>> ^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?

>> ^blankfist:

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

So you believe it's unfair.

What does that mean as far as their rights are concerned? Are you opposed to letting them have the right to engage in political speech and assembly, because you don't think what they advocate is fair?

Are you opposed to letting them have the right to collectively bargain, because you disagree with their politics?

>> ^blankfist:
Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.


But it does. I'm allowed to lobby congress to pass a law that requires pastafarians to be shot on sight. I'm allowed to lobby congress to nuke France. I'm definitely allowed to lobby congress to tighten worker safety laws, or pass comprehensive health care reform.

You're allowed to lobby against me on that if you like, or write a blog post about how my "Pastafarian Elimination Act" is blatantly unconstitutional.

What you're not allowed to do, as a libertarian (or liberal), is support the government taking away my other rights because you don't like what I'm saying politically. You shouldn't be advocating that the state revoke liberals' rights to own a gun, their right to not incriminate themselves, their right to habeas corpus, or their right to engage in collective bargaining agreements, no matter what they say or do.

So here's my point, straight up: you shouldn't be supporting the government taking away unions' collective bargaining rights as punishment for them exercising their right to free speech in ways you disagree with. At least, not as long as you hold yourself to be someone who believes that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.
...
There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

That's why I'm saying the issue I'm raising is largely a semantic quibble. I don't think you mean what you're saying. I think you mean to say something close to, but not exactly what you said.

I think you meant to say this:

A totalitarian system has to break the will of every person trapped inside it before freedom can truly be eradicated. Even then, it seems that eventually it springs up anew in people, sometimes it just takes a little longer than others.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

True, but the threat of those repercussions constrain you from acting as you would like to. To draw on the Babylon 5 clip above, they told him to submit, or die. He was already locked in a cell. He'd already been tortured. He'd been beaten. Starved. Deprived of sleep. Poisoned. They even threatened his father's life. The lives of everyone he'd ever loved. In the end, they threatened his own life. They even staged a mock execution, and only at the last second...they just started over at the beginning, as if nothing had happened.

Had he submitted, would you consider his freedom stolen, or surrendered willingly?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Yeah, but are they really self-evident? Are they really inalienable? Those were beautiful words, and they were a massively revolutionary sentiment at the time, but it wasn't really a statement of fact about how the universe works. It was a declaration of how things should be, not how they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

Since pot is still illegal, it's clearly not a right government has given us. It's also clearly not a right -- I can't demand that I can smoke pot, anywhere, anytime, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I also can't expect pot to be provided to me, whether I can pay for it or not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities.

I agree with that, and I was phrasing things the way I was more to illustrate those different ideas about freedom than because I'm enslaved by some black and white view of the world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?


For one, property rights only exist as function of government. Otherwise, "property" would just be whatever you could stop other people from taking away from you.

Most "rights" follow a similar pattern, e.g. right of habeas corpus, right to vote, right to a redress of grievances, etc.

As for "freedoms", you are free to change jobs (or quit entirely) because of government. You are free to demand, and expect pay for your labor. You are free to walk around unarmed thanks to the expectation of law enforcement. No one is allowed to force you to do anything, and if they try, the government is expected to stop them.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

As I see it, there seem to be powerful people who are hell bent on eroding the laws and traditions that make up that equilibrium. (And yes, I think they largely wield "conservatives" as a blunt instrument to that end, using them like an auto-immune disease to kill government, so they can go back to the good old days of monarchy)

People on the right seem to act like rights and freedom are something they have that can't be taken away. I think that's insane. Without government, your "freedom" will be taken from you before you can say "caveat emptor." Freedom can and has been stolen, all throughout history. If anything we live in an unprecedented golden age of man where freedom is for most intents and purposes is in the hands of the individual, largely because we turned our governments into democratic collective entities charged with creating a society where individuals can expect to be free.

>> ^rottenseed:

nerd


Nothing wrong with being an object of desire.

http://videosift.com/video/I-kissed-a-nerd-and-I-liked-it

Excalibur!

BTW, a simple tribble test would have prevented that whole Simon Tarses/Betazoid drama.
>> ^Reefie:

Also let's not forget his appearance in Robin Hood: Men in Tights; or the 1984 version of Dune!

>> ^mtadd:

What are the measures of the U.S. shirking our most recent descent into paranoia? My bets are the following conditions:
1) Repeal PATRIOT act.
2) Reasonable search by TSA at airports (not requiring shoes to be taken off....liquid limitations revoked, etc.)
3) Revocation of passport requirement for travel to Canada.
4) End "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan.


I second the motion and move for a Vote.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Truckchase:
Jean-Luc Picard 2012.

Seconded!
I forgot how good of an actor patrick stewart became through ST. I just was watching some season 1 and 2, and he is so bad, a ton of overacting. But later on, he nails it perfectly. It is kind of fun watching his evolution from Broadway to silver screen.


I completely agree that Patrick Stewart became a better television actor through being on Star Trek but his real talent came from his years as a stage actor. Much like Andreas Katsulas and Ian McKellen who also gained their excellent talents from theatre I think Patrick Stewart was a powerful and compelling actor before he ever stepped into the shoes of Picard!

Did anyone see Patrick Stewart and David Tennant's performance of Hamlet that was running in 2008 and 2009? Very good, didn't get to go since tickets were scarce for every venue and every night but the BBC filmed it and released it at the end of last year.

Also let's not forget his appearance in Robin Hood: Men in Tights; or the 1984 version of Dune!

Your video, TNG Lessons in Humanity: Habeas Corpus, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Truckchase:

Jean-Luc Picard 2012.


Seconded!

I forgot how good of an actor patrick stewart became through ST. I just was watching some season 1 and 2, and he is so bad, a ton of overacting. But later on, he nails it perfectly. It is kind of fun watching his evolution from Broadway to silver screen.

@MaxWilder (hmm, relation to gene?)

Habeas Corpus is getting a fair trial. These people were not getting that and instead judged before a proper trial. It does also touch on McCarthyism with the persecution for family relations, involvement with romulan commies and such sure, but I think it hits squarely on habeas corpus too. None-the-less it's a great episode. On par with the one where data has to prove he's a not a "tool" of starfleet, but a sentient being.

Thought you might like this http://videosift.com/video/TNG-Lessons-in-Humanity-Habeas-Corpus

>> ^srd:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).
Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.



Well, three parties would not amount to any real change. That is hardly effective. When the corporations put out money to the "new" party, then that party is brought to you by Tampex, BP and Oxyclean. Also, think of this. Two parties cannot get anything done, you think three can?

The Tea Party is an example of this. They are a serious threat to the GOP and the GOP is masterfully (I hate it) re-absorbing them like flies to shit. The Tea Party came about because of perceived failures in the GOP and are much more libertarian than the GOP will ever be. Yet, the Tea Party members are flunkies to GOP now... Sad… That, and they became as extreme as the GOP overnight--and are going beyond them...

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...

I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…

I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

>> ^blankfist:

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.


He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.

What the fuck are you smoking?