Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know what happened, we lived through it. We also don't need media figure heads to tell us what to think. Somehow shifting the issue to the other side of the aisle acting like it cancels out the current situation isn't going to work. We're smarter than that.If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol
I hope you were joking.
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol
I hope you were joking.
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol
I hope you were joking.
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights.
I'm not aware of any rights I lost due to the patriot act. If you are, feel free to cite examples.
1. Right to a trial. US citizens can be sent to secret prisons indefinately if the various intelligence agencies says its for national security.
2. Free press lost due to media blackouts in the interest of national security.
3. All forms of privacy invasion are now authorized by the government. Previously you needed judges for warrants so there was some oversight.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg. The Patriot acts are very "long winded" but a brief synopsis can be found on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
ummmm...
What we have going on under the new administration is the very definition of 'nanny state' and 'big brother'.
Everything's been expanded like 10 fold.
^--Nice solution you're offering.. rofl. Hypocrisy.
My solution: Government can get the hell out of our lives like the founding fathers intended.
It was not an insult. You went through all the trouble to belittle everyone for not offering solutions, then you don't even offer one yourself.Just insulting someone by saying "hypocrisy" is trolling. I will not respond with an insult back because I am above that BS. If you believe something to be different please elaborate if you are capable of doing so.
"Founding fathers intended" is always an interesting statement and usually comes from people that don't know much about them to be honest. Its like those people that say "Jesus hates fags!". Maybe if you cited a reference to something that the founding fathers said collectively that directly related to the things discussed recently in the thread your statement might carry more weight. "Otherwise its grasping at straws."
All the spin, bias, bullshit, opinions, beliefs, politics, religion and whatever else influences your daily lives and your thought process, I've only got one thing to say...
"Government is the solution to our problem. Government is our problem!"
Enough said...................................
Oh, and FUCK our Socialist President.... I really do hope the cretins who voted for this asshole are happy and proud of yourself... But in case you're not, don't worry, just give it time and we'll see what else this Communist shit-stain pulls out of his ass next.
Just insulting someone by saying "hypocrisy" is trolling. I will not respond with an insult back because I am above that BS. If you believe something to be different please elaborate if you are capable of doing so.
ummmm...
What we have going on under the new administration is the very definition of 'nanny state' and 'big brother'.
Everything's been expanded like 10 fold.
In defense of the acts, Bush had to do something to calm the fears of the American public after 9/11. Have any of those three powers you listed ever actually been used and justified with the Patriot Acts?
I'm not aware of any rights I lost due to the patriot act. If you are, feel free to cite examples.
Do you just convieniently glaze over the fact Obama signed it back into law????
Go ahead and make an argument against the Constitution. Are you one like BHO that believes it is a roadblock?
- The document goes through line by line and outlines limited government.rofl argument against constitution? Who said that? You need to cite examples rather than throwing around documents without excerpts to indicate what you are applying it to.
Baiting me with BHO eats babies so do you to? LOL
Very True.........and I warned people before hand that voting for change was the wrong thing to do (simply for the fact that you might not get the change you want). You need to vote on the issues.I've only got one thing to say:
"Government is NOT the solution to our problem. Government is our problem!"
Enough said...................................
Oh, and #$*% our Socialist President.... I really do hope the cretins who voted for this a**hole are happy and proud of yourself....
Oh yeah, here's my reference. The greatest document ever crafted which lays out everything section by section.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
This proves the (any)President is not the actual leader of the country. He's a puppet, whoever pulls his strings runs the country(corporations, bankers, elitists).
I just find it strange you say Obama believes the constitution is a roadblock without even giving an example how his policy directly contradicts any of the statements written in the document. I want to understand your reasoning but without direct proof it appears to be emotional rather than logical. Basically whats the rationale behind that belief?
- The document goes through line by line and outlines limited government.
No, I don't like either party. They've both contributed to ruining the country. I've expressed that quite strongly in various threads. People aren't just black and white.. there's different beliefs people can hold.Would you like to see a permanent cap on spending until the national deficit is payed off?
Both parties are "Big Government". Look at military/defense spending. I guess you don't like either party? I am a little sick of the fear mongering and empty campaign promises of both sides.
They are both controlled by special interest groups and PACs I will admit. I have seen it first hand as I have worked for PAC's and campaigns before.
No, I don't like either party. They've both contributed to ruining the country. I've expressed that quite strongly in various threads. People aren't just black and white.. there's different beliefs people can hold.
But yes, I'd like to see the government stop spending trillions of dollars. Currently they're lining up trillions more in spending. In reality, it's too late already. We are in over our heads. Our debts are greater than the world's GDP. The derivatives market debt alone is many fold greater..
yeah, the man's own words aren't good enough. The excerpt..Youtube really isn't much of a source... a written transcript from the campaign trail or press conferences covered by AP or Reuters would suffice. Or even any place that is required to have standards on what it publishes. I am not saying its fabricated but misquoting statements made by politicians can yield certain results for smear campaigns. Even home cooked ones on Youtube.
BHO said:If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it Id be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states cant do to you. Says what the Federal government cant do to you, but doesnt say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasnt shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. [...]
Im not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isnt structured that way.
It's a fraction reserve banking system. It's a good system, but it creates massive potential debts. The real problems are the legislation that actually force banks to hand out loans to anyone with a heartbeat. Things like equal credit lending and community reinvestment legislation were major contributing factors.Well theoritically since the banking system can actually make money out of thin air(literally), you could just allow it to keep less on hand as a percentage for all banks for lending and suddenly things would be fixed if people had the means to pay it back at more than the "on hand" rate since its mainly electronic money anyway. Its just really risky because if that causes consumer confidence to fall we could see the whole financial system collapse and we would be doing barter again maybe.
Its a huge mess and I am not saying it will be fixed anytime soon, but I am glad people are trying to fix it even if it doesn't work.
Originally Posted by w1retap
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. [...]
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Caniba,
I feel like I am Truman talking to Joseph McCarthy right now. Of course I want america to succeed, I wouldn't be here otherwise. Now who is misguided Caniba? It saddens me to think you will never really come to realize that what you said is rather ironic.
I must go now and stimulate the economy by getting my breakfast on the way to work.
I really hope you're joking. He's saying that we need to override what the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution in order to achieve social redistributive change.. But I'm guessing you're some form of a collectivist and that's why you agree.That does not sound bad to me. From that exerpt I would say he has a different interpretation of the constitution than probably you, but different doesn't mean he lusts to burn the thing. He has a background in studying law so its only natural to pick a school of thought within it.
That was my point. Sorry for going over your head.
I really hope you're joking. He's saying that we need to override what the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution in order to achieve social redistributive change.. But I'm guessing you're some form of a collectivist and that's why you agree.
The problem is that he's made it very clear where he stands. His rallies show it, his speeches show it, his advisers sounding him show it, his legislation he signed shows it, his past positions and voting record shows it, his future aspirations show it, and his spending shows it. I could literally waste my entire week copying and pasting links/transcripts/videos/audio that enforce precisely what I'm saying. Can you refute any of the vague remarks you make that make the point "he doesn't really mean that"?I think he is interpreting it to not cover those topics completely. Therefore he wants to fill in the gap with his opinion of whats right for the people if the opportunity presents itself. Which I am sure it won't even if he wanted to right now because thats against both side's corporate interests. He is on a short leash as it is with anti-public healthcare running the spin machine currently.
So you like McCarthy and those kinds of political tactics he popularized?
BTW Its not going over someone's head if they call you on it. Its called under the rug.