| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's everyone's thoughts on the new National Defense Authorization Act?
Personally, I kind of always knew that our freedoms would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.
links
That takes care of our 5th and 6th Amendments. Patriot Act took care of our 4th. Tonight, there will be a vote for SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), which should seriously cut into our 1st.
Thoughts?
Good choice of avatar J. E H!
This is just another nail in the coffin of our governments legitimacy. Obama has broken every campaign promise and shown himself to be a tool of the financial companies, and on the other side you have Romney who is a total tool, and won't get a vote without the person doing it letting out a sigh, and an "I guess" as they pull the lever (The John Kerry effect).
Our government can't:
Handle a budget (much less balance one, or ~gasp~ stay out of the red)
Keep people in jobs, houses, health or schools.
Protect our country, or accomplish non-evil overseas.
Run an honest campaign/election system.
Prevent themselves from raping the Constitution.
So why do we keep these people out of jail when they put each and every one of us in ~$45,000 of government debt?
I think we passed the point of fixing things through voting and such about a year or two ago, and have entered the phase where there will be a period of "unrest" before we embark on something new. The sooner this happens, the more orderly the transition will be.
The author James H Kunstler has written about civic design warning that by creating a nation of strip malls, we risk turning the country into a place not worth caring about, and eventually defending. I think our government has become a rotten shell of a democracy, and it is time to grow a new seed.
What's everyone's thoughts on the new National Defense Authorization Act?
I'm appalled. Obama not vetoing it like he said he would...I don't know. The GOP can't field a worthy candidate and instead has a parade of freaks. What would be the point of voting?
How anyone can think that giving the military, and by extension the executive branch, the power to incarcerate U.S. citizens without access to their rights is a good thing? "But they're terrorists" is the refrain of those that wanted this. No. They're accused of being terrorists. They're not terrorists until they've been taken to trial and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even traitors get trials.
As for SOPA, I've already written to my Representative and told them my thoughts. Whether they'll be taken into account or not remains to be seen.
Obama surely lost my vote with this one, but I don't know if voting really matters at this stage.
I'll have to read Kunstler's stuff, been meaning to get around to it, thanks for the bringing that up ,Fergie
Good choice of avatar J. E H!
This is just another nail in the coffin of our governments legitimacy. Obama has broken every campaign promise and shown himself to be a tool of the financial companies, and on the other side you have Romney who is a total tool, and won't get a vote without the person doing it letting out a sigh, and an "I guess" as they pull the lever (The John Kerry effect).
Our government can't:
Handle a budget (much less balance one, or ~gasp~ stay out of the red)Keep people in jobs, houses, health or schools.
Protect our country, or accomplish non-evil overseas.
Run an honest campaign/election system.
Prevent themselves from raping the Constitution.
So why do we keep these people out of jail when they put each and every one of us in ~$45,000 of government debt?
This is why I am such a hard liner against our military adventurism. The budget would be much easier to balance without all the illegal wars. We could protect our country if we werent doing evil overseas. The two biggest reasons for raping the Constitution? War on Terror and War on Drugs. Seriously, we declared war on inanimate objects and tactics now?!? OK, so we never actually declare war anymore, even though its Constitutionally required. Seriously, what is next? The War on Jam? The War on the 5 foot step?! Its just so idiotic to me. /rant
I'm all worked up now
|
I'm appalled. Obama not vetoing it like he said he would...I don't know. The GOP can't field a worthy candidate and instead has a parade of freaks. What would be the point of voting?
That's what Obama's handlers are banking on. They just need to make sure the right candidate ends up on the Republican side, now. Like it has been ever since the 2000 election (and possibly before).
But since "enraging civil liberties groups" means "civil liberties groups will pout, then vote Democrat" then, as far as Obama's concerned, no harm, no foul, and hey, more power for the center, like he's always wanted.
Seriously, what is next? The War on Jam? The War on the 5 foot step?!
I ranted about this in another thread. I think the two new ultra-wide-net free-for-alls will be The War on "Sex Offenses" (already in full swing, given some of the examples linked elsewhere) and The War on Internet Piracy.
I probably don't need to spell out what I think about this bullshiznit.
|
As insane as it sounds, I don't think there will ever be an end to the destruction of our civil liberties, and by extension our Constitution, until people get off their asses, stop allowing the Reps AND the Dems feed them an infinite amount of bullshit, and stand up for themselves. Start at the voting booth, as in everyone of these overfed pigs is led to the frigging slaughterhouse, and if that doesn't work then on the streets.
America is not immune to civil wars, and we're not the bastion of the free world any longer. It's sad when the Militia groups can say "See, we told you this was gonna happen!"
Thoroughly disgusted and frankly fearful. We're screwed.
C'mon, it sounds like a step towards a perfect communist system. All for the greater good right?
I fail to see how it's for the greater good to be able to lock up me and my friends.
[Leaves opening for snappy response in one, two...
|
|
C'mon, it sounds like a step towards a perfect communist system. All for the greater good right?I fail to see how it's for the greater good to be able to lock up me and my friends.
[Leaves opening for snappy response in one, two...
You don't have to. That's what greater good is all about, or so folks who support this kind of bullshit tell us anyway.
That's the same crap that an assload of communist governments use to "justify" their actions as well. But I digress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I refuse to use emoticons which causes all kinds of confusion.]
For the record, locking up me and my friends probably WOULD be for the greater good.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Background for funny story:
So, my friend Omar is an organizer with the United Electrical Workers. For the past half-dozen years or so, he's been living in Philadelphia where he was able to amass quite an arsenal--AK-47, AR-15, you know, the good stuff. Anyway, he finally got UE to transfer him up to Boston where the gun laws are much stricter.
So, he calls me up and asks if he can keep his guns at either my compound or my parents' house. (My parents have quite a few guns, too.) So, I start dutifully doing the legwork and ask my mom if Omar can keep his guns at their house. She says "Sure."
I wait a few minutes and then say, "You know, Mom, in this post-Patriot Act world, when your communist son asks if his Arab terrorist friend can keep his guns at your house, you should at least think about it for a few minutes before you agree."
She looks surprised, and, after a moment or two, says, "Ask your father."
My parents, ladies and gentlemen.
You don't have to. That's what greater good is all about, or so folks who support this kind of b$+~*$#+ tell us anyway.
That's the same crap that an assload of communist governments use to "justify" their actions as well. But I digress.
Hey! You took out the part where you said I was funny! :(
(See, sometimes I do use emoticons!)
As insane as it sounds, I don't think there will ever be an end to the destruction of our civil liberties, and by extension our Constitution, until people get off their asses, stop allowing the Reps AND the Dems feed them an infinite amount of b&@@@$~&, and stand up for themselves. Start at the voting booth, as in everyone of these overfed pigs is led to the frigging slaughterhouse, and if that doesn't work then on the streets.
America is not immune to civil wars, and we're not the bastion of the free world any longer. It's sad when the Militia groups can say "See, we told you this was gonna happen!"
Indeed.
|
What's everyone's thoughts on the new National Defense Authorization Act?
Personally, I kind of always knew that our freedoms would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.
links
That takes care of our 5th and 6th Amendments. Patriot Act took care of our 4th. Tonight, there will be a vote for SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), which should seriously cut into our 1st.
Thoughts?
Personally, I kind of always knew that the illusion of freedom would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.
Personally, I kind of always knew that the illusion of freedom would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.What's everyone's thoughts on the new National Defense Authorization Act?
Personally, I kind of always knew that our freedoms would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.
links
That takes care of our 5th and 6th Amendments. Patriot Act took care of our 4th. Tonight, there will be a vote for SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), which should seriously cut into our 1st.
Thoughts?
Well said.
|
There were relatively more native Americans in the mid-19th century, so that was nice in a Dances With Wolves kind of way.
But seriously, let's just go back to 10th century Iceland.
ORM EGILSON
Oh, but seriously seriously, nothing we do will matter. The advances in technology coming in the next few decades will consume humanity, and we will disappear into the machinery. The 1% will be immortal cyborg vampires, and the 99% will be soldiers, service workers, and organ farms.
Merry Christmas, everybody!
The mid-19th century did not have atomic bombs, ubiquitous surveillance, fMRI lie detection, DNA banks, and so on. Still, it was a pretty shitty time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a bad time and place to live if you're white, male and rich. Otherwise...
Not just white, but the right kind of white. White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. If you're Irish, Italian, Greek, or Eastern European, you're just not white enough.
Come to think of it, the arguments against immigration by the wrong kinds of white folk were about the same as the ones used against Mexicans and other Latin-Americans today...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama surely lost my vote with this one, but I don't know if voting really matters at this stage.
I'll have to read Kunstler's stuff, been meaning to get around to it, thanks for the bringing that up ,Fergie
When the War on Terrorism was declared, it came with it the spoken and unspoken connotation that it was a war that would never end.
Democracy can not exist in a perpetual war footing.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison
It's not a bad time and place to live if you're white, male and rich. Otherwise...
Not just white, but the right kind of white. White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. If you're Irish, Italian, Greek, or Eastern European, you're just not white enough.
Come to think of it, the arguments against immigration by the wrong kinds of white folk were about the same as the ones used against Mexicans and other Latin-Americans today...
Mostly this kind of thing?
I didn't realize rednecks were territorially limited to Appalachia.
According to your favorite source for information, it is derived from red kerchiefs striking miners used to wear.
Cool. I'm going to start using it more.
People from the Appalachians are called bumpkins, or hillbillies.
Redneck I think of as being deep south, georgia, alabama, arkansas, regardless of its etymological origins.
But it's not a racial slur, like you say, it targets a certain subculture of whites. It's a group of people defined by language (often incomprehensible accents, a la Boomhauer), socioeconomic status, education level (this one is most important to me), and cultural values (guns, god, and government).
Although to your comment, I don't see the irony as one person was talking about "right kind of whites" whereas I quoted them and posted a joke about an ATTITUDE held by a lot of economically disenfranchised white people. An attitude that deserves to be mocked.
For the record, there is an important distinction between racism and other prejudices. For example, I'm distinctly prejudiced against people who are woefully uneducated and ignorant. This prejudice in no way correlates to my feelings about racial or ethnic groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disparate points from this thread reminded me of the following story:
My compound-mate and I both have beards and are both Teamsters. (For those following along at home, my compound-mate plays Tramora III, halfling warrior and hater of peasants.)
So, our local was on strike against a cheese-importer this summer in Mass. We were walking the picket line when a guy started crossing the line. My compound-mate held up his picket sign and said "We're on strike, don't cross our line" in a rather mealy-mouthed fashion. The guy looked at him and said "Get out of my face, you inbred hillbilly!"
Those who may have read my posts in the Carrion Crown forum won't be surprised to hear that my compound-mate responded: "Shut your f!&$ing mouth, you f+@@ing scab!"
His conversational skills in and out of game are pretty much the same!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An attitude that deserves to be mocked.What attitude would that be?
The attitude that the entirety of the blame for said individuals low socio-economic status can be laid on some undesirable, in this case illegal immigrants. That is specifically what that episode was lambasting. That attitude, and that entire line of thought, deserves to be mocked.
As to your other comment, I don't think that's just the right distinction either. You could easily argue that people can't help being sexually attracted to children, for example.
Race is of a class of distinctions that absolutely can't be helped, or changed, and which absolutely, demonstrably isn't necessarily linked to the root of such prejudices. People often don't hate a race for being that race, they hate a race because of its link with other perceptions that are then stereotyped. For example, racism against Latinos is (often) rooted in the (erroneous) belief that, because they are that race, they belong to an undesired subset of people.
And this makes it different from, for example, being gay -how???-
Gay people, and you'll pardon my generalizing, participate in homosexual sex. That's what's icky to the people who are prejudiced, not the individual.
If you ask some racist bigot "why do you hate black people?" he will spout out things that aren't true of every single black person, or even an overwhelming majority of them. Unless they just fall back on racial attributes, which I don't think I've ever actually encountered.
If you ask someone why they hate gay people, it's the gay sex. That's the clincher. They find it disgusting, immoral, against god, or whatever reason they find to justify their hate. Since being homosexual is pretty much defined by sexual proclivity, it's almost axiomatic that a gay person participates in gay sex.
I'm not saying one prejudice is better, or superior, or right. They're both are equally atrocious. But they are *different* in this respect which is what you asked.
On the other side, when I worked retail, I held a prejudice against young kids, preteens or younger, that came into the store without parents while wearing big baggy jackets. Not that every unattended child in the store stole something, but the VERY few times I caught someone stealing or attempting to steal, it was a (racially neutral) preteen with a baggy jacket. Refusing to profile in this way would have prevented me from using past experience to prevent future harm.
I don't know what you mean by 'homosexual act'. If I'm in a public gym locker room, people are going to have an ick response even if I'm not shooting a porno.
Neither do I. Good thing I didn't use that term, isn't it?
And if you don't know what constitutes homosexual sex, then I don't know how to help you.Do you see why people have such a hard time discussing thing honestly with you when you refuse to be honest?
If you think that the only thing people have an 'ick' reaction to with regards to gays is the sex, then you're mistaken.
Either you aren't reading my posts before responding, or you are arguing disingenuously.
If you go back and actually read, patiently, attempting to understand it, you'll find I didn't say that. But whatever, you just like arguing for arguing's sake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who doesn't?
Your mom.