I doubt he'll be remembered as anything other than a massive disappointment

Edit: Re-reading that, it came across harsher than I had intended. I think Obama was a good guy with mostly good intentions (still not keen on his policy of murdering brown people in other countries without due process).

But his healthcare was half-assed, he did nothing about gun control, and he STILL hasn't closed Guantanamo. Meanwhile, privacy rights have further eroded under his watch, and whatever legislation he apparently put in place around Wall Street is clearly not working. I'm not sure he's even looked at campaign finance reform.

Granted, a lot of that is down to an increasingly intractable (read: borderline retarded) republican congress, but the fact remains, he didn't achieve nearly as much as was hoped for.

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

You sound like Glen Close in Fatal Attraction. Enough of this clingy shit. I'm not your therapist. Go write a sonnet or free a butterfly from a net. Call an old friend and say hi. Send a handwritten note to a sick relative. Give your wife a good long kiss. Smoke some pot and take a nap. Every little thing gonna be alright.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Your terms again. Got it. That's twice now in one conversation. Holding others to higher standards. Again.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

Your terms again. Got it. That's twice now in one conversation. Holding others to higher standards. Again.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards. >> ^blankfist:

I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.
But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

>> ^blankfist:

I also wonder why @NetRunner hasn't voted for this? I guess he endorses police states.


NetRunner rarely notices videos without the all-important *politics tag.

I'll watch when I'm not at work.

Sight unseen, my take on this topic is based on two principles -- I'm a privacy rights advocate, and I'm in the camp that says you have to give your consent to have your picture taken or filmed, or put another way, you should have legal ownership of all information people collect about you.

That said, I think that goes out the window when we're talking about people collecting information about a service they consume. Corporations should be transparent about the products and services they provide, and government should be transparent about the services it provides.

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

It's hilarous when people complain loudly about privacy rights, and then post volumes of personal information on Facebook. Hilarious to me anyway.

Also, awesome *music by Boards of Canada.

This is the cost, and the ultimate achievement of the "war on terror".

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
Yes, he did keep us safe. Duh. But at what cost? Thousands of American lives, over a million from another culture, invasion of basic privacy rights, illegally detaining POW's without due process, and just like every other business he's ever touched, ran it financially into the ground.
But were safe. Whew. For a minute there, I thought we were screwed.

Yes, he did keep us safe. Duh. But at what cost? Thousands of American lives, over a million from another culture, invasion of basic privacy rights, illegally detaining POW's without due process, and just like every other business he's ever touched, ran it financially into the ground.

But were safe. Whew. For a minute there, I thought we were screwed.

^Yeah. Obama's scorecard is only from a pool of 20 votes though. And of those he voted:

FOR the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Senate)
On July 9, 2008, the Senate passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) by a vote of 69-28. The ACLU opposed this legislation due to its failure to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights for individual Americans. Specifically, it authorizes an unlawful warrantless surveillance program, while providing effective immunity to those telecommunications companies that assisted government surveillance even before the facts surrounding the full extent of this program are known.
FOR Patriot Act Reauthorization (Senate)
On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 by a vote of 89 to 10. The ACLU opposed this bill because it failed to add to the Patriot Act reasonable, necessary safeguards to protect civil liberties. It made many expiring provisions permanent, including provisions that allow the government to obtain a wide variety of private confidential records using National Security Letters, seek secret court orders under section 215, gag recipients of these record requests with only an illusory right to challenge, and secretly search homes and offices. The bill also expands the death penalty, limits protest rights at major events and coerces businesses to check their employees against flawed government watch lists.
FOR Judicial Review of Torture
On November 15, 2005, the Senate agreed to the Graham-Levin Amendment that would strip
detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay of most of their due process protections. The ACLU
opposed the Graham-Levin Amendment because, by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of
the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the
system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government's use of
torture and abuse and other denials of due process. The amendment passed by a vote of 84 to 14
and was attached to the Defense Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.


christ that was a pretty important 18%....