Enemy Expatriation Act Could Strip Americans of Citizenship

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:15 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:12 PM, Murveman said:

Stop talking about Ron Paul. He's going to lose, and he sucks anyway. Sure he's better than others, but he still sucks for reasons Baph stated among others. Just read is god damn website.

 

Anyways, how about those American freedoms?

What freedoms?

*Laugh Track*

 

Fuck fighting for my freedom, I want to get the hell out of here. Canada is a little cold for my tastes though. Where should I go?

 

here here, Obama is the sitting president. And as our freedoms continue to erode under his administration we sit here arguing about Ron Pauls merits. More whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration than any previous administration in history, 3d naked body scanners were implemented under his tenure, he now has the explicit power to be judge jury and executioner for any american citizen

 

it's hard for me to imagine us being in a worse state, it would honestly be better to me if we had a president who was overtly crazy about doing these things. That way the american public would at least have their guard up instead of bending over backwards to make excuses for him

 

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:14 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

 

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process.

 

but if thats the case, could you support Obama? because im eagerly awaiting to make a 'slam' list as you and disp have of Ron Paul. It's actually far easier to do with Obama because he's been sitting in the office for 3 years and done a significant amount of irreparable damage.

 

You got me before the edit. I did not vote for Obama. I know anyone can say that on the internets, but I honestly did not vote for Obama, or McCain.

 

i didn't ask if you voted for him, i asked if you could support him. If your answer is no, thank you

The only support I've given Obama is explaining how he's not a "socialist" to tea partiers, before stabbing said tea partiers in the throats with the sharpened end of a black and green flag.

That didn't really happen, but it would have been awesome.

Who the hell are all of you going to vote for? Are you seriously going to write-in Kucinich, Baph, because that's all I've come up with as well.

We need a third party that's actually Liberal in this country. And uh, notable. The greens are probably alright, but since they're against corporate sponsorship or funding or whatever, they aren't going to get anywhere. Need to play the game. At least a little.

I wish I was a multi-billionaire so I could fund a new party. I'm probably biased because the only people I talk to anymore are those on the far left of the political spectrum, but I know many are frustrated with Obama, and that others want a liberal alternative.

we need a system that can actually support third-parties.

i will probably vote for obama in '12

here is why:

while i am very, very concerned with constitutional issues and the NDAA and guantanamo and body scanners

i am also very, very, very concerned with social issues. gay rights. reproductive rights. welfare. civil rights. ending employment discrimination for queers.

it's of interest to me to keep someone in office who will at least not just outright tear down those issues.

i am utterly unconvinced that we would be in a different place re: the NDAA and stuff like that had another candidate been elected. remember, it was voted in 100-0 in the senate.

i am also utterly convinced that, were a republican to have taken office, we would have had a significantly worse time on the social issues i brought up. and with the current crop of republicans it could get worse.

not that i believe they actually have a chance, but still. i worry when people bring up third parties because third parties don't have a chance on a fundamental level. the political system we have naturally works best with two parties. throw in a media empire built around the republican/democrat divide, and you're talking zero chance. they might get a respectable amount of the vote %, but it's never enough to win. i mean, ross perot got what, 28% of the vote in '92? and that was because he spent millions of his own money on his campaign. and without him, who knows, bush sr. might have won.

without nader in '00 we might have had gore instead of bush jr.

where am i going with this.

oh right.

our system is very much set up to be the lesser of two evils. and that's about it. and i want that to change. and a lot of people, myself included, are working to change that. but in the mean time, i would very much like things to be at least like they are. lord knows the democrats aren't doing much to move forward on social issues, but at least they aren't knocking us back to the 1950s.

your mileage may vary.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:30 PM, Murveman said:

Who the hell are all of you going to vote for? Are you seriously going to write-in Kucinich, Baph, because that's all I've come up with as well.

 

We need a third party that's actually Liberal in this country. And uh, notable. The greens are probably alright, but since they're against corporate sponsorship or funding or whatever, they aren't going to get anywhere. Need to play the game. At least a little.

 

I wish I was a multi-billionaire so I could fund a new party. I'm probably biased because the only people I talk to anymore are those on the far left of the political spectrum, but I know many are frustrated with Obama, and that others want a liberal alternative.

Yeah, exactly. The thing is, you play the game seriously, you get folded into the Democratic Party. I would love for a green/progressive/rational party to get its act together, somehow, and operate independently from the Democrats.

I probably won't actually write in Kucinich, because it will have no political consequence. It's a cry in a vacuum.

There are qualified scenarios in which I might actually vote for Obama, but they are too remote to warrant discussion. If they become less remote, I'll elaborate. Please note that I would weigh that moral decision about as heavily as the decision to drop a nuke on a civilian population to end a war.

edit: please also note that I live in CA and this plays into the analysis. There is some insulation. The analysis is different in, say, Tennessee.

Voting isn't the problem, dis hit it on the head, its the political structure of the country.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:44 PM, disparaissant said:

our system is very much set up to be the lesser of two evils. and that's about it. and i want that to change. and a lot of people, myself included, are working to change that. but in the mean time, i would very much like things to be at least like they are. lord knows the democrats aren't doing much to move forward on social issues, but at least they aren't knocking us back to the 1950s.

The problem with this is that its a fallacy. During Obama's administration all of Bush's draconian surveillance laws have been upheld and in some places greatly strengthened. Corporate welfare continues unabated, and during this admin corporations have reported all-time high windfall profits well in excess of almost 10% of our national debt. The military-industrial complex still controls almost a quarter of our entire budget, yet you hardly hear anything about fiscal responsiblity in regards to defense spending, only that troops are being withdrawn...Withdrawn where? Back home? Where are the soldiers going? We have active theaters in more than four countries.

He's also a softballer in the Democratic sense; he only challenges the status-quo on the barest public surface. Remember when he didn't shut down Guantanamo and revise definitions of torture? It was ok, because at least he would push through Healthcare. Remember when he backed down and let Repubs and corps completely revise and ruin his original Healthcare plan? It was ok, because at least Dems still had control over Congress. Remember when Dems lost control of Congress? It was ok because at least we have a Democrat in office and not some racist white guy.

You see the problem I have with this line of thought? Its not "at least we aren't moving back to the 1950's"; the reality of the situation is that we are moving backwards, only we aren't moving back as quickly as we would with a Republican at the helm of the executive branch. This is an unacceptable situation.

^+1

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:44 PM, disparaissant said:

i will probably vote for obama in '12

here is why:

while i am very, very concerned with constitutional issues and the NDAA and guantanamo and body scanners

i am also very, very, very concerned with social issues. gay rights. reproductive rights. welfare. civil rights. ending employment discrimination for queers.

it's of interest to me to keep someone in office who will at least not just outright tear down those issues.

i am utterly unconvinced that we would be in a different place re: the NDAA and stuff like that had another candidate been elected. remember, it was voted in 100-0 in the senate.

i am also utterly convinced that, were a republican to have taken office, we would have had a significantly worse time on the social issues i brought up. and with the current crop of republicans it could get worse.

not that i believe they actually have a chance, but still. i worry when people bring up third parties because third parties don't have a chance on a fundamental level. the political system we have naturally works best with two parties. throw in a media empire built around the republican/democrat divide, and you're talking zero chance. they might get a respectable amount of the vote %, but it's never enough to win. i mean, ross perot got what, 28% of the vote in '92? and that was because he spent millions of his own money on his campaign. and without him, who knows, bush sr. might have won.

without nader in '00 we might have had gore instead of bush jr.

where am i going with this.

oh right.

our system is very much set up to be the lesser of two evils. and that's about it. and i want that to change. and a lot of people, myself included, are working to change that. but in the mean time, i would very much like things to be at least like they are. lord knows the democrats aren't doing much to move forward on social issues, but at least they aren't knocking us back to the 1950s.

 

your mileage may vary.

disparaissant, I don't think I've ever been in such agreement. to say the GOP is knocking us to the 50s is an underestimate. their rhetoric cites the fucking Constitution and the founding fathers without any historical adjustment. multiple states have cut off (or tried) every cent of government funds every form of family planning. states has tried passing laws making fetuses "living citizens" and therefore charging any act of abortion as murder. Obama's complacency on civil liberties is horrendous, but the GOP really scares the fuck out me. these are people who get more fired up over fucking healthcare reform than any other issue. people like Goldwater and Rockefeller or even Nixon would of probably voted for the healthcare act because it actually makes the system more efficient. they wouldn't say "fuck it, its a free for all and tough shit if you're poor" there's a strain objectivism without the secular elements and fundamentalist religion injecting instead running the right-wing. hell, I'll just say it, they're fucking fascists. that's why they want to derail even an old crazy constitutionalism-minded figure like Ron Paul - they think he's a fucking raging liberal with "ok fiscal ideals." they know if he got in office he wouldn't be pushing federal bans all abortions and contraceptives, introducing school prayer in schools, and throwing free thinkers in jail - he'd just fucking veto the budget bills until they made enough cuts.

maybe it's raging moderate in me that will seal my vote for Obama, it's really to early to tell. I live in Texas, and stay resisted Republican so I can vote for school board candidates who believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years old and that it's ok to not be christian. andrew sullivan (who I sure is probably quite disliked amongst watmmers) has a pet theory that Obama is doing as little as possible just to get re-elected. there's truth to this in my opinion, I think he'll flex some more executive power in good ways, but it's extremely naive as well. I'm with the others on the third party/multi-party dream, and I fucking hate the Democratic machine almost more than the GOP one, simply because it's corruption and pandering is arguably more offensive than the straight-up batshit craziness embraced by Republicans.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:44 PM, disparaissant said:

your mileage may vary.

yes it does siginifcantly

and i still don't see how voting for Ron Paul in the republican primary (one that he will surely not win) is somehow a bad thing to do but voting for Obama out of acquiescence and 'lesser of two' evils is ok.

To me the latter is worse only because it's a vote basically surrendering to the status quo. The only thing Obama is going to use to get reelected is showing us how bad and scary the other side is.

I don't think republicans will take us back to the 50s, too many things have become useful and necessary in american society since the 50s. Although the democrats have done a very excellent job of making their supporters (yes even the ones who hold their nose and vote for obama) think that the republicans will take us back into the 50s. Fear is their #1 way to get us to vote for them.

What i saw under the last republican administration was one that paid lip service to social conservatism but its efforts to 'bring us back to the 50s' seemed to be in the same way Obama is bringing us back into the 50s by turning the War on terror into an infinitely long cold war like scenario, one that gives us an excuse to invade almost any country we like.

PEople will try to enforce social conservatism into our country but it's not going to work, you cannot reverse this.

LIFE:

what is wrong with the world?

how can it be fixed?

what makes a good life?

what makes a bad life?

how can we make those lives which are bad better?

how can we increase the education and other good aspects of life?

1. vote for obama

2. vote for romney/etc

3. vote for ron paul

4. study law and learn about the system to make the changes we want as individuals

5. talk to other people and learn about what people want

i think people just want a job, a fair chance, good roads, good technology, less violent greed and control, less aggression, and more peace for all social classes and values, and NO war unless we are truly threatened

Christians:

Republicans:

^ do these two things merely equate to Fox News Viewers? if so, perhaps instead of referring to Republicans/Christians by those terms, we should refer to them as Fox News Viewers.

I agree with Disp. at the VERY LEAST which is MUCH BETTER than what goes beneath it... we can have Obama instead of a warmongering sociopath ala Perry, Romney, Gingrich, etc. that will have TV TIME and POWER in the eyes of the nation... to brainwash and control us right into a massive LOSING war with the middle east... which will only make matters worse.

all one can say is that Obama has not forced us into any HUGE and ridiculously violent/meaningless quagmire wars... how the fuck can people forget about this fact? i mean... Bush Sr. Bush Jr. are the warmongers... Clinton/Obama are the ones who maintain the status quo and in comparison to Bush Jr./Sr. they're virtually Saints... glorious Christian lords of puritanical values... live and let live. of course, only in comparison.

I would say this is a decisive moment, and anyone pouring effort into Ron Paul should give up as soon as possible, discourage any more energy put into that regarding THE COMING ELECTION, focus all that energy on getting Obama reelected. it's the only option when it comes to the major Presidential election... and honestly it's looking grim right now for Obama in a sense, or so it seems.

fuck romney

fuck gingrich

fuck perry

fuck them all

and Fuck Ron Paul if he tries to run as a 3rd Candidate... and fuck his followers if they don't pull their heads out of their asses and see that ITS OVER.

  On 1/24/2012 at 8:57 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:44 PM, disparaissant said:

your mileage may vary.

 

yes it does siginifcantly

 

and i still don't see how voting for Ron Paul in the republican primary (one that he will surely not win) is somehow a bad thing to do but voting for Obama out of acquiescence and 'lesser of two' evils is ok.

 

To me the latter is worse only because it's a vote basically surrendering to the status quo. The only thing Obama is going to use to get reelected is showing us how bad and scary the other side is.

 

I don't think republicans will take us back to the 50s, too many things have become useful and necessary in american society since the 50s. Although the democrats have done a very excellent job of making their supporters (yes even the ones who hold their nose and vote for obama) think that the republicans will take us back into the 50s. Fear is their #1 way to get us to vote for them.

 

What i saw under the last republican administration was one that paid lip service to social conservatism but its efforts to 'bring us back to the 50s' seemed to be in the same way Obama is bringing us back into the 50s by turning the War on terror into an infinitely long cold war like scenario, one that gives us an excuse to invade almost any country we like.

 

PEople will try to enforce social conservatism into our country but it's not going to work, you cannot reverse this.

http://www.concordmo...-raise-concerns

brought to you by the tea party in a formerly moderate state

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:00 PM, vamos scorcho said:

^ do these two things merely equate to Fox News Viewers? if so, perhaps instead of referring to Republicans/Christians by those terms, we should refer to them as Fox News Viewers.

Yeah I think so. The sad thing is, I think if you actually talked to every American for 10 minutes, you'd find more that "just want a job, a fair chance, good roads, good technology, less violent greed and control, less aggression, and more peace for all social classes and values, and NO war unless we are truly threatened" - that's the frustrating part of the state of things. I hate getting into these discussions because I end up generalizing. I met "tea party" people years ago who were literally anti-tax radicals and college age libertarians. I work for the Texas state government and can attest that a majority (albeit not a large majority) of them are decent people who stay in office to try to do good for the state. They achieve little because speaking out would get them kicked out of their seats by the efforts of their party or the opposition. They deal well, the kind of people David Cross describes...

And likewise, from the left you get a constant barrage of criticism from ignorant "activists." I hate seeing the Occupy Movement touted by pissy dumbass people who just count others money, instead of those actually want to fight corruption in government. Meh, I feel like I'm just on loop with ranting now :/

^here's the vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1evRf4uh4

A lot of my perspective is coming from seeing such absurd irrationality IRL by a handful of family members and their friends. It's really sad, and it's so bad that the issues we mutually have with Obama are not even in their sphere of understanding/relating to.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:05 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I agree with Disp. at the VERY LEAST which is MUCH BETTER than what goes beneath it... we can have Obama instead of a warmongering sociopath ala Perry, Romney, Gingrich, etc. that will have TV TIME and POWER in the eyes of the nation... to brainwash and control us right into a massive LOSING war with the middle east... which will only make matters worse.

 

all one can say is that Obama has not forced us into any HUGE and ridiculously violent/meaningless quagmire wars... how the fuck can people forget about this fact? i mean... Bush Sr. Bush Jr. are the warmongers... Clinton/Obama are the ones who maintain the status quo and in comparison to Bush Jr./Sr. they're virtually Saints... glorious Christian lords of puritanical values... live and let live. of course, only in comparison.

 

I would say this is a decisive moment, and anyone pouring effort into Ron Paul should give up as soon as possible, discourage any more energy put into that regarding THE COMING ELECTION, focus all that energy on getting Obama reelected. it's the only option when it comes to the major Presidential election... and honestly it's looking grim right now for Obama in a sense, or so it seems.

 

fuck romney

fuck gingrich

fuck perry

fuck them all

 

and Fuck Ron Paul if he tries to run as a 3rd Candidate... and fuck his followers if they don't pull their heads out of their asses and see that ITS OVER.

this brings me to another point that I keep forgetting to include....one of the dangerous things Obama supporters often do not consider is that he's only temporary, but the precedents last for far longer. Do you trust every president after Obama to not abuse the extra executive authority bestowed upon him by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation? Do you not remember that if government is given a power, its only common sense for them to exercise it and refuse to relinquish it back to its citizens? This is what destroys all republics.

Also this false equivalency comparing Obama as not nearly as bad in terms of foreign aggression as Bush is completely ridiculous. By that logic I might as well assume that Nixon or Johnson's actions in Vietnam and Indochina weren't nearly as bad as Kennedy's, or that Kennedy's decision for escalation is far less horrible than French colonization of the area. Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessors, while he is not solely to blame, he still shares the blame. Pre-emptive war as a legal pretext for military force and sanctioned assassination of U.S. citizens without due process is incredibly disturbing no matter who wields that power. And this president is further establishing and legitimizing these actions as precedent amongst his supporters because it's "not as bad as the guy before".

And just to re-emphasize, I am no longer a supporter of Ron Paul as a viable presidential candidate, but I do want him to remain politically relevant in this presidential race.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:22 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:05 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I agree with Disp. at the VERY LEAST which is MUCH BETTER than what goes beneath it... we can have Obama instead of a warmongering sociopath ala Perry, Romney, Gingrich, etc. that will have TV TIME and POWER in the eyes of the nation... to brainwash and control us right into a massive LOSING war with the middle east... which will only make matters worse.

 

all one can say is that Obama has not forced us into any HUGE and ridiculously violent/meaningless quagmire wars... how the fuck can people forget about this fact? i mean... Bush Sr. Bush Jr. are the warmongers... Clinton/Obama are the ones who maintain the status quo and in comparison to Bush Jr./Sr. they're virtually Saints... glorious Christian lords of puritanical values... live and let live. of course, only in comparison.

 

I would say this is a decisive moment, and anyone pouring effort into Ron Paul should give up as soon as possible, discourage any more energy put into that regarding THE COMING ELECTION, focus all that energy on getting Obama reelected. it's the only option when it comes to the major Presidential election... and honestly it's looking grim right now for Obama in a sense, or so it seems.

 

fuck romney

fuck gingrich

fuck perry

fuck them all

 

and Fuck Ron Paul if he tries to run as a 3rd Candidate... and fuck his followers if they don't pull their heads out of their asses and see that ITS OVER.

 

this brings me to another point that I keep forgetting to include....one of the dangerous things Obama supporters often do not consider is that he's only temporary, but the precedents last for far longer. Do you trust every president after Obama to not abuse the extra executive authority bestowed upon him by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation? Do you not remember that if government is given a power, its only common sense for them to exercise it and refuse to relinquish it back to its citizens? This is what destroys all republics.

 

Also this false equivalency comparing Obama as not nearly as bad in terms of foreign aggression as Bush is completely ridiculous. By that logic I might as well assume that Nixon or Johnson's actions in Vietnam and Indochina weren't nearly as bad as Kennedy's, or that Kennedy's decision for escalation is far less horrible than French colonization of the area. Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessors, while he is not solely to blame, he still shares the blame. Pre-emptive war as a legal pretext for military force and sanctioned assassination of U.S. citizens without due process is incredibly disturbing no matter who wields that power. And this president is further establishing and legitimizing these actions as precedent amongst his supporters because it's "not as bad as the guy before".

The hypothetical question, though, is if you reasonably think Newt is going to push further beyond Obama w.r.t. executive powers and preemptive war, etc., while recognizing that Obama should not be legitimized based on his own horrific track record on these points, are you nonetheless morally obligated to vote against Newt?

It's a personal ethical judgement, really. It's sort of funny how everyone seems to want to advocate a bright-line rule on how you should vote or not vote; I don't see how there can be an objective right or wrong way to do this for something so tied to subjective perception and gut feeling.

AMERICUH!

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:59 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

words

I believe you missed the part where I quite clearly qualified that with on social issues. Democrats generally are not trying to overturn roe v wade. They are not trying to amend the constitution with a heteronormative definition of marriage. They are not trying to end welfare and further disenfranchise people of colour. Democrats aren't the people trying to make women pay for their own rape kit. They may be STAGNANT on this stuff, but its a lot better than the other side.

When you add in the fact that third parties don't stand a chance in our system, can you see why I would want the leftmost candidate out of the two we have to choose from in the mean time? We need to overhaul our political system, no doubt. I don't believe that will happen through voting. So, in the meantime I feel it's in my best interests as a RADICAL QUEER WOMYN (ya dig?) to prevent backslide.

@awepittance I missed your comment the first time around. If you sincerely think that Republicans are paying"lip service" to social conservatism, you are simply not paying attention. At all.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:32 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:22 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:05 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I agree with Disp. at the VERY LEAST which is MUCH BETTER than what goes beneath it... we can have Obama instead of a warmongering sociopath ala Perry, Romney, Gingrich, etc. that will have TV TIME and POWER in the eyes of the nation... to brainwash and control us right into a massive LOSING war with the middle east... which will only make matters worse.

 

all one can say is that Obama has not forced us into any HUGE and ridiculously violent/meaningless quagmire wars... how the fuck can people forget about this fact? i mean... Bush Sr. Bush Jr. are the warmongers... Clinton/Obama are the ones who maintain the status quo and in comparison to Bush Jr./Sr. they're virtually Saints... glorious Christian lords of puritanical values... live and let live. of course, only in comparison.

 

I would say this is a decisive moment, and anyone pouring effort into Ron Paul should give up as soon as possible, discourage any more energy put into that regarding THE COMING ELECTION, focus all that energy on getting Obama reelected. it's the only option when it comes to the major Presidential election... and honestly it's looking grim right now for Obama in a sense, or so it seems.

 

fuck romney

fuck gingrich

fuck perry

fuck them all

 

and Fuck Ron Paul if he tries to run as a 3rd Candidate... and fuck his followers if they don't pull their heads out of their asses and see that ITS OVER.

 

this brings me to another point that I keep forgetting to include....one of the dangerous things Obama supporters often do not consider is that he's only temporary, but the precedents last for far longer. Do you trust every president after Obama to not abuse the extra executive authority bestowed upon him by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation? Do you not remember that if government is given a power, its only common sense for them to exercise it and refuse to relinquish it back to its citizens? This is what destroys all republics.

 

Also this false equivalency comparing Obama as not nearly as bad in terms of foreign aggression as Bush is completely ridiculous. By that logic I might as well assume that Nixon or Johnson's actions in Vietnam and Indochina weren't nearly as bad as Kennedy's, or that Kennedy's decision for escalation is far less horrible than French colonization of the area. Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessors, while he is not solely to blame, he still shares the blame. Pre-emptive war as a legal pretext for military force and sanctioned assassination of U.S. citizens without due process is incredibly disturbing no matter who wields that power. And this president is further establishing and legitimizing these actions as precedent amongst his supporters because it's "not as bad as the guy before".

 

The hypothetical question, though, is if you reasonably think Newt is going to push further beyond Obama w.r.t. executive powers and preemptive war, etc., while recognizing that Obama should not be legitimized based on his own horrific track record on these points, are you nonetheless morally obligated to vote against Newt?

 

It's a personal ethical judgement, really. It's sort of funny how everyone seems to want to advocate a bright-line rule on how you should vote or not vote; I don't see how there can be an objective right or wrong way to do this for something so tied to subjective perception and gut feeling.

Of course; I do not support either candidate.

It is a personal ethical judgement, absolutely, but you should have reasonable expectations that your freedoms will be eroded either away. Chomsky said it best, most Americans think changing the way our society is run is voting once every four years and then go home to watch TV. The voting system has masterfully been rigged since the turn of the century. If people are comfortable voting for Obama in, fine, but if he wins don't start whining about how the mega-corps are ruining our economy while Obama is just as complicit in feeding the military beast that holds our national budget hostage.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:37 PM, disparaissant said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:59 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

words

I believe you missed the part where I quite clearly qualified that with on social issues. Democrats generally are not trying to overturn roe v wade. They are not trying to amend the constitution with a heteronormative definition of marriage. They are not trying to end welfare and further disenfranchise people of colour. Democrats aren't the people trying to make women pay for their own rape kit. They may be STAGNANT on this stuff, but its a lot better than the other side.

 

When you add in the fact that third parties don't stand a chance in our system, can you see why I would want the leftmost candidate out of the two we have to choose from in the mean time? We need to overhaul our political system, no doubt. I don't believe that will happen through voting. So, in the meantime I feel it's in my best interests as a RADICAL QUEER WOMYN (ya dig?) to prevent backslide.

I guess that's where we will disagree on the meta-aspects of it. I don't think preserving minority rights ethically trumps the preservation of the rights of all American citizens.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:40 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

I guess that's where we will disagree on the meta-aspects of it. I don't think preserving minority rights ethically trumps the preservation of the rights of all American citizens.

I kind of take umbrage with you referring to the very real discrimination faced by minorities of all stripes as a "meta-aspect."

I mean dude, when you talk about rights like you did there you are speaking in hypotheticals. CAN Obama detain you under the NDAA? Yes. WILL he? Unlikely.

OTOH, people are suffering greatly because they don't have the same privileges as you, And you're basically saying that you're. Okay with making it WORSE for them so you can keep what you've got. If that's your stance that's cool but at least cop to the selfishness inherent in that attitude.

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:43 PM, disparaissant said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:40 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I guess that's where we will disagree on the meta-aspects of it. I don't think preserving minority rights ethically trumps the preservation of the rights of all American citizens.

 

I kind of take umbrage with you referring to the very real discrimination faced by minorities of all stripes as a "meta-aspect."

 

I mean dude, when you talk about rights like you did there you are speaking in hypotheticals. CAN Obama detain you under the NDAA? Yes. WILL he? Unlikely.

 

OTOH, people are suffering greatly because they don't have the same privileges as you, And you're basically saying that you're. Okay with making it WORSE for them so you can keep what you've got. If that's your stance that's cool but at least cop to the selfishness inherent in that attitude.

Oh come on you know that's not what I mean. Consider what I said about setting precedent; will it still be unlikely that we won't be obtained under the NDAA in twenty years? thirty years? How do you know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Awlaki

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

Doesn't it make more sense to assume that the government will abuse this power eventually, based upon what has already happened in our past before this legislation was passed?

And also, I must also take umbrage with you assuming I want MY civil rights protected at the expense of others. That's an exaggeration and you know it. The fact of the matter is, as demonstrated by some of the links above, that the FIRST people the government and covert operations target are minorities, immigrants of background that would now be considered "questionable" by Homeland Security, of "questionable ideology", etc. etc. Don't make this into me having some sort of veiled patriachal intentions. That's cheap and you are better than that.

I wasn't implying anything patriarchal, I just dont think you consider the other side of the coin well. Perspective or w/e. I'm typing on a touchscreen here so I'm are I'm not getting my points across right. Ill clarify my last post and continue this discussion when I'm at a keyboard. Apologies!

Yeah, no probs. No, I see why you hold these specific social rights to be so important, and I find nothing wrong with that. What I have a problem with (and maybe this is where I misstepped by terming it "meta-aspects") is what should be given ultimate primacy in the preservation of existing rights. Of course I want gay marriage and recognition of same-sex unions and equal pay and all that good stuff. The reason I disagree with your line of thought is because in my mind if you override the overarching legal principles of all citizens and not just minorities (ie. the right to due process), eventually it won't really matter if you are gay or black or Mexican or a Middle Eastern immigrant or whatever, you can all be targeted for arrest, imprisonment or execution without any means to protect yourself.

I think I'm looking at it as potential for great harm in the future vs. the current reality.

  On 1/24/2012 at 10:13 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Yeah, no probs. No, I see why you hold these specific social rights to be so important, and I find nothing wrong with that. What I have a problem with (and maybe this is where I misstepped by terming it "meta-aspects") is what should be given ultimate primacy in the preservation of existing rights. Of course I want gay marriage and recognition of same-sex unions and equal pay and all that good stuff. The reason I disagree with your line of thought is because in my mind if you override the overarching legal principles of all citizens and not just minorities (ie. the right to due process), eventually it won't really matter if you are gay or black or Mexican or a Middle Eastern immigrant or whatever, you can all be targeted for arrest, imprisonment or execution without any means to protect yourself.

 

 

I think I'm looking at it as potential for great harm in the future vs. the current reality.

Don't go setting 14 Am. clauses against each other, mang! The DPC and the EPC are pals!

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:44 PM, disparaissant said:

while i am very, very concerned with constitutional issues and the NDAA and guantanamo and body scanners

i am also very, very, very concerned with social issues. gay rights. reproductive rights. welfare. civil rights. ending employment discrimination for queers.

it's of interest to me to keep someone in office who will at least not just outright tear down those issues.

you just exposed the fact that you are more concerned with the ability of a gay people (queers, as you so eloquently put it), which by the way are of a small minority, to get decent employment, than you are of the president signing legislation which allows a very aggressive military, which has already proved its willingness to inflict violence on defenseless american citizens, to enter into civilian territories and secretly kidnap anyone they so wish and hold them indefinitely. i dont think you realize how terrifying that is. i want everyone to know this, before disparaissant gets the opportunity to spout more nonsense to any weak minded individuals that might be reading

  On 1/24/2012 at 9:43 PM, disparaissant said:

I mean dude, when you talk about rights like you did there you are speaking in hypotheticals. CAN Obama detain you under the NDAA? Yes. WILL he? Unlikely.

thats similar to saying that when the patriot act was signed, there was no real intention to use it. when it of course has since has been used and abused thousands of times to remove the rights of millions of citizens. why would they pass NDAA if they didnt intend to use it? do you really think these powerful elitist lobbying groups want to pass these illegal draconian laws, so they can sit around and chat about the weather? they are planning a military take over of the united states, and if you are not aware of that, then there is no reason for you to be a part of this discussion, as you obviously have a very limited perspective of what is actually occurring in the US. i mean, the military is rolling into LA right now as we speak for military exercises. im not trying to wake you up, its too late for you. i know that most other people though are gravely concerned, and the last thing we need are fools who will vote the president in for a second term, who has incessantly raped the freedoms of good people, in a thread about the federal government removing the very citizenship of its people. youre only making this happen faster