You dumb like newtboy.

Heathcare was free market before the war. Employers started to add it as a benefit to attract workers during the war.

Government oversight from gross market abuse is fine. But the government has been grossly overreaching its powers over the the last 50 years or so.

ACA is a perfect example of gross overreach.

Heathcare is not market controlled - government regulations have driven costs up over the last decades.

I work at many hospitals and a new outpatient clinic was opened and was dead empty - It had been opened for few months. I talked to the administrator and she indicated that many more patients are paying cash and not using insurance. I asked if they market their prices. She indicated that it was illegal to do that.

If pricing was posted and advertise and peopled started paying directly with only using insurance for the big stuff then competition would come in and drive costs down. Government does not drive down costs or wring out excess capacity.

Quit being delusional with government control as a utopia for all.

Ironically, HK is quite a safe city, and firearms are fairly rare. People assume the contrary due to HK crime films being one of its main exports, but in fact they refer to a by-gone era (60s - 80s, when triads were active and cops corrupt).

Hong Kong might be the most free-market / right-wing / libertarian economy in the world, but its administration invested quite a lot in its police, and as a result not only are they quite respected by the locals (very few cases of abuse or corruption, and the majority of these reported by... police officers), but it's also become one of the safest large cities in the world*.
But please -- don't tell that guy roaming the comments with his rants on 'statists ruining everything', he would not understand.


*That does not involve an overreaching police state, like Singapore.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

From his facebook:

"This is news to some, but many of you may have heard about the incident today at Warped Tour London. I jumped off an extremely tall lighting tress during my last song, and was taken to the hospital for examination. I was released, and I'm fine, besides some nicks, bruises, and the shame of endangering the crowd. The fall broke a girl's arm and hurt another guy. My tour manager Nils and I stayed at the hospital for 6 hours til the visiting period ended, and all I know about the man's condition at this point is that he has no breaks and the injury seems to be muscular/ bruising. I'll be going back in the morning to try to apologize, but I wouldn't blame the guy if he spits in my face. The jump was not awesome, it was not badass, and it was not ballsy. It turned what should have been a great day for the people who got hurt into a nightmare. It was stupid and wildly irresponsible, plain and simple.

I have no excuse for my actions, and the only way I can explain my mindset is that it was a huge overreach in the heat of the moment. No, I was not drunk or on drugs. I used to be a kid who was afraid to do anything physically dangerous-- I was scared of the ball in little league, didn't want to jump into lakes and would never have had the nerve to crowdsurf. But in the last year of touring, I've done increasingly risky things, maybe pushing myself by some dumb sense I am conquering my early timidity. I pride myself on trying to put on a good show and always giving 100% energy, but jumping off some high shit doesn't make someone a good musician or performer. I feel fucking terrible. I made a boneheaded decision that got people hurt, and it's extremely lucky it wasn't worse. Putting your own body on the line is one thing, but putting other people in harm's way is inexcusable. Today I let down my supporters, I let down the Warped Tour and I let down my band and the people who work their asses off behind the scenes to make these shows happen. My #1 priority right now is to somehow make this right for the folks who were hurt.

I will not be canceling the remaining 6 tour dates. I will do the shows, as usual I will meet everyone afterwards, and I will NOT be jumping off anything. I am deeply sorry and I promise to learn from this mistake."

Eh... so, understanding that you and I share the same position, I have to clarify something:
Police, literally, get away with murder, with multiple witnesses to the contrary as well as video evidence.
Also, you're assuming a great deal.
"Let me give you an example of this in a different light"
Your 'example' is entirely speculation on your part.

Regardless of all of this, when I posted I was unaware the guy was looking at jail time; there's no mention of it in the initial video. Because there are dozens of examples of validated law enforcement overreach with no repercussions, I don't believe my shock at him actually being fired was out of the ordinary. Most officers caught in a similar situation are put on "paid leave" while the department has their legal staff figure out how to clear the issue up with little backlash to the institution.

Ultimately I share your appreciation that things are improving. I definitely see this, and video evidence can't be an understated element to the change. But I don't see how you can write such a lengthy retort when A) we both see the same thing in the end, and B) all historical evidence supports my initial reaction.
Yes things are improving, but cops get away with rape to this day! Just consider my surprise at his reprimandation as synonymous with your appreciation that things are changing and be done with it.

NDAA 2007 basically overrode Posse Comitatus, even though it's overreach was repealed later. NDAA 2012 extended the definition of covered persons to include " any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities." A covered person is someone that is subject to martial law and exempt from Posse Comitatus. Of course, it's kinda hard to declare martial law on just one person which is why you saw martial law in full effect following the Boston bombing.

However, to answer your question, this was a military exercise, not US Armed Forces (with the exception for the National Guard and Coast Guard) enforcing domestic law. Of course, extrapolating from @chingalera 's tags, this exercise serves a more sinister purpose. I'll leave it up to him to expound on that.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, or one of the less-grounded members of this community (you all know who you are!), and I'm not trying to make this out to be the good/bad/evil scenario, i.e. Emperor Palpatine et al. I use "government" as a collective, general term, however I felt it was apt in this context given that people strictly within the government, and maybe lobbyists to an extent, are responsible for these various decisions that have led us to this point.
No, they don't seek power for it's own sake, but the handful of objectives I listed in my last post are a sampling of what might drive an organization to pursue power fervently.

There does seem to exist a greater, definitively single-minded pursuit of lessening the civil rights of US citizens since the turn of the millennium, in an attempt to have more power over them, and while "government" at large generally fumbles over itself when it attempts to get all the parts moving together as one, I believe you can see the broader cooperation happening here. From inclusion of said US Tech companies roles, the nation-wide abuse by the police force, aggression of US border patrol agents, random TSA checkpoints on some state highways, and the statements made by the president and his staff, which only seem to serve to blow off civil concerns with one breath while granting increased power to these same entities with the next.

At this point in a country's history, it seems to me that the only thing that can change the course of an entire nation is decisive action by it's citizens on a scale that would simultaneously qualify as an act that justifies all their overreaches of power. And I don't mean in any way acts of violence, but if there were a 5-million-man-march on the capitol tomorrow to show a mass appeal for reason and demand accountability, I believe it would be used as an example of why the government is pursuing such surveillance to begin with.

Sorry this is long winded, but lastly, I wouldn't feel too bad about Obama's allegedly targeting only foreign individuals. To me that felt like damage control to appease the US populace rather than an affront to foreign nationals. They said the Exact. Same. Thing. about the Patriot Act, and that was being used to arrest US citizens for minor infractions by local law enforcement not 6-months after it was passed. Disgusting.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it.

I agree with much of your comment, but that opening statement is so broad and overreaching that I had to downvote it (and I almost never vote on comments).

Unless I am mistaken, I think you are referring to a very narrow definition of religion in making that claim. It is absurd otherwise. Religion, in the most general sense, is a collectively accepted doctrine of moral, philosophical, and spiritual belief. There is nothing inherently detrimental to such systems of belief, except perhaps the tendency towards tribalism. But it's worth noting that some religious doctrines explicitly warn against tribalism.

I think what you may be arguing against is demagoguery and tribalism, both of which are often attached to religion, but are not synonymous with it.

It is important to make this distinction because only by being careful with such words can we ever move those enthralled by the negative aspects of religious social control.

>> ^nock:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http

/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.


The Obama campaign hasn't actually provided any evidence that their accusations are true. That Romney signed a few documents while they were transferring ownership of the company doesn't prove Romney was actually running the company. He was working 112 hour work weeks running the Olympics; how was he supposed to have an active role at Bain?

There is also the evidence of three confidential offering documents distributed to potential investors, two in 2000, 1 in 2001, in which Romneys name is conspicuously absent from. If he was really running the company, his name would have been on them:

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http
/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html


Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.

It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/

You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?
The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.
As Rand Paul said:
“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."
Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.
taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors


It's amazing to me that you blame Obama yet have no harsh words for say Reagan or Bush. He's essentially the same as them...how the fuck is he different? You're just an idiot man...give it up!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?
The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.
As Rand Paul said:
“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."
Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.
taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors


No True Scotsman

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?

The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.

As Rand Paul said:

“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."

Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.

taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors