>> ^joedirt:
SDGundhamX:
You are a fool, "we do not live in a fascist police state and that freedom of speech is alive and well"
Freedom of assembly? blah blah.. something about grievances? Oh nevermind, because your white ass knows better. It's not like you've ever tried to march in the streets or even attend a protest. I mean things look fine to you from YouTube, so clearly all is well and good. Some day you will have one of these paramilitarized stormtroopers with their boot on your throat confiscating your computer in a preemptive raid because of your thoughtcrimes or FISA snooping, and I hope to God at that moment you realize how foolish your statements were.


First off, I live in San Francisco where we protest something just about every day. I've been to the war protests--never saw anybody getting arrested that didn't deserve it (ie started disrupting traffic by sitting in the street, etc.). So before you start talking smack about people you don't even know maybe you should just ask them a point blank question--like, have you ever been to a protest? I would have happily answered you without resorting to name calling.

Second off, you need to rein in your paranoia. You know how many people have been arrested at the RNC protests? Less than 300. You know how many people are protesting? Over 10,000. So I fail to see how your delusion of us living in a fascist country holds up. The vast majority of people who went to protest at the RNC got to get their message out peacefully.

Now, those 300 or so that have been arrested weren't just randomly targeted. The cops didn't just say, "Hey let's grab that guy." Those arrested were parts of crowds that were engaged in violent acts including the smashing of windows and the slashing of tires. That's not peaceful demonstration; that is by definition rioting.

Was everyone arrested guilty? No. Some asshat anarchists started it and obviously some people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time got caught up in the sweep. The courts will view the evidence and decide who did what. I imagine most of the charges will be dropped--something that would not happen in your imaginary fascist state.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. You think America is becoming a police state? Great. I think you have the right to voice your opinion. But if you're going to go out there and shout that the sky is falling and that we're all fools because we don't agree with you then you shouldn't be surprised that you're met with total apathy or downright hostility in return.

SDGundhamX:

You are a fool, "we do not live in a fascist police state and that freedom of speech is alive and well"

Freedom of assembly? blah blah.. something about grievances? Oh nevermind, because your white ass knows better. It's not like you've ever tried to march in the streets or even attend a protest. I mean things look fine to you from YouTube, so clearly all is well and good. Some day you will have one of these paramilitarized stormtroopers with their boot on your throat confiscating your computer in a preemptive raid because of your thoughtcrimes or FISA snooping, and I hope to God at that moment you realize how foolish your statements were.

Actually, we just believe in laws, like libertarians do, we just think certain can laws lead to more freedom...like libertarians do. You guys are just picky about laws that involve taxes, or safety regulations.

About FISA, good to know RP did oppose it -- I was kinda pissed when I saw he ducked the vote, though I was pretty upset about how FISA went down generally. If Obama becomes President, we can petition the hell out of him to fix it (like he said he would). If McCain wins, we'll both be arrested if we try (and then tried and convicted of treason committed against a necessary tool in the war on terror, then executed).

The video you linked in response to my net neutrality claim was mostly about censorship (which I agree with him on), but when he was asked about net neutrality, he didn't seem to really understand the concept, and reiterated his opposition to it on the ideological grounds of "laws are never any good".

I don't think he'd support it, even if he understood it. It really comes down to how he feels about major news networks, and whether he thinks the various self-censored stories and biases in them are a problem, or if that's just how freedom works: major corporations will evolve and collude to mislead the public, freely.

Also, I'll at least mention that you're conceding my point about health care, since the vid definitely misrepresents both Paul's and Obama's positions on health care. (Paul's is grounded in political ideology, and Obama's...exists)

Actually, I think freedom means freedom, and Democratic & Neo-Con freedom means bigger intrusive government telling us what is best for us.

Ron Paul on FISA: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr062008h.htm

Obama on FISA: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

Ron Paul on Net Neutrality (it's about taxation and federal regulations, not access restriction): http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/16731/The_Loop_One_on_One_with_Ron_Paul_.html

Ron Paul on Health Care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm

I wouldn't call that non-biased, or even completely factually correct. Some are accurate, others are not. Obama does not support invading Iran, and for some reason they didn't mention FISA. Oh, that's right, that's because Ron Paul did not oppose FISA.

As for the bit about health care plans, Obama's health care plan seems to say something more than "I believe in change".

Paul's plan is to deregulate the market, and cut people's taxes. That's essentially McCain's health care plan!

As for the comment about the internet, Paul opposes net neutrality, while Obama supports it.

I guess the question there is whether you think freedom means big networks should be able to use their money to monopolize the flow of information through the internet...or keep it how it is now.

Well.. duh.. of course Buchanan liked it because Obama is not a progressive. Obama voted for Iraq, for multiple war supplementals, he voted for FISA and telecom immunity and Patriot steal-your-liberties.

Obama is also not a writer of his own speeches, hence the Deval Patrick kerfluffle when they had the same speech (same writer).

I don't think Obama necessarily believes that he is a political messiah, but I know people who sure think he is. I've also read comments here throughout the nomination process where people are really expecting monumental things from this guy like he is going to raise his staff and bring world peace. I've come to realize throughout the past few months when discussing this with friends of differing political beliefs that the things that bother me about Obama are positives to them. The same thing here. You say that your are pinning hopes on Obama to bring about the ascendancy of the Democratic platform. That is the last thing I would want to see. Not only have the Democrats failed to deliver on just about every single promise they made to gain congressional control, but they have an approval rating even lower than Bush right now. This coming from Americans of all political affiliations.

He has also caved on more than FISA. He retracted his initial statements about the surge being a useless idea and pretended to be a supporter. A Virginia democrat claimed the surges success was credited to Obama. Obama now professes the success of the surge in a complete 180 from his original statements that it would worsen the situation. When asked if he could go back to the moment he voiced his opposition to the surge, and use the information he has now to make his decision, Obama said that he would not change his opinion since being opposed to Bush was more important at the time than the outcome. He also reversed his position on gun control while cleaning up the mess from his clinging to God and guns statement about Pennsylvania.

I see Obama as a man with loads of good intentions that will serve to break this country even further. Bush went crazy with the Patriot Act and other expansions of government power in the name of saftey. Spending is getting out of control and the economy is slow. I think Obama will drive the nail in its coffin with full support of a Democratic ascendancy.

I wouldn't really call this arguing, this has been a delightfully civil exchange as far as these things go, and I appreciate your candor.

You have to admit though, this particular clip, even out of context, doesn't mean what you titled the video.

I don't think Obama is a political messiah -- as a matter of fact, that's one of the smears used against him is to purport that he sees himself as one, or that his supporters see him as one. It's true that I personally have pinned a lot of high hopes on him, but that's more about the Democratic platform moving into ascendancy than it is about him personally.

Videosift has its bias, but not all anti-McCain stuff sifts. For example, the clip of him saying he defines rich as $5 million/year or more probably wouldn't sift, because you'd have to edit it a healthy amount, and it's not particularly damning. Expect it to wind up in a video montage, though.

My main problem with all the anti-Obama stuff is that it's either a) made up, b) misrepresented, or c) about someone else with a weak tie to Obama. The Letterman clip was none of those things, and was entertaining to boot, so it sifted.

No one hits him for caving on FISA, or for talking tough about Iran, or even about the fact that he's said he does not expect to be able to balance the budget in his first term. They do hit him as being inexperienced, but they usually invalidate those arguments by lying about it (e.g. "He's never done anything bipartisan" or "He's never done anything significant"...both false!).

Instead it's mostly implying he's a Muslim, impugning his patriotism, Jeremiah Wright, calling his popularity "celebrity", lies about his tax policy, and lies about his energy policy.

The lowest class thing the left says about McCain is that he's old and angry...and lots of people who know him personally say the same (even his mom). The rest is just clips of things he's said which coincide with his stated policies.

The homegrown anti-Obama stuff often looks like this, or worse.

^ I'm not sure I understand your point, is Obama supposed to say "fuck you, I'm gonna run this country my way if you elect me, and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass"?

That's certainly how Bush/Cheney have done, and it's been bad for them and the country.

If your point is to say that Obama has no conviction of his own except ambition, I disagree. He's been pretty damned consistent all through his entire career, including both the primary and what's transpired so far in the GE. The worst "flip-flop" charge you can really level at him is that he didn't fight FISA tooth and nail, and is indicating he's willing to negotiate on offshore drilling.

While I'm not pleased about either of those, I can understand the necessity of not repeating the mistakes of the Republican party, and being uncompromising, and extremist about...everything.

Besides, to me, Obama is great with both reasoned policies, as well as politically selling them. McCain is neither.

As for the exchange here, the only smart response was to be diplomatic -- he agrees with them on basic principle, but not in intensity of response. He did a pretty good job of making that much clear, I thought.

What, to you, would have been a better response?

I learn and teach proper gun safety. Just as any one else needs to learn how to drive a car safely. Yes I agree with common sense gun laws, but like copyright laws, FISA, and Patriot Act (Espionage Act)I do not agree with the amendments of very well written laws that already do their jobs.

He struck down Illinois gun rights, Chicago anti gun laws(supports them), and the right to own a Semi Auto in certain states. When there are bans on Semi Auto, Full Auto pistols, then there is a ban on the majority of handguns by proxy. Pump guns and Revolvers are unwieldy, I'm not talking about the right to defense I'm talking about the right to own and bear weapons that are formidable to the weapons that the good guys have.

They dont want the people to have these weapons because as is said: it impedes the right of them to enforce laws. No, it scares the shit out of authority, which is exactly what is needed. Criminals could care less what gun laws you put out there. Again I agree with common sense laws, but I do not agree with radical expansion of said laws.

On another note: Mcain is bush, Obama is a Fake Idol, Nader is a conspiracy theorist, and Lobbyist are money grubbing ass hats. The choice is? Gotdamn that's a tough choice.


Eisenhower said "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
To choggie, many presidents have warned us and yet we still continue to follow the lead lemming.

>> ^DavidRaine:
Not that it matters. Nobody with a brain and a spine wanted the FISA Amendments Act to pass, but here we are.

>> ^Crosswords:
^What does that have to do with offshore drilling?


I'm saying that it doesn't matter what the Bush's aides or economists or environmentalists or experts in any field or anyone at all has said in the past or says now, Congress will bend over backwards to give Bush exactly what he wants if not more. It won't surprise me if in the next three months Congress has repealed its ban on offshore drilling.

By the way, I've lost all trust in the U.S. Government. Can you tell?

>> ^DavidRaine:
>> ^NetRunner:
Speaking of that report from Bush's own administration that completely torpedos the argument for offshore drilling, here's a link to it.

Not that it matters. Nobody with a brain and a spine wanted the FISA Amendments Act to pass, but here we are.

^What does that have to do with offshore drilling?


On the subject of the donation, Clinton used white house as a high priced hotel, and Bush is selling his political clout and credibility. One of those two is a better investment.

>> ^NetRunner:
Speaking of that report from Bush's own administration that completely torpedos the argument for offshore drilling, here's a link to it.


Not that it matters. Nobody with a brain and a spine wanted the FISA Amendments Act to pass, but here we are.

What's everyone worried about, we can trust our government not to abuse the power granted by FISA... They told us so... what more do you want?

It won't stop Dennis from trying again tomorrow, either.

At least this would explain what's going on. Might even explain FISA, too, since we need to cover up their crimes so they aren't hauled off to the guillotine 15 seconds after leaving office.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens through the next year or so.