>> Cenk:

What happened? I thought Democrats didn't like this bill under Bush. Did something change?


When you haven't been elected, the people are us. When you have been elected, the people are them.

heres an interesting article on what youre talking about Shocking FBI Discovery: Austin Is Weird. thanks for the promote>> ^geo321:

They forgot to mention the use of these security certificates on activists. Anyway, promote

>> ^Januari:

While he is completely correct in this video.... this is the same guy who said that health care as a right meant the police were going to show up in the middle of the night and kidnap him with the intention of forcing him to treat people.... it's all just such BS


Yes indeed. He is slave because healthcare is a right. It's nice to see him say something sane once in a while.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote common sense

Really disagree with this man far more often than not... but on this i couldn't agree more... The Patriot Act was bundled and wrapped with a little bow to be abused... it's as unnecessary as it misleading.

*promote a reasoned stand against the PATRIOT Act.

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)


Don't forget about repealing the Patriot Act. Maybe also get out of Iraq? Maybe we close our over 700 military bases in more than 135 countries?

We won't end the wars. We won't cut defense spending. We won't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We won't repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. We won't stop torturing.

It's somewhat an empty celebration.

>> ^Issykitty:

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. In this sense he is a complete bible belt redneck to me. THe end.


Hmmmm? Let me see... a president who continues to torture, bomb foreign countries, expand the wars, create new military aggressions, refuses to repeal the Patriot Act, condemns Brad Manning of wikileaks, continues the Bush Doctrine, and is a pro-corporatist? Or one who doesn't believe the "rigid separation" between state and church has a basis in the Constitution?

He's right as far as the Constitution is concerned. Still, let's not forget that RP also said, "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Does that sound like a "bible belt redneck"?

And for the record, I'm a bible belt redneck, thankyouverymuch. At least as my hometown is counted.

Glen Greenwald on Rendition (which often results in torture). The president should not have the power to unilaterally render anyone foreign or domestic to another country for any reason.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets

It is not the presidents place to strike down Habeas Corpus or reinstate it is left up to the SCOTUS to interpret whether the writ can be removed or not. How that relates to the consensus of the people I still don't understand.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene

Whether or not the Executive Branch actually abides by the writs of the constitution is another thing entirely. The branches can do whatever they wish until another branch or the people file complaint against them and the checks and balances actually take place.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram

The above links and points are merely my interpretation of things evident during Obama's presidency they are wholly my opinion and therefore could be wrong. He inherited power and did not return it which is typical of any one holding the POTUS, and appears to be using that power (see any number of Greenwald's articles on Obama and Civil Liberties).

Everyone, all US citizens need to stop believing shit and actually use some critical thought. Belief without thorough review of evidence is faith, and faith is much more fallible than evidentiary claims. Even if those evidentiary claims are interpreted wrongly, which mine might be.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring Habeas Corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism.

I agree that RP would hit resistance left, right and center to damn near everything he stands for.

I disagree that he would be giving speeches 2 months into his administration endorsing habeas corpus free, prolonged, preventative detention.

Hate RP's positions all you want, at least he sticks to them.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest.

So let me get this straight. When Bush was elected POTUS he was "allowed" to torture, suspend habeas corpus, push USA PATRIOT through Congress and declare war in Iraq, but Obama somehow isn't "allowed"? What is the presidency like asking for a hall pass in school?

Your narrative still needs a lot of work. I'd consider a page one rewrite. It's probably too farfetched to be remotely believable even when considering the audience's propensity to suspend their disbelief.

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism. It would be nice for you to experience a politician you admire get worked by the system.

If we could all suspend our partisanship just long enough to get our campaign finance system under control and get some separation between corporation and state, we would all benefit. But it's not going to happen on its own, and it won't gain attention from politicians until we have mass strikes and mass protests. Unfortunately, partisan feuds and the focusing of attention on political celebrities like Bush and Obama always seems to keep our attention off that industrial boot on our collective throat. I don't think the kind of unity required is likely until things get much, much worse... if ever. The Machiavelli in me wonders if it wouldn't be wiser to vote for the greater of 3 evils. >> ^blankfist:

None of this matters. If you voted for him in 2008, you'll most likely vote for him again in 2012. Why break the trend towards fascism and imperialism?

Not so much. The short answer is that there isn't a Democratic equivalent red herring like abortion.

I'm also bothered by the wars and violations of civil liberties going largely unmentioned by either political party.

Again though, there's a huge stigma for being anti-war, or defending the rights of prisoners at Gitmo. Conservative culture being pervasive and all.

In reply to this comment by flavioribeiro:
Gay marriage?

It bothers me that lesser issues completely polarize the debate, while multiple wars (including the war on drugs) and violations of civil liberties (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, the TSA) are left unchallenged, and have been implemented in countries all over the world.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
If it can be extended to both parties, what's the Democratic party's version of bringing abortion into every policy debate?