And Ju
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...cause in order to argue, you must LISTEN, and neither the Gov Shills or the Downshouters are even TRYING to.
I disagree. I've seen numerous clips of representatives speaking directly to someone shouting and asking them questions or responding, only to be shouted down yet again...and I've seen some who've continued to try several times to address the shouter, to no avail.
Quote:
Why does a person display, but not use a weapon ?
I disagree again. Another reason to consider is that some people might bite into propaganda, been riled up deliberately to see things as more dramatic than they are, be frightened and manipulated into seeing things other than they actually are, and react out of same.
Not all of America is up in arms about the way things are being handled. Not all of America is inflamed about proposed healthcare reform. An awful lot of us are out here, angered and frustrated by what's happening in the town halls and elsewhere, but aren't in there shouting. Some of us recognize the futility in trying to stand up to "shills"...which I consider more pawns in the hands of paid organizations with agendas.
The fact that what's happening is dramatic gets it coverage. If you look, you will find instances of people speaking up against it and against the corporate lobbying interests who are behind it, who, yes, may have concerns, but aren't willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater or take up arms because their emotions are being played upon.
I maintain the people who act out, and those who are riled up by their actions and by other manipulations, are having their fear played upon to increase their emotional responses and for some of them to play into their conscious or unconscious racism and/or fear of something new and different. I do not think for one moment they are in the majority, or even a large minority, of the American people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or
Could be the start of a civil war...
lalalalalalala
Kidding.
As my wife put it, "Revolution? Are you F'ing kidding me? You mean to tell me that these lazy bastards are going to put down their X-box controllers, their Dvd players and actually go out and start fighting? These couch potatoes, these weak, pampered, idiots, will actually stand up for something? Please!!"
She and I disagree on a lot of things...
But I like to believe that the American people are more than that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok.
Im the last dumb guy in this country who believes in things known as "personal accountability", "freedom" and "faith".
I can live with that.
Oh, but wait.. I'm not.
There are actual people who hold to those truths too.
So, maybe...just maybe... there really is "HOPE" (the real stuff).
Or maybe, you're a nutty reactionary dipshit.
You are the one touting your own ignorance, after all.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I disagree. I've seen numerous clips of representatives speaking directly to someone shouting and asking them questions or responding, only to be shouted down yet again...and I've seen some who've continued to try several times to address the shouter, to no avail.
To some, it only counts as listening if you shut the hell up and do what they want you to.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why does a person display, but not use a weapon ?
Often enough, purely to CAUSE fear, and for intimidation. A bank robber who shows a weapon and doesn't use it isn't doing so out of fear, but rather to CAUSE fear in his intended victims.
Just another viewpoint to look at it from...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not all of America is up in arms about the way things are being handled. Not all of America is inflamed about proposed healthcare reform. An awful lot of us are out here, angered and frustrated by what's happening in the town halls and elsewhere, but aren't in there shouting. Some of us recognize the futility in trying to stand up to "shills"...which I consider more pawns in the hands of paid organizations with agendas.
Nope, a fair number of us are behind the scenes, quietly contacting our congressional representatives and our senators, and telling them to hold fast, that the loudest "fifteen-percenters" are NOT the majority, and don't speak for us, and that the polls aren't lying to them when they say that 72% of the American people WANT a public option offered. We're also letting them know that they don't have any need to offer any kind of "bipartisanship" to the other side, because no matter how many compromises they make, they aren't going to sway Republican votes in Congress. At this point, they are only losing DEMOCRATIC support by seeking a compromise and a middle ground - they're risking losing as many as 100 Democratic congresspeople, for a net gain of ZERO Republican votes. Where's the logic in that?
We're back here, behind that shouting mob, in the shadows, telling our elected officials what REAL Americans - the ones who aren't bought and paid for by Big Insurance, the Tea-Baggers, and Glenn Beck - are doing and thinking, and letting them know that they've got OUR support if they stay strong, and they're never going to get the support of those who seek to shout them down, no matter what.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bytemite, I seriously owe you an apology. Seems I needed reminding that I can be an arrogant jerk sometimes. I'm sorry you had to be the one administering that lesson.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
First off, I'm not libertarian.
So, you're another anarchist? Or undefined? Sorry, I misjudged and mislabeled you. I'm sure you don't like it any more than I do.
Quote:No, I really wasn't. I thought you were neglecting the Bush years 'cause you thought the media were partisan. I don't think they really are, I think they suck up to anyone their audience seems to like.
Second, I thought you were bringing up how the media supported Bush as a counterpoint to my examples of how the media is supporting Obama, and thus insinuating that I'm neglecting the Bush years out of personal bias.
Quote:That's a little closer to what I was saying, but I see an important distinction. If I may: I've developed a serious pet peeve around this idea, popularized by defenders of the previous admin, that you "CAN NEVER KNOW" what people's motive are from looking at their actions. You know, so Bush never lied, they say, because he never admitted to lying and we can't climb in Bush's head. Kinda makes my blood boil, that one. So I see you giving these wackos a pass based on the same questionable reasoning and I kinda go off on ya--not 'cause I think you're a Bushy but because I think you're not using your discernment. You can never be 100% sure, but I think it's intellectual cowardice--and dangerously naive--to say that we can't and don't make inferences based upon actions, particularly actions as outrageous as bringing assault rifles to see the President. I think it is RATHER OBVIOUS what their intentions were.
Third, the tone of your post as I read it set me on edge because I felt you were being condescending to me... Oh, Bytemite, you don't think these people are racist? but it's so obvious! *emoticon of head banging against wall*
Quote:This is where I get confused. You and Frem, too, seem to want to put the guys with the assault rifles in the "legitimate concerns" category and I'm shocked to see you both being (or seeming to be, of course--I'm not perfect and I admit that I'm still too baffled by your line of argument to be sure) so naive.
There are crazies coming out of the woodworks. I make no mistake nor quarrel about that. But we're also lumping together the concerned individuals coming to these townhall meetings with legitimate thought out concerns WITH the crazies.
I mean, seriously, think. If, say, John Edwards were President today, whose healthcare plan was much more sweeping than Obama's--Obama who's all but sold his soul to Big Pharma on this one already--do you think for a second we would have birthers and deathers and "off with his head" and assault rifles in hand? I just don't see it.
Quote:A man doesn't bring an assault rifle so he can dialogue with someone.
Assumptions like that shut down the communication dialogue that allows people to actually figure out just what the problem is and find solutions.
Quote:Apples and oranges! Strong political opinions /= rifles and death threats.
I mean, not everyone who goes to a townhall or who expresses a strong political opinion, be it left-leaning or right is necessarily crazy or ignorant, but because they're outspoken, they receive only mockery from the media.
Quote:I'm sorry, Bytemite, but this sounds very much like blaming people who talk about racism for racism. The divide is there, deep as our denial can dig. We're all just getting a really good look at now. I think one of the reasons Obama has been so freakin' useless lately is 'cause he's trying to do that--basically, trying to find common ground with people who despise him and actually wish him harm. He's gotta face facts. We all gotta face facts, I think.
And the media is just deliberately fanning the flames and dividing everyone when we should be trying to seek common ground.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As my wife put it, "Revolution? Are you F'ing kidding me? You mean to tell me that these lazy bastards are going to put down their X-box controllers, their Dvd players and actually go out and start fighting? These couch potatoes, these weak, pampered, idiots, will actually stand up for something? Please!!"
Sounds like she knows you well.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by HKCavalier:
So I see you giving these wackos a pass based on the same questionable reasoning and I kinda go off on ya--not 'cause I think you're a Bushy but because I think you're not using your discernment. You can never be 100% sure, but I think it's intellectual cowardice--and dangerously naive--to say that we can't and don't make inferences based upon actions, particularly actions as outrageous as bringing assault rifles to see the President. I think it is RATHER OBVIOUS what their intentions were.
I'm kinda right there with ya on that one, HK. When I saw the story about the guy with the "death to Obama and Michelle and her two stupid kids" sign outside the town hall meeting, it really didn't occur to me that he was most likely a loyal Obama supporter from way back who was personal friends with the President and the first family. No, I think it's pretty easy to figure out that this is someone who hates these people based on either their political views or simply because they're black. And since "her two stupid kids" don't really HAVE any political views to speak of at this time, then it seems pretty clear that it's a race thing, at least to this yahoo.
And instead of anyone on the right saying, "Yeah... that guy's an idiot, a complete nothing, a real knee-biter, and he doesn't in any way speak for us," what we get is a chorus of "but he's just exercising his constitutional rights!" Funny, but I don't remember any of them standing up for the Dixie Chicks for "exercising their constitutional rights" - nope, they wanted them deported, kicked out of the country, they gathered together in their happy little rallies and burned their records and CDs... but defending their "right" to say that they were embarrassed by the President? Not so much.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not sure why you're giving these folks so much credit, Frem--romanticizing them, even. Why are you defending men who bring assault rifles with them to hear the President speak? To continue your metaphor, these "kids" were more than willing to take GWB's "beatings" and like it. But now there's a black man in office and it's payback time. You know how this goes. Children of an abusive system, they can't strike out against their parents, their culture; they've blinded themselves to the harm they've suffered at the hands of their supposed care-givers--so they seek an outsider that they CAN see, and they project all of their rage upon HIM--who, yes, may in many ways be doing exactly what their chosen authority has been doing all along.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why does a person display, but not use a weapon ?
Why does a small animal show you it's teeth, but not bite you ?
Those kind of "threat displays" are the equivalent of a skunk doing a 180 and stamping it's feet, it's a headsup that you have done something to threaten or frighten them in a major way, which in combination with lack of an effective escape route or mitigation, causes a threat display not as an aggressive response, but as a defensive response.
This administration, coming on the heels of the last one, and instead of decently shitcanning the policies and abuses, taking that ball and running for the end zone ?
That scares the HELL out of people whether they admit it or not, and that is what this is, a visual display of that fear and concern in what I personally feel is an inappropriate manner, but these folk feel their concerns are NOT being addressed and felt a desperate need to bring attention to that fact, which if you have ever dealt with children - you'd know how human nature becomes when a need for attention is denied and the attention getting escalates into inappropriate behavior and stupidity.
Same thing, writ large, all it is.
Same response too, either you pound the kid into submission, which is indirectly the font of very MANY of our social issues...
I almost never disagree with your analyses but linking these "displays" to the Bush admin. the way you just did, doesn't wash. Sure, if the audience for these displays were Government itself, then your skunk analogy would be apt enough. One or two men with assault rifles cannot topple a government--but they sure as hell can assassinate a single man. No, I'm sorry, it's who's running the government, not how. No, these boys would NEVER bring their guns to threaten a white President. They would never choose to remind a white President of how far they're willing to go. No, they're trying to remind a black man of his place.
The fear is there, but it's not the fear of the State--it's the fear that White America will soon be on the outs, fear that White America will soon be getting what their guilt and shame tell them they deserve.
Nothing is ever so feared as the loss of control.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"--oh, I believe that 100%. That's why I was out there demonstrating right along with them during Bush.
But where were you and all these good men when Bush was in power, abusing our civil rights, trampling our Constitution, and all the rest? I don't get that--Obama hasn't even BEGUN to do the kind of things Bush did with impunity for eight years, yet the Right has made him the anti-Christ in eight MONTHS. Weird...
"I will not sit idly by and let tyranny take hold in my country" ... uhhh, we just had a tyrant, by every definition I've ever seen.
Tyrant (according to Webster):
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
So where was 'ya?
As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline. I haven't vilified Obama in eight months, he's done that himself. It stuns me rigid that people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. They're all so blinded by hatred for Bush and the so-called Right Wing Nut-jobs that they can't even see what's going on in front of them today. Let it go. Look around you and see what is going on in the real world, not what the news tells you, but what you really see. Stop dividing up into Republican and Democrat camps and look at what is happening in this country!
Read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that this is what he and his colleagues fought to create. We are SO off track. It angers me and breaks my heart at the same time to sit by and watch it happen. It hurts almost as much to listen to some of you so-called Browncoats spouting this kind of stuff. What the hell is up with that? What happened to belief in individual freedom? If believing that we all have a responsibility to make sure our rights aren't taken away and being willing to fight for that belief is wrong, I don't want to be right. If that makes me the bad guy, then so be it. I'm a bad guy.
Sometimes I really do wonder what goes on in people's heads that they insist on being made into sheep. Think for yourself, for God's sake, don't just spout the party line. And don't complain to me when you're sitting in an internment camp somewhere, I won't be able to do anything about it at that point.
And, just for the record, I'm not a Christian. I'm not a right-winger. I'm not a racist. All those things you are thinking of calling me right now are incorrect assumptions on your part. I am simply a realist. I try to live my life by common sense values and I don't want any interference from people not directly involved in my life.
This, again, is why I have ulcers.
Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"--oh, I believe that 100%. That's why I was out there demonstrating right along with them during Bush.
But where were you and all these good men when Bush was in power, abusing our civil rights, trampling our Constitution, and all the rest? I don't get that--Obama hasn't even BEGUN to do the kind of things Bush did with impunity for eight years, yet the Right has made him the anti-Christ in eight MONTHS. Weird...
"I will not sit idly by and let tyranny take hold in my country" ... uhhh, we just had a tyrant, by every definition I've ever seen.
Tyrant (according to Webster):
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
So where was 'ya?
Thanks, Niki - couldn't have said it better myself. All these chairborne rangers, where were they for the last eight years?
Apparently, as Wulfie said, they weren't paying attention. But NOW they are, so we better look out!
Mike
Here's an even better question: how come so many of the "awake" people have suddenly fallen asleep? If you were awake and paying attention over the last eight years, why shut your eyes now? Why are you blind all of a sudden?
I don't consider myself a chairbourne ranger-- although you probably should find a term that won't offend those handicapped people out there who haven't got a choice--but I'll say that until the shooting actually starts, its hard to be anything but. I don't think you're really suggesting that we go out and start shooting, are you? I don't really want that. I hope it won't come to that. All I'm saying is this: when it does, we all have some tough choices to make about where our loyalties really lie. I will be out there on the side of freedom. And as I've said before, if that makes me one of the bad guys, so be it.
Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko said:
Quote:
And instead of anyone on the right saying, "Yeah... that guy's an idiot, a complete nothing, a real knee-biter, and he doesn't in any way speak for us," what we get is a chorus of "but he's just exercising his constitutional rights!" Funny, but I don't remember any of them standing up for the Dixie Chicks for "exercising their constitutional rights" - nope, they wanted them deported, kicked out of the country, they gathered together in their happy little rallies and burned their records and CDs... but defending their "right" to say that they were embarrassed by the President? Not so much.
Amen, brother. What bothers me so much about this debate is folks saying "it's his right to carry an assult rifle in public and in the vicinity of the President" like that's a reason. It's not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or have to. I can say "I hate Jews," but that doesn't make me a defender of the Constitution. That makes me an anti-Semitic asshole. I made this point on another thread, but I'll make it again: Your right to exercise your rights does not give you the right to infringe on the rights of others (okay, that was a lot of "right"s). Nor are you a noble defender of rights and freedoms if you repeatedly pick and choose which rights you defend. If you're for free speech, you're for all free speech, even that of assholes who hate Jews and/or assholes who are ashamed of their President and say so publicly (for the record, I don't think the Dixie Chicks are assholes. I think they're amazing patriots for not backing down. I also don't hate Jewish people. I am an asshole at times, I'm sure, but not in this case).
As for the direction the US is going, do you have problems? Absolutely. Is the nation going to hell in a handbasket? Not even remotely. The US enjoys one of the most free and democratic systems in the world. Move to the DRC or Saudi Arabia(especially if you're a woman) for a while and see if your opinion of your rights and freedoms changes. I'm not saying don't care about these things, I'm just saying put it in some perspective, please. The nutters on both sides need to take a deep breath and own up to the fact that there is no revolution, good or bad, waiting in the wings. There is only a system democratic societies have embraced as the worst way to govern ourselves, except for all the others.
*
People before profits
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PlaineJayne,
You said it so well that I feel it bears repeating.
"As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline. I haven't vilified Obama in eight months, he's done that himself. It stuns me rigid that people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. They're all so blinded by hatred for Bush and the so-called Right Wing Nut-jobs that they can't even see what's going on in front of them today. Let it go. Look around you and see what is going on in the real world, not what the news tells you, but what you really see. Stop dividing up into Republican and Democrat camps and look at what is happening in this country!
Read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that this is what he and his colleagues fought to create. We are SO off track. It angers me and breaks my heart at the same time to sit by and watch it happen. It hurts almost as much to listen to some of you so-called Browncoats spouting this kind of stuff. What the hell is up with that? What happened to belief in individual freedom? If believing that we all have a responsibility to make sure our rights aren't taken away and being willing to fight for that belief is wrong, I don't want to be right. If that makes me the bad guy, then so be it. I'm a bad guy.
Sometimes I really do wonder what goes on in people's heads that they insist on being made into sheep. Think for yourself, for God's sake, don't just spout the party line. And don't complain to me when you're sitting in an internment camp somewhere, I won't be able to do anything about it at that point.
And, just for the record, I'm not a Christian. I'm not a right-winger. I'm not a racist. All those things you are thinking of calling me right now are incorrect assumptions on your part. I am simply a realist. I try to live my life by common sense values and I don't want any interference from people not directly involved in my life.
This, again, is why I have ulcers."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And not to get too much into it....
But did anyone else notice that CNN snatched down the pic/vid of the black guy carrying the AR? The one who gave a good interview, didn't come off as a nutjob?
I wonder why....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline.
PJ, you either don't know very far, or you know wrong, or you're suffering from memory loss or brain damage. No nicer way to put that, sorry.
Bush didn't send out "union thugs"? Really? Nahhhh - people who wanted to protest against Bush were instead jailed for the "crime" of wearing a John Kerry campaign button. Or corraled and put into "free speech zones" half a mile or more away from where he was appearing.
Those war protesters who didn't have anyone trying to shut them up? Yeah, they weren't called "rednecks" - they were called "un-American", "terrorist", and much, much worse. They were told - not asked, TOLD - to leave the country (or "get the fuck out!" as it was usually phrased). And those "union thugs" that controlled access to Bush's rallies and screened people to keep out the protesters? Yeah, their "union" was called Homeland Security.
That "report your neighbor" hotline that Bush never set up? It's called the Patriot Act. Congress was given less than a month to read it and pass it, all the while being told that this was so life and death that they absolutely didn't need to read it, but should just trust their government, and anything less would be un-American of them. I guess you don't have to "report your neighbor" when your government has already given itself permission to look into every aspect of your life without any need for such pesky details as probable cause or warrants.
So NOW you want to know where the rest of us have been. Look way ahead of you, far, far out on the horizon. See us out there? Yeah, we're that far ahead of you. Hurry, you can still catch up if you run!
Edited to fix a few typos!
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
And, just for the record, I'm not a Christian. I'm not a right-winger. I'm not a racist. All those things you are thinking of calling me right now are incorrect assumptions on your part. I am simply a realist. I try to live my life by common sense values and I don't want any interference from people not directly involved in my life.
This, again, is why I have ulcers."
That's where you lost me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings.
Hey, as far as *I* know, Obama didn't do that either. Neither did anyone else. Can you provide some evidence to support this seeming claim you're alluding to? You seem to be insinuating that others HAVE done this, but it sounds like you're too afraid to come right out and say it, hiding behind couched phrases like "as far as I know".
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, ummmm... Wulfie?
You're so impressed by PJ telling you to think for yourself...
...that you just had to repeat his own words back to him?
Define "Irony".
Oh, and YOU saying "I'm not a racist"? More irony.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm sorry, Bytemite, but this sounds very much like blaming people who talk about racism for racism.
Just wanted to go on record here and say that I did not intend to imply that there is not a racial divide when I said we need to find common ground. There is a racial divide.
But so far, the only person I think who we can all unanimously call racist is the guy who called for the death of Obama, Michelle, and their two kids.
The rest, their motivations are still murky, and I don't know fully what they intended to accomplish going with guns to those town hall meetings. Frankly, the behaviour is somewhat baffling to me, but they did it, it's done, no changing it now.
If they have motivations that AREN'T racist, I only want to be sure I don't dismiss them immediately out of hand because of appearances. And I also want to be sure that people who are NOT armed, just protesting, are not lumped into a "they're just crazy, their concerns aren't valid, don't listen to them" category.
Hi everyone else! HKCavalier and I are discussing our particular argument in the back rooms. Thought that might be more appropriate then me taking over this thread. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that this is what he and his colleagues fought to create. We are SO off track. It angers me and breaks my heart at the same time to sit by and watch it happen. It hurts almost as much to listen to some of you so-called Browncoats spouting this kind of stuff. What the hell is up with that? What happened to belief in individual freedom? If believing that we all have a responsibility to make sure our rights aren't taken away and being willing to fight for that belief is wrong, I don't want to be right. If that makes me the bad guy, then so be it. I'm a bad guy.
So tell me, were you a "bad guy" during the reign of Bush? Can you read George Washington's farewell address and then look me in the eye and tell me that George Bush shared ANY of that man's values? You say we are off track like you just woke up and discovered that during the night Obama had run the America Valdez up on the rocks of the Alaskan shore all by himself. It hurts my heart to hear so-called Browncoats calling people like Bush and Cheney "heroes" and "patriots" and calling Obama a "socialist", a "Nazi", a "communist", and more.
There are things I disagree with Obama on, vehemently. Many of them are the same things I disagreed with Bush on. I've been consistent in those beliefs. I haven't "fallen asleep". Bush gave me insomnia, an inability to get a good night's sleep, with the way he shit on the world and the American people and our rights. And yeah, I'm still pissed about that. If not wanting to give someone a free pass for war crimes and shitting all over the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend makes me a bad guy, then fine; I'm a bad guy.
What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances! How many of you felt the overarching need to exercise that particular right under Bush? About zero-point-none, that's how many. Was that because you were being brave and supportive, or was it because you were asleep and cowardly then?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike, not to be a heretic or anything, but George Washington was a genocidal terrorist, yeah, he and GW Bush shared more than a couple of initials.
Here's the difference between the old and the new leaders: The old ones, like Churchill, even Hitler, knew how to write, organize campaigns, construct arguments, construct sentences, pronounce words, knew words, could make intelligible sounds, had intelligible thoughts, had any thoughts... Okay, I digress, but people followed them for a reason: They had vision and the ability to communicate that vision and thus had followers. Today's leaders have followers the way Kim Jong Il has followers: Because the people have no choice.
But that doesn't make the older leaders clean. Charles Manson was able to organize followers to worship him, so was Jim Jones. I'll grant it's a lost skill, and our modern despots are just hollow shells, but are they really any more destructive?
Harry S. Truman was a powerful leader, good speaker, strong respected man, who is still quoted today. He was also a real son of bitch. Not only did he press an absurd war, intentionally murder millions of innocent civilians in Japan and indirectly China, he was always ready to start a new disasterous war. The only thing he could have done that I might have respected was stop Mao, but I digress.
Churchill, another evil bastard. Genocidal, racism, misogynist, and killed a large number of people and was indirectly but intentionally responsible for millions more. Great writer, great speaker, excellent leader, truly despicable man.
Okay, stopping now, but you get my point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, I see my point wasn't clear - guess that's what I get for being subtle and polite...
Either that or someone once again made the mistake of assuming I am nice.
I ain't.
Soo.... Oh-KAY then, imma be neither, fair warning.
These "threat displays" ARE a fear-reaction, bandying semantics won't change that essential fact.
Whether those fears are justified, whether the folk doing it even realise it's a fear reaction, these things are wholly immaterial to the problem at hand.
And when people fear, often they lash out at the source of that fear in hopes of wrecking it's power to harm them.
When I likened to to the behavior of a small child or animal, I wasn't being metaphorical, I was callin it direct, they've been so well trained to bite one hand and lick the other that now that the OTHER one is holding their leash, they're pissin themselves in fear, and do you know why ?
Cause where were they, all the while that the former administration was ramming a shit sandwich down the throat of 'the other guys' at every turn and corner, damn the law, fuck the constitution ?
Why, jacking it with one hand, shakin pompoms with the other, cheering so rabidly they were practically foamin at the mouth rah-rah-hoorah-murrriKAH!
And now that the tables have turned, there's that same sandwich on THEIR plate, and it makes am all manner of weak in the knees to look at it.
Tell me folks, what's the FIRST reaction of the big bad school bully when someone meaner, tougher, nastier comes along ?
Threats.
Of course, I have my own opinion on how to handle THAT, and I mostly cribbed it from Ender Wiggin, but that's on a personal, rather than political level.
What Obama should NOT do, is pay Danegeld to their fears, cause payin Danegeld results in... (everybody with me now) ...paying Danegeld, so that's right out.
Was *I* the prez, I would grab a camera crew and the two quickest/fastest shots on my protection detail and go right out there, right up to one of em, and firmly, but respectfully, call him down on his conduct while acknowledging his rights - using the same tone a CCW instructor would to someone who just negligently muzzle-swept the class, adult to adult, this is unacceptable.
You want the power, you take the risks, understand ?
So you back him down, double points if he starts dodging eye contact, triple if you get the aw-shucks-shuffle, cause that admits WRONG, it admits GUILT, or at least guilty thoughts, and mind you, on camera, national TV - you blow the thin veneer off his sawbuck redneck ignorance while firmly and politely reprimanding his conduct.
That'd cut this off before it gets out of hand, but addressing them all and cutting all support right out from under them, instead of handling it piecemeal in dribs and drabs like they're doin now.
Remember, I know the mindset, and THIS is why the Republican Party as such must be destroyed - reform from within, WTF are you people smoking ?
That'd be like some kid in the 1400's wanting to reform the royal court by joining it, they ain't never gonna let you CLOSE enough to the power to do a single goddamn thing while trotting you out like a good little bootlicker for an example, giving you a stroke or two to keep you in line while laughing at you behind closed doors - and if you DID have political power and influence of your own initially, the FIRST thing they will do is drag you down with em and cover you with so much shit you'd be forced to defend even their most heinous actions out of pure self-defense!
Bar fight rules, people, once you down em, you get the boot in and finish the job before you turn your attention elsewhere, or in the case of someone really evil, drop a knee, pop the boxknife out of your shoe and take em from ear to ear - else you're just askin for trouble.
You think they're done for ?
Oh HELL no, where are all the neocons and their pet jackboots ?
For that matter, the Rappys and the Finns ?
Hiding under a rock, prayin no one kicks it over, hoping against hope for short memories and the damn naive foolishness o
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
PS. Every time someone says "Chairborne Ranger" picture me cutting loose with Forquet from my wheelchair - that's just hi-larious.
You, sir, are one Chairborne Ranger I would NOT mess with. For one, you're far more devious than I. And secondly, you're better-armed.
Nope, when the smoke clears, I want you on my bank-robbing team. Or better yet, I wanna be on yours, 'cause you've got the more thorough plan!Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PlainJayne:
All I'm saying is this: when it does, we all have some tough choices to make about where our loyalties really lie. I will be out there on the side of freedom. And as I've said before, if that makes me one of the bad guys, so be it.
I'd really like to understand where this anger and (misdirected imho) passion comes from. I've asked Wulfenstar but did not get a direct answer, more fuzzy youthful anger, "our gov is being taken over and you won't do anything!"
First: who here is not on the side of freedom??! Unless of course you are referring to Big Insurance, they are the only ones out there that I come in contact with that are severely restricting my rights and my health and my bank account. What freedoms are you losing or have lost?
Second: I could have missed it, I live in a pretty quiet part of the country, please cite some examples of all this TYRANNY that seems to be encroaching on you. Some specific changes you have had to make to live under the new oppression would be helpful.
Me - I think that the ones yelling at the townhalls and here have other issues, other deep seated anger that the desperate right have found a way to tap into, they've essentially found (stumbled on is more likely) a way to give you permission to get ugly and vent. "2nd Amendment" and "Tyranny" are just flimsy smoke screens - it's a basic class in crowd manipulation and you guys are the crowd.
I know you'd turn that around and say we're the ones being manipulated - maybe. But I'm willing to go this route to see what this admin can do on health care at the very least. I guarantee that unless you're being fed by big insurance then you are being robbed by them. They are one of the biggest villians in this country and they are the major player threatening your freedom.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I'm not with the right, I have to say that I agree with them that our government has a lot of power that I do not trust them with. And it's not really about healthcare, though because of the other stuff, I'm wary about giving them healthcare.
Paradoxically, I *WANT* a public option, because I put big corporations like these insurance companies in the same category of "do not trust" as I do the government (mostly I'm beginning to doubt that they're separate in the first place), but my perception is that this reform is actually sabotaging both the public option as well as already existing options, to give us LESS choice and force us to use the insurance companies.
But you asked about tyranny. You asked about specific examples of oppression. You're looking around at the internet and seeing free speech and you're asking, "Wha? Just how exactly do you people think you're being repressed?"
As I respond to you, I am sitting in a cubicle. I'm working a decent job, that I trained for with college, in a field that would allow me to help my community, to keep people from getting sick from pollution spills. I am being paid money, which I use to buy food and pay rent.
I have to pay student loans, and I am ever so grateful that I've been smart enough so far to avoid debt and have to work multiple jobs to keep up with the demands on me. Others are not so lucky as me.
Would I do this job if I had the choice to? Yes, I think I might, though I also think I might branch out into other areas if I had the option, because sitting at this desk for ten hours a day has contributed such to a pre-existing back condition that I herniated a disk in my lumbar spine.
So, like many other Americans, I work a job that is proving to be deleterious to my health, because I have no choice BUT to work a job. I can choose HOW I am to work, but I still have no choice BUT to work. Some even don't really have a choice in HOW they are going to work for a living, because of issues such as social class, geographical location, social pressures, and etc.
Another example of repression is the education that we are made to conform to. People don't have free speech so much as we're taught WHAT to say.
AND, we are given two sides of a debate to mold what we say, told to choose one, and then we feel as though we have actually MADE a choice. We haven't, because the choice was set up to begin with, because the differences we are told exist don't exist. There aren't Democrats and Republicans, there's just two facades covering authoritarianism.
These are the basic and most obvious examples. But let's talk about this administration. How are they oppressing us?
I am extremely disappointed in Obama. His administration has decided to continue with past violations that the previous administration established, such as wire-tapping and waterboarding. He has chosen to prop up companies that have been managed poorly instead of allowing them to fail, cementing in my mind that the government and big corporations are intertwined to the extent that the needs of the corporations are held to a higher priority than the needs of the people.
And now, now he would like to do this with insurance companies, or so I see it, something with a direct impact on our health and lives.
This is a good idea?
The most frightening forms of tyranny are the ones that a population has been trained to not notice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
While I'm not with the right, I have to say that I agree with them that our government has a lot of power that I do not trust them with. And it's not really about healthcare, though because of the other stuff, I'm wary about giving them healthcare.
This would be the same power the Right just had? I don't like giving them healthcare necessarily, but the current option is madness.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Paradoxically, I *WANT* a public option, because I put big corporations like these insurance companies in the same category of "do not trust" as I do the government (mostly I'm beginning to doubt that they're separate in the first place), but my perception is that this reform is actually sabotaging both the public option as well as already existing options, to give us LESS choice and force us to use the insurance companies.
Sorry Byte, I can't follow your logic - they brought up the whole public option to begin with just to sabotage it? Seems to me the point is to introduce options (freedom), not reduce them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But you asked about tyranny. You asked about specific examples of oppression. You're looking around at the internet and seeing free speech and you're asking, "Wha? Just how exactly do you people think you're being repressed?"
As I respond to you, I am sitting in a cubicle. I'm working a decent job, that I trained for with college, in a field that would allow me to help my community, to keep people from getting sick from pollution spills. I am being paid money, which I use to buy food and pay rent.
I have to pay student loans, and I am ever so grateful that I've been smart enough so far to avoid debt and have to work multiple jobs to keep up with the demands on me. Others are not so lucky as me.
You do have debt in the form of the student loans - I assume you mean other debt. I appreciate that that can put a bit of a crimp in your options and reduce your sense of freedom, but those loans were yours to take, they were not forced on you. I don't see the repression other than perhaps the one that was self-imposed, you had freedom of choice.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
[BWould I do this job if I had the choice to? Yes, I think I might, though I also think I might branch out into other areas if I had the option, because sitting at this desk for ten hours a day has contributed such to a pre-existing back condition that I herniated a disk in my lumbar spine.
So, like many other Americans, I work a job that is proving to be deleterious to my health, because I have no choice BUT to work a job. I can choose HOW I am to work, but I still have no choice BUT to work. Some even don't really have a choice in HOW they are going to work for a living, because of issues such as social class, geographical location, social pressures, and etc.
I don't honestly know how to respond to this without it sounding a little terse, or preachy, so sorry - but stop whining? You do have options. Hitch'em up and go for it, the only repression I see is self-imposed. Mixed-race/black man in the whitehouse? Sometimes you just have to decide to make changes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I am extremely disappointed in Obama. His administration has decided to continue with past violations that the previous administration established, such as wire-tapping and waterboarding. He has chosen to prop up companies that have been managed poorly instead of allowing them to fail, cementing in my mind that the government and big corporations are intertwined to the extent that the needs of the corporations are held to a higher priority than the needs of the people.
And now, now he would like to do this with insurance companies, or so I see it, something with a direct impact on our health and lives.
This is a good idea?
The most frightening forms of tyranny are the ones that a population has been trained to not notice.
a - no magic wand, ca
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This would be the same power the Right just had?
I am not making a partisan argument. I do not identify as Republican or libertarian, and I am not threatened by a Democrat being in the white house by virtue of them being a Democrat.
I didn't like the powers that the Republicans had, either.
Quote:
I don't like giving them healthcare necessarily, but the current option is madness.
The current option is madness, reform is needed, but the problem is that any MEANINGFUL reform is being diluted to the point where it is no longer helpful, while the problems in the system are being exacerbated.
What we have right now is bad. But if there's going to be change, I'd like it to be a change for the better, not the worse.
Quote:
Sorry Byte, I can't follow your logic - they brought up the whole public option to begin with just to sabotage it? Seems to me the point is to introduce options (freedom), not reduce them.
There's two ways I can see of looking at this.
The first is that the people sabotaging the public option aren't the people who brought it up. Although really, in this country, ANY suggestion of a public option would inevitably have been sabotaged.
And the second is that strengthening the insurance companies was the point all along. By introducing a weak public option plan that will not work, people are forced to go to the insurance companies. The appearance is given of having TRIED to create a public option to appease the masses when it was never a possibility in the first place. And it also taints any future suggestions of creating a WORKING public option.
Quote:
You do have debt in the form of the student loans - I assume you mean other debt. I appreciate that that can put a bit of a crimp in your options and reduce your sense of freedom, but those loans were yours to take, they were not forced on you. I don't see the repression other than perhaps the one that was self-imposed, you had freedom of choice.
I don't honestly know how to respond to this without it sounding a little terse, or preachy, so sorry - but stop whining? You do have options. Hitch'em up and go for it, the only repression I see is self-imposed. Mixed-race/black man in the whitehouse? Sometimes you just have to decide to make changes.
If I did not take the student loans, I could not have gone to college. By not going to college, I can anticipate that I would NOT have been able to get this job, because it required a degree in the field I graduated in.
My other option was to not go to college and take the job of an unskilled laborer on wages that do not meet the standard of living, which would quickly increase debt and credit problems. There are people out there barely treading water, unable to keep up with their bills despite working multiple jobs, and that is a systematic problem.
I don't see a choice. Not for them, and not for me.
What change do you propose? Not working? Theft? I have no problem with my job, apart from the fact that I recognize I only GOT the job because I had no other choice. Changing jobs would not change this fact. And it doesn't change facts for people who don't like their jobs but have no choice but to work them and be exploited.
Quote:
a - no magic wand, can't just say, "reset all the bad stuff the past administration started." It takes time, Washington D.C. TIME. I think there are a lot of us (including Obama) that are equally impatient. The right is not exactly helping.
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs. Oh, and let's not forget PREEMPTIVE DETAINMENT. That was his brainchild.
Quote:
b - corporate/financial bailouts - you and I will never know the consequences of not doing that - I'm ok with that.
I never said anything about the consequences of doing this versus not doing this. I was talking about my opinion on WHY I think this was done, because you asked me WHY I think our government is tyrannical. Do the reasons why the corporatio
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently I need to ask again, since it seems to have been missed the first time I asked. And then it looks like PJ and Wulf missed it again when Pizmo asked it, so let's hope the third time's the charm...
Quote:
What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances!
List ALL of the rights that Obama took away from you in the last 8 months. Hell, list ONE of them.
Anybody?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I note for the record that neither person was arrested.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wiretapping. Granted, it was Bush who instituted it, but Obama continued it, and I am HELLA pissed.
He didn't give the right BACK, for certain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Professor once said to me...(paraphrasing here)
"When I was growing up, (during the 60s and 70s), the mantra was "Change the World!" We screamed it from the top of our lungs. We were convinced that our generation was going to change things. We happily chanted that from Woodstock to Haight/Ashbury. And we DID. We did change the world.
But in the years since, I've realized that we didn't have the whole message.
It should have been "Change the world, FOR THE BETTER!"
Oh we got the "Change the world" part, but I cannot honestly say that we made it a better one."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.
Quite right. He could have, and he damned well SHOULD have. But did you honestly think he WOULD? As some of us pointed out way back when, that's the number one reason you don't let ANY President of government have that power over you. You don't give it to them, and you for goddam-sure don't SIGN IT OVER TO THEM UNDER LAW, because they are never, EVER going to voluntarily give it back.
So while I'm deeply disappointed that Obama didn't stop this shit, I can't say I'm completely surprised.
Quote:
Oh, and let's not forget PREEMPTIVE DETAINMENT. That was his brainchild.
Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:'
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
A Professor once said to me...(paraphrasing here)
"When I was growing up, (during the 60s and 70s), the mantra was "Change the World!" We screamed it from the top of our lungs. We were convinced that our generation was going to change things. We happily chanted that from Woodstock to Haight/Ashbury. And we DID. We did change the world.
But in the years since, I've realized that we didn't have the whole message.
It should have been "Change the world, FOR THE BETTER!"
Oh we got the "Change the world" part, but I cannot honestly say that we made it a better one."
What is it that you find to be so much worse than it was in the 60s and 70s? Be specific.
And who was this "professor"? Are you saying you're one of those ivory tower ivy league elites the right keeps blathering about?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.
Hmm. Didn't realize. All right then.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My oh my oh my. I don't NEED to be here, as it turns out, all I need to do is sit back and let others make the arguments for me. And no, it's not that I didn't think for myself, it's that they came to the same conclusions I did. Which of course won't stop me from adding my two cents' worth.
Quote:
"As far as I know, Bush didn't send out Union thugs to intimidate people at Town Hall Meetings. Nor did the war protesters (or any of the other protesters) have anyone actively trying to shut them up. There were counter-demonstrations, yes, but the opposition has that right (Bill of Rights says that, yes?). The media covered it. Nobody called those people "illiterate" or "rednecks" or anything else for using their God-given voices to protest what they felt was wrong. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Bush. But he never set up a "report your neighbor" hotline. I haven't vilified Obama in eight months, he's done that himself. It stuns me rigid that people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. They're all so blinded by hatred for Bush and the so-called Right Wing Nut-jobs that they can't even see what's going on in front of them today. Let it go. Look around you and see what is going on in the real world, not what the news tells you, but what you really see. Stop dividing up into Republican and Democrat camps and look at what is happening in this country!"
That's already been refuted, but I would add pointing out to you the material I offered in another thread, about what happened to people who merely wore Kerry buttons or t-shirts against Bush to Bush rallies. That will provide specifics to counter your argument. Oppression of free speech was extremely prevalent during the Bush years.
Quote:
"These "threat displays" ARE a fear-reaction, bandying semantics won't change that essential fact. Whether those fears are justified, whether the folk doing it even realise it's a fear reaction, these things are wholly immaterial to the problem at hand. And when people fear, often they lash out at the source of that fear in hopes of wrecking it's power to harm them."
I would add, as have others, that the fear you so rightly recognized has been created, manipulated and encouraged by those who stand to gain in both power and finance by doing so: trained, paid organizations whose job it is to do so, encouraged by those in politics who find it useful to call the acting out representative of all America.
Quote:
"I think that the ones yelling at the townhalls and here have other issues, other deep seated anger that the desperate right have found a way to tap into, they've essentially found (stumbled on is more likely) a way to give you permission to get ugly and vent. "2nd Amendment" and "Tyranny" are just flimsy smoke screens - it's a basic class in crowd manipulation and you guys are the crowd."
I don't think they "stumbled upon" anything; it began during the campaign, quite deliberately by Palin being used as attack dog to fire up the base, and has continued unabated since. They, at least, recognize the racism which is still prevalent in our society, however subconsciously, and from the very beginning found ways to stir it up.
Quote:
"a - no magic wand, can't just say, "reset all the bad stuff the past administration started." It takes time, Washington D.C. TIME. I think there are a lot of us (including Obama) that are equally impatient. The right is not exactly helping.
b - corporate/financial bailouts - you and I will never know the consequences of not doing that - I'm ok with that."
Word. It's exactly how I feel.
Quote:
"The current option is madness, reform is needed, but the problem is that any MEANINGFUL reform is being diluted to the point where it is no longer helpful, while the problems in the system are being exacerbated."
Again: word. I'm ashamed of Obama for getting SO stuck on "bipartisanship" that they are manipulating him into giving away the store. I'm ashamed of the Dems for not standing up to it and making him understand that there IS no
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And most of us here know how to dig in and hold on to their beliefs.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
Actually, it wasn't. CALLING it that might have been, but the program itself has been around for a while. You know it by other names: "enemy combatant", "extraordinary rendition", "non-government operative", etc.
Hmm. Didn't realize. All right then.
Actually, it's NOT all right. I agree with you that this kind of shit is a long, LONG way from all right. I don't cut Obama any slack for doing the same shit that Bush did, and if he wants ANY support from me, he needs to take solid, concrete steps to ending this bullshit, NOW.
So we're really not so very far apart on most things, I think.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.
"President Barack Obama reaffirmed April 29 his position that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture and defended his decision to ban use of the technique. Speaking at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office, Obama again said that the US has "rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and banning torture without exception," affirming a statement from his inaugural address."
Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it."
Wow.....
Let me guess... British?
or Israeli?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Wire tapping? Really? Isn't it the thought of it being misused more than it existing, that is the worst? I honestly can't imagine what the average citizen has to worry about - don't you think it's important for legitimate national security? I would say my gov would be grossly irresponsible NOT to have it."
Wow.....
Let me guess... British?
or Israeli?
Heh, you really do have a good sense of humor. Irish Scotch German mix actually - and nothing gets me as barking mad as when I see MY countrymen act so obtuse, afraid, or simply bat f*cking stupid.
Speaking of which, you sound like you are more afraid of your gov than the Taliban? That's like backwards?
What is ironical about your stance, is that from what I see the current gov is trying to do exactly what your prof said, change the world for the better. Since I don't have your list of the day-to-day struggles you're facing under Obama's oppressive machine, let's start with health care - what do you pay for health care? You do have health care right?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Taliban isn't HERE. Why the hell SHOULD I be scared of them, apart from being a woman? The Taliban may be a bunch of nutty theocrats, who aided and abetted Al-Qaeda, but they never actually attacked us.
But since I think you're talking more about terrorist attacks in general... I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die in a terrorist attack. I'm just not gonna waste my time worrying about something so unlikely to happen... Especially since all the efforts of the CIA and FBI didn't do much good in the first place, and they had all the pieces of the puzzle in front of them WITHOUT anything fancy. I have my sneaking suspicions that supplying Homeland Security an overabundance of information from completely innocent people isn't going to help much. Nope, this isn't about counter-terrorism, this is about big brother watching. The fact that this is a Bush policy ought to make that PAINFULLY obvious.
I think we ought to solve our domestic issues before we go muddling somewhere else. And we have 'em, serious ones. And OBAMA is not helping, he's just same ol' same ol' status quo. Screw him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Obama could have started by saying "No more water-boarding and no more wire-tapping" instead of expanding those programs.
"President Barack Obama reaffirmed April 29 his position that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture and defended his decision to ban use of the technique. Speaking at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office, Obama again said that the US has "rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and banning torture without exception," affirming a statement from his inaugural address."
Any word yet on whether the Defense Department has actually issued desist orders?
Until then it's just talk.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte: My Taliban comment was directed at Wulfenstar actually.
Yes, my concerns are for all terrorists in this country.
Yes, agree again, George Bush's implementation of wire tapping had to be suspect, that's why I suggested it's not the tapping but the people doing it that we should be concerned with.
I say again you are extremely naive to think that wire tapping isn't fundamental to national security.
Byte said: "I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die in a terrorist attack. Sorry, but I'm not gonna waste my time worrying about something so unlikely to happen..."
No, you'd rather waste your time worrying about some gov agent listening to your conversations. It's really not about you.
"My fellow Americans... Today marks the dawn of our newest policy toward global terrorism. In light of the latest statistics, we've decided to suspend all counter terrorist monitoring and focus on building a large lightning deflector..."
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, why, exactly, would they care about me? I'm nobody. If I'd said anything they really didn't like, or they thought I was a threat, you think I'd be posting this stuff? o.0
No. I'm not concerned about me. I'm concerned about the smart people who KNOW STUFF who I might never hear their voice because they've been determined to be dangerous.
I'm worried about the people hurt by city officials I've had to work with who want to find legal loopholes to steal property out from rightful owners because they want to beautify their cities.
I'm worried about the people who don't care about anything around them or their communities, because it's in the best interest of government and business to make sure we stay in our little boxes and work work work and buy buy buy and never question anything they do.
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What is ironical about your stance, is that from what I see the current gov is trying to do exactly what your prof said, change the world for the better. Since I don't have your list of the day-to-day struggles you're facing under Obama's oppressive machine, let's start with health care - what do you pay for health care? You do have health care right?
I think something we aren't seeing eye to eye on here is the definition of better.
Yeah, the current administration is TRYING to make things better, in the way that they THINK is better. They have good intentions.
But if you're on this message board, I can only assume you've seen the movie Serenity. That's the kind of "better" those of us who don't trust the government are wary of. We see these people as wanting more control because they think they know what's best for us, and we're pretty sure we're going to end up with something worse than we started out with.
For further insight on why we think the way we do, I'd point out the books 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But if you're on this message board, I can only assume you've seen the movie Serenity. That's the kind of "better" those of us who don't trust the government are wary of. We see these people as wanting more control because they think they know what's best for us, and we're pretty sure we're going to end up with something worse than we started out with.
For further insight on why we think the way we do, I'd point out the books 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World."
FUCKING AMEN.
Not that Im a religious fanatic or anything.... BUT DAMN RIGHT!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, y'all DO all realize that the Jefferson quote that gets used so often by "freedom-loving" Americans in protest of their government was actually said by Jefferson in response to what happened in Shays' Rebellion, right? Shays and his followers (Shaysites or "Regulators" as they were called) were protesting the crushing debt and taxes they were saddled with by the government in the wake of the Revolutionary War. Sam Adams, that great "patriot", wrote up a riot act and decreed that they should be rounded up and imprisoned without trial (he supported suspension of habeus corpus, too), and if necessary, executed for treason and sedition.
The "rebellion" was over pretty much before it began; an army fired a single volley into the militia gathered by Shays, and they scattered and ran away, effectively ending their rebellion.
It was in the aftermath of this that Jefferson made his famous statement, and it was made IN FAVOR of expanding the power and reach of a larger central government, not in favor of the rebels. The rebels were the ones Jefferson was in favor of spilling the blood of.
If you don't believe me, look it up. When you quote Jefferson in this way, you're actually arguing that those "patriots and tyrants" who show up with their guns should be imprisoned and executed without trial or charges, because their blood will refresh us all.
Is that the way you MEANT for it to sound?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.
What has he done that has directly affected you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte has it right, and I am bringing up the heavy artillery to back that argument, which is NOT going to be pleasant, mind you.
How about this...
Tally up the acts of mayhem committed upon the american people by the taliban, al qeada, and all those merry little satellite and splinter factions, and they WONT EVEN COME CLOSE...
To the amount of mayhem done unto the american people by their so-called protectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_jewels_(Central_Intelligence_Agenc
y) <- Add Manually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Don't even get me started - since COINTELPRO would have never been exposed if not for the outright "illegal" acts that our predecessor organization carried out in order to do so.
And speaking of our merry little jihadists, why not ask yourself about KSM's guys, old Ramzi Youssef and the 1993 WTC bombing - questions like WHERE DID THEY GET THE FRIGGIN BOMB ?
Would you like to GUESS ?
Or how bout I tell you.
Emad Salem, an FBI plant, obtained it for them via the FBI, wired it up for them, and then was ordered NOT to sabotage it when he offered to do so cause the FBI wanted to set his ass up as a patsy to cover up the fact that without their bomb, their expert, KSM's goon squad had *NOTHING* and the bombing never would have occured at all.
They also ignored him when he tried to tell em about Bojinka, and when KSM was rounded up via properly served and executed warrant, and then interrogated in a hands-off by-the-book fashion, chose to ignore not only what he told em, but the hardcopy evidence seized along with him was left in a basement to rot since it didn't jibe with the political agenda they were serving at the time.
And shall we talk about the FBI's little field trip to the Soviet Union and abject fascination with SORM I & II, and how they clobbered their own shoddy clone and called it CARNIVORE ?
And how Congress issued THREE SEPARATE DIRECTIVES ordering them to never build it, disallowing funding for it, and explicitly stating they were never to use it or any comparable technology on the american people - something they *IMMEDIATELY* ignored, funded out of black budget, then instantly wired into every goddamn provider they could find with a combination of threats, extortion and blackmail - which was retroactively legalized by the patriot act but up till then was in breach of their charter and made them officially a rogue organization equivalent to a mafia ?
Which brings in the question of who is really in charge when it's plainly not possible for our government to call these bastards into questions on their actions, IF they even bother to inform that government what they are, and most of the time lie about it ?
Tell me, how MANY valid subpeanos is the USDOJ currently ignoring, again ?
Then again, given that they were founded upon a pack of corporate strikebreaker goons (Pinkertons), that's no surprise, the apple never does fall far from the tree does it now ?
You wanna stop terrorism, fine - start by bombing Langley and Quantico, not Tehran, cause that's where the primary THREAT is, from our so-called protectors, who instead of protecting us commit terrorism against us.
That's a valid, proven, quantifiable FACT, that our so-called protectors have committed more terrorism against our country and our people than ANY other source on the entire goddamn planet, and it doesn't include the terrorism they've engaged in against OTHER countries and their people, not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change
Compared to us, the taliban, al-qeada and all the rest of em are a bunch of half-ass pikers stealing change out of the church collection plate.
And so the very idea of US, the very font of the worst of it all, waging "war on terror" is just fucking laughable, since if we really meant it the very FIRST folk who need to swing from a rope are just an arms reach away no
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Psst, Frem, link is broken on the CIA article. Site is being stupid about the parenthesis on the end.
Also, "Freedom of Information Act."
*Loud laughter*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have to add it manually, it's a known issue with either our board, wiki, or the HTML between, but any link with a para at the end, it has to be added manually, alas.
Like Serenity, our board does have it's little homey quirks, it does - at least OUR primary buffer panel ain't fallen off yet.
EDIT: Yeah, FOIA is every bit as much a joke as begging permission for a permit to protest, innit ?
The CCI-FBI was a front for our predecessor group, which I'll not name, but did pass on some of it's unfinished business (like Kissinger) to us when it's last living member capped it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the
_FBI
The problem with exposing these bastards today is that in doing so you reveal your penetration level and methods, so it's far smarter to drop hints until it gets picked up and kicked around the rumor mill enough to obfuscate the original source when it finally DOES come out.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently I need to ask again, since it seems to have been missed the first time I asked. And then it looks like PJ and Wulf missed it again when Pizmo asked it, so let's hope the third time's the charm...Quote:
What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances!
List ALL of the rights that Obama took away from you in the last 8 months. Hell, list ONE of them.
Anybody?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Mike
Uh...I now suffer from a bald patch...?
donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal
Still...what would Rorschach do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.
What has he done that has directly affected you?
This just...
"I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration."
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.
I don't think things have greatly improved, not yet. I do think there is great potential for improvement though, more so than ever, especially if the dirt f*ckers on the right (Rush et al) would just get out of the way. Ultimately, the prez is one guy, he can't get it done by himself.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.
And how would I eat?
You seem to keep making the mistake that I'm complaining about my job and am not self-fulfilled.
I'm not. I'm grateful to have the job that I do.
I'm complaining that I am a cog in the machine, and had no choice in the matter. And I'm complaining that there are some people who have things MUCH much worse than I do, and that their problems are systematic.
For example, slums.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfie, are you really that scared of being overrun by scary black people?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
so, no health care?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration. But you seem to think that things have greatly improved under the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration.
What has he done that has directly affected you?
This just...
"I have explained why I think our government is unbearable under any administration."
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.
I don't think things have greatly improved, not yet. I do think there is great potential for improvement though, more so than ever, especially if the dirt f*ckers on the right (Rush et al) would just get out of the way. Ultimately, the prez is one guy, he can't get it done by himself.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
Well, for one thing, Obama has distinctly NOT invaded any more nations. That's not much, but it's something. Talks may be renewed with North Korea seeking nuclear disarmament; in fact, two North Korean diplomats have been cleared to meet with Bill Richardson in New Mexico. And Iran may be warming to talks with the U.S. Cuba, too.
As for what will DIRECTLY affect me the most? Well, healthcare reform would be huge.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
I think you need a change. Quit your job, fire your boss, hitchhike across the country, change up big, sh*tcan your routine, kick down that box. The opportunities for self-fulfillment out there are immense, especially in this country and even more so now with the internet. If I'm not happy I blame myself.
And how would I eat?
You seem to keep making the mistake that I'm complaining about my job and am not self-fulfilled.
I'm not. I'm grateful to have the job that I do.
I'm complaining that I am a cog in the machine, and had no choice in the matter. And I'm complaining that there are some people who have things MUCH much worse than I do, and that their problems are systematic.
For example, slums.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?
Like I said, I must be missing your point.
You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?
Like I said, I must be missing your point.
No. I didn't. My argument, as I've said before, is not ABOUT Obama's administration, but rather the way our country simply works.
Mine is a complaint about capitalism and exploitation.
I would have volunteered to do my job, because I think it's a worthwhile job. But there's an economic incentive attached to everything that I disagree with on principle.
The system is set up based on the belief that if everyone had their basic necessities met, they wouldn't do anything. People are made to have to participate in drudgery in order to have their basic needs meet, and sometimes even that isn't quite enough to cover everything.
And a side effect that both corporations and the government appreciate GREATLY about this is that people have less time to participate in government and resist ideas that they disagree with. Give us busywork, while starving some of us, and make a compliant population.
I find that unethical.
Quote:
You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?
Dumpster diving is very difficult to get all the nutrients you need. Most homeless people are malnourished, even if they do dumpster dive and aren't just straight out starving.
I find theft to be unethical as well.
My point, ultimately, is the same point I make elsewhere. We need a different system. Up until then, ALL of us are cogs, I am a cog. Just because I chose to earn money and eat (which is not really a choice at all) doesn't mean I have to like being one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you complaining that since Obama came into office, you have to keep your job? Did you think he was going to magically make everything free? And if he did, wouldn't that be decried as "socialism", and therefore a bad thing?
Like I said, I must be missing your point.
No. I didn't. My argument, as I've said before, is not ABOUT Obama's administration, but rather the way our country simply works.
Mine is a complaint about capitalism and exploitation.
I would have volunteered to do my job, because I think it's a worthwhile job. But there's an economic incentive attached to everything that I disagree with on principle.
The system is set up based on the belief that if everyone had their basic necessities met, they wouldn't do anything. People are made to have to participate in drudgery in order to have their basic needs meet, and sometimes even that isn't quite enough to cover everything.
And a side effect that both corporations and the government appreciate GREATLY about this is that people have less time to participate in government and resist ideas that they disagree with. Give us busywork, while starving some of us, and make a compliant population.
I find that unethical.Quote:
You're a cog in the machine, and you had no choice in the matter? Really? You can't take care of yourself on your own? You can't feed yourself? Live off the land, or out of dumpsters? You seem to be decrying the government trying to do anything for you, and then you say you can't do for yourself. It doesn't seem to compute. Enlighten me; what am I missing?
Also. Dumpster diving is very difficult to get all the nutrients you need. Most homeless people are malnourished, even if they do dumpster dive and aren't just straight out starving.
I find theft to be unethical as well.
My point, ultimately, is the same point I make elsewhere. We need a different system. Up until then, ALL of us are cogs, I am a cog. Just because I chose to earn money and eat (which is not really a choice at all) doesn't mean I have to like being one.
Thank you for the clarification. I knew I must be missing something, and you've just made it clear.
Sadly, I don't have any great answers for you. Life sucks, but it tends to beat the alternatives. Sorry.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Scratch head*
I don't have a problem with life.
I just think we could come up with something better than capitalism. Something voluntary, where everyone has equal say in production, and where there's empathy among people. A system where we reaffirm that, yes, we didn't get to where we are without the help of everyone around us.
The reason I support a public care option is because it's what people need right now. But long term, potentially under a different system, that would all be moot. People would have health care, and they wouldn't need the government or insurance companies to provide it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently I need to ask again, since it seems to have been missed the first time I asked. And then it looks like PJ and Wulf missed it again when Pizmo asked it, so let's hope the third time's the charm...Quote:
What "rights" has Obama taken away? Name them. Be specific. Which rights has Obama taken away, that you had an ironclad guarantee to under Bush? Has he taken away your guns, like so many promised he would? Nope. In fact, now you get to wear the things to his appearances!
List ALL of the rights that Obama took away from you in the last 8 months. Hell, list ONE of them.
Anybody?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Mike
Uh...I now suffer from a bald patch...?
donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal
Still...what would Rorschach do?
Sorry, other obligations called me away from my computer. Happens that way some times.
You are correct when you state that no rights have been taken away...yet. They've been trying to disarm us for years, contrary to the second ammendment, and they haven't managed to do much...yet. My problem is that I see it going down that road. The current political climate worries me. It keeps getting uglier and uglier out there. I can't imagine what it will be like when we hit the real economic crash that we're barreling towards. Human nature being what it is, I'm not seeing the happy, shiny future that you guys seem to envision.
I would much rather prevent a fascist police-state then try to fight it once it's taken control. But make no mistake, if I'm backed into that kind of corner, I will fight.
BTW, I still don't get where you think that I am a Bush-worshipper (well...), I didn't like him any more than the rest of the fucktard politicians out there.
All hail the great Alliance! Everyone can be ignored or interfered with equally!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just for the record, it's *her* own words.
The purpose of government is to get in a man's way...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME