@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.

If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.

Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.

Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I did, but it seemed like you said the reason we shouldn't care about Libya is because of Iraq. And then turned around and said this isn't like Iraq, even though it is clearly like Iraq. In other words, you were mad because this is just like Iraq, and because it isn't like Iraq.



I'm sorry, but equating the current situation in Libya with the almost-decade-long debacle in Iraq is completely retarded. In no way did I say the two were alike. In no way at all did I even imply that the two were alike in any way. You said that. I didn't.

Iraq was brought about by post 9/11 crazy-fervor. Donald Rumsfeld flat out lied to America by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The administration did everything they could to imply that Iraq was even somehow responsible for the World Trade Center attack and the vast majority of this country bought into it. Even supported it while somehow managing to feign complete ignorance of the whole Saudi Arabia issue. Remember the coalition of the willing? England and Poland and a long list of tiny countries with no military power whatsoever? How about the fact that there have been massive amounts of troops stationed in Iraq since the very beginning? Or that our then president Bush was informed, by God, via revelation that it was time to attack Iraq?

Meanwhile, this year in Libya, in a time of protests all over the world, we have reputable sources (not government investigators) reporting that not only are people in Libya protesting and trying to overthrow the government (a movement which never got off the ground during Saddam's regime) but that the dictator of the country is encouraging anyone on his side to kill any civilians who disagree with him. Now remember, this wasn't a secret plan carried out by word of mouth, it was a major news broadcast. And you have a problem with the fact that the president wanted to do something about it? I'd think that standing up for the basic human right to not be killed for your opinion would be seen as meritorious. Unlike the last president who needed a lame excuse.

As yet, there are no troops on the ground. The motive is not some concocted story. No one is even arguing over the motive for going in. It's been very clearly established. The US isn't even doing the largest portion of the work. Our partners include actual countries (no offense to Mauritania and the glorious country of Pitcairn Island) who are taking part in the assault as well.

Maybe this too will be proven to be a lie but the fact is people's lives are allegedly in danger NOW. And it's not like we're invading the country any time soon. We're not even trying to strike directly at troops. Sorry, but it seems like complete ignorance to me to claim that these to events are similar in any way. It seems like people are just looking for a way to blame the current president for the state of the world.

Yes, because the fact that people who have lived under despotism, tyrrany and war for 40 years, are resuming their daily activities and even enjoy themselves in theme parks, is just SOOO boring! Lets just focus on the fact that some brainwashed trolls of Islam are blowing themselves and fellow citizens up, and blame it on the secular coalition that probably fixed that zoo, built schools and arranged the first free election since forever

I freely admit to having thought Obama was the real deal, and that it's obvious he wasn't. I think my disappointments with him aside, he was still the right person to support, given that it was only ever going to be him, Hillary, or McCain who became President. I think you're vastly overstating it when you say that Obama is "leading the charge" in Libya, but that's just how you are.

I don't really see it as "chickens coming home to roost". Obama has failed to rise to the occasion on several issues, but he hasn't gone and done anything all his own that creates new problems to be undone. Maybe this no-fly zone in Libya will become that, but this doesn't strike me as some sort of imperialist impulse from Obama, so much as him going along with the world community.

If you told me that in 2008, after Bush put together an Iraq withdrawal plan, I would've said that I pretty much expect him to follow the Bush withdrawal plan to the letter...which he has, with no sign of extending our stay there. On Afghanistan, I would've said that Obama openly campaigned on escalating the conflict in Afhganistan, and I didn't like it much, but that that did seem to be the one place in the world we had any reason to be involved in. On Libya I would've said "why Libya?" If you said "to defend pro-democratic rebels who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi", I would've said "hmm, if the UN supports that action, and the mission remains limited in scope, I would oppose it, but I would understand it".

As for Gitmo and PATRIOT, if you told me that he'd be stopped from doing either by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, I would've found that completely believable. That he's passively let the topic fade from the public stage is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

As for the democratic process, all it proved is that it takes more work than voting for President once every 4 years. I was too carried away in 2008 about how much one election would do, but it did seem like a sea change at the time.

Part of what's wrong is that people here are too complacent. Tunisia, Egypt, etc. all just managed to topple dictatorships with peaceful protests. I think if we did the same here, we could topple our oligarchy. But first we need to stop letting fear of loss make us keep our heads down...

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

There are some significant differences between Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan. 1) The people of Libya have started this revolution on their own. 2) Aid would only involve air support - No bases, no ground troops. 3) The action is a legitimate action of the UN, and not a bogus US led coalition of the bribed and bullied.

To say this is 'no different' is incorrect.

It sounds to me like George Will opposes this because there is no money to be made and no power to be gained. Perhaps his statements here would hold more weight if he had opposed Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 - when it mattered.

This brings up an interesting point. Has the coalition said if they will shoot down rebel fighter jets violating the no-fly zone?

Of course I'm not suggesting that's what happened in this case. But just that there's no avoiding the issue, since it seems the rebels aren't keen on accepting the no-fly zone.

and after this i'll shut the hell up.
any government report suggesting this type of connection could possibly effect economic stability. or just freak people out....and then they might start thinking or something.

this is a great community...btw. thanks to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSzDZnNjUk
coalition of the willing.
seems like a really good idea.

The most common alternative to FPP systems - MMP - comes with its own set of problems. We end up with people in parliament or even in government who have not personally received any votes at all, they are there thanks to their party winnning a certain number of seats in parliament.

Even worse, you can get a narrow race between the two major parties and suddenly some dumbass little third party with 7% of the vote gets to decide who the government will be - i.e. whoever they form a coalition with.

What is your affiliation with Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty and this video?

This in no way was us students asking for everything for free. If you believe that, then you truely are ignorant and moronic. There are two arguments in this. The first being the increase. University costs enough as it is without having it increased almsot three-fold. There are far better ways to reduce spending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM), and higher education is not one of them.

The other problem is lack of trust in politics. Yes, sure, when you form a coalition, sacrifices need to be made, but when you make a policy which got you a large majority of your votes, you should fight for it. This, to me, amplifies the cowardice and lack of trust in politics.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Did you see the post Blank had where the guy just flat out says we are violating your 4th amendments rights...now sit down and shut up....I might be paraphrasing a bit.

Is blankfist part of the national media?

As for the rest, this is the other half of why I'm annoyed about the way the right operates, even when on the surface they agree with us. They're not satisfied to join onto a campaign that says "we want the TSA to scale back what they do", instead you've always got to make this into an excuse for extracting some sort of pound of government flesh.

Instead of focusing on the actual problem (overbearing security requirements on flights), the libertarian voices demand that we privatize the TSA (read: hire for-profit companies to conduct the gropings and porno scans at the TSA's behest) as if that's a solution to the issue. Republicans want that too, but they also want the gropings and porno scanners to say, they just want to make sure white people don't have to suffer them use racial profiling to determine who gets singled out for these invasive measures.

The more consistent (but even less reasonable) libertarians say they'll only sign on if what we aim for is abolishing the TSA entirely, and while we're at it the DHS too.

Throughout, all the various right-wing groups try to pretend like somehow this was originally a Democratic idea, and that the liberal grassroots were and are all for it.

The sad thing is, most if not all liberals are on the "small government" side of this argument. They want less onerous restrictions on airline security, period. I think plenty of them would be fine with turning over the actual hiring of security guards and purchase of scanners to the airlines, and leave the TSA as more of a regulatory agency than an actual paramilitary organization. Most see this whole process as an erosion of their civil rights.

Thing is, does the right want to tap into that and actually build a coalition that could do something about it? Or are they going to insist that this is all about conservative heroes fighting to defeat liberal villains, and thus guarantee that nothing changes?

I'm borrowing this for the "Objective" portion of my resume. Tanks you!

>> ^shagen454:

I want the sort of apocalypse where I somehow wake up on another planet - full of babes and I reach for a cigarette and when I light it up they all bow to me as GOD!!! And then I will show them all Asspocalypse and we will become the Coalition of Asspocalypse across the Universe (of course it will take a few million years but since we have a clear objective, minds will evolve)!

I want the sort of apocalypse where I somehow wake up on another planet - full of babes and I reach for a cigarette and when I light it up they all bow to me as GOD!!! And then I will show them all Asspocalypse and we will become the Coalition of Asspocalypse across the Universe (of course it will take a few million years but since we have a clear objective, minds will evolve)!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe" title="member since April 27th, 2007" class="profilelink">chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:
1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.
2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.
Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!
Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~
"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."
"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-
documents-describe-torture-detainees


HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!

@chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:

1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.

2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.

Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!

Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~

"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."

"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-documents-describe-torture-detainees