|
|
|
|
#31
01-23-2012
|
||||
|
||||
GENERAL WASHINGTON, NOT PRESIDENT WASHINGTON.
|
|
#32
01-23-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well you know what I mean
I said that since he became President Last edited by Ebilkittyprincess28; 01-23-2012 at 05:24 PM.
|
|
#34
01-23-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Filesonic is now down, as well.
|
|
#35
01-23-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Reagan was mentioned somewhere. Reagan was a racist and master of the double standard. and while his Batshit economic plan seemed crazy on the surface, by some miracle it worked to a degree. Edit: I just realized that HS mentioned something about wanting to vote for Herman Cain. I liked Herman Cain very much as a political candidate. The dude was completely insane and had some of the most crazy ideas for running this country I have ever seen. Had he stayed in the race, I would have voted for him. His being forced to withdraw, because of the Sexual Harassment suits was a very sad day for me and gave me even more reason to dislike Mitt Romney. Notice, whenever another Republican appears to get MORE votes than Romney, something happens or some scandal is "leaked" to the press causing that more popular Republican to withdraw before the first Primaries. Romney's camp blamed O'Bama's camp. O'Bama doesn't really have any camp at this point, since it a little too early for Democratic campaigning. TBH, I laughed when Gingrich said he's run, and gained some popularity. I was like "what is Mitt going to do to sabotage Newt? We've already heard his skeletons." Last edited by GcarOatmealRaisinCookies; 01-24-2012 at 01:44 AM.
|
|
#37
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems people are missing my main point which is this: PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT HISTORY BEFORE JUDGING ANY OF THE RECENT PRESIDENTS. It fucking annoys me how everyone just keeps saying that the current president, whichever one it is at the time, is the worst, without doing any research. Oh, and if you want my HONEST opinion about Obama, it's this: He is neither a good nor bad president, but what's going on right now IS NOT NEARLY AS MUCH HIS FAULT, BUT RATHER THE FAULT OF CONGRESS, THEY'RE THE ONES SCREWING UP RIGHT NOW, BUT PEOPLE TEND TO FORGET THAT SINCE THEY ARE DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS AS A WHOLE HAS POWER EQUAL TO THE PRESIDENT. THEY ARE LEADERS OF THIS COUNTRY TOO, YOU CAN'T JUST GO BLAMING THE PRESIDENT FOR EVERYTHING GOING WRONG.
|
|
#38
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I hate congress just as much as O'Bama. It's just the Presidential race is the bigger political race at the moment. If I had my way, ALL those BUMS in Washington would be out of a job, not just O'Bama.
|
|
#39
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Perhaps, I'm trying to deport him to Ireland, sorry Irish, so this country doesn't have to deal with his bullshit anymore.
|
|
#40
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#41
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
anyone remember sopa? me neither :D [ i spelt it like that on purpose ]
Quote:
Ether way, Americans read this, it may help you realise that politics is not just 'one race' or 'one leadership' at time. Whether you are one of the mass whom finds it difficult to understand or just a holy clone in that, do understand it, but dislike that understanding it, means you have to admit your irrational and fundamentally polarised hate is wrong or like killshot in that, so jaded, anything good in the world is dismissed as bad by mere problem of it existing, it is time you stop sulking, wake up and actually start bothering to deal with your politics, rather than just shitting out whatever read in paper this morning. Obama=worst ever president, do not make me laugh; seriously, that would give him some real standing...Obama is what he always was, an ok president whom get screwed because somehow Americans actually thought he was a second coming. Do not get me wrong, I found things like noble peace prize nom as annoying as anyone and do believe there are areas he needs to better on, but on the whole, he is dealing with the carp his country is in way said would and sadly that is very average, because obama is just another average man in average game of politics. The best bit is, somehow people blame him for the carp despite it occurring long before Mr Obama was in white house. You want to know whom fecked America over economically? =Americans, time you stand up and face the music, you know whom is too blame for Americans problems? You, you guys were happy, like everyone to ride on the gravy train of 2000's and live well beyond your means (like everyone else) but unfortunately now the wheels have come off and the train is rotting, crashed in ditch somewhere, it will take years for train to be repaired. Obama cannot make money, so that means years of painful, slow, restructuring right to the US's core. =Now before anyone attacks me, many in the rest of world, including Britain, need to do the same, but as this topic is on US, I will remain there. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-24-2012 at 12:18 PM.
|
|
#42
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
November prediction: Personally, regardless of who his opponents are in the Presidential race, when November comes, O'bama will still be our president for the simple fact that he was the president sitting in office when Bin Laden, the greatest enemy of the US, was caught and killed. That was luck not ability. Last edited by GcarOatmealRaisinCookies; 01-24-2012 at 01:11 PM.
|
|
#43
01-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I understand how politics work. It's filled with lies and propagation of hatred of those different than you. You have to take a stand or you're seen as wishy-washy when in office. The other party will attack you no matter what. The party is irrelevant, simply because the people we elect to office are individuals, not parties. We should vote for individuals, not parties, and we should never vote for someone because we dislike someone else. What I reject is the notion that I should have to choose between a douche and a giant turd just because some people died for that right. I will make that decision on my own and accept the responsibility for that. I wanted Herman Cain because he was charismatic without being professorish like Obama. I gave Obama a chance a long time ago, but when I see what he's accomplished, I have this feeling that-- based on my watching practically every debate he was in during his original campaign-- he didn't deliver on his promises. He misjudged the political and economic climates, and made promises he couldn't deliver because of that. The media ignored every little flaw he had because they were swept up in electing a black President, which was his major calling card (along with him being of their party, that obviously helped matters quite a bit). Now what's happening? He continually makes excuses about why he hasn't delivered on his campaign promises, which shows me that he's going to continue to make excuses about why things haven't gotten better like he promised. That's called 'misjudging' the current political and economic climate. He doesn't want to be honest about it, so obviously any solutions that end up working likely will work mainly because of luck. That's a chance I personally can't get on board with. His solutions are reasonable given his assumptions. I just think that his assumptions come from a very authoritarian standpoint, and are therefore conflicting with my own. I don't like Mitt Romney. I don't like Rick Santorum. I ESPECIALLY don't like Newt Gingrich. I like Ron Paul but think if he ran against Obama, Obama would win 5 to 1. However, I don't like him enough to vote for him. I liked Herman Cain because I liked his personality, and felt I could trust him. I still do, foolish as that may sound. I also didn't like George Bush for a whole host of reasons, mostly stemming from me being very nonviolent and not liking war as a whole, as impractical as that is as a politician during wartime. Quote:
At the moment our taxes (and the loopholes in our tax code thereof that rich people often abuse) don't guarantee enough revenue, while we spend far too much on social programs in contrast to our low revenue. We need to cut spending by a huge amount, raise taxes by very small amounts over time, and then when we're stabilized, we can go back to our bloated government spending and dishonest promises. The problem, however, lies below the surface. There's many possibilities as to why elected officials won't do that. There's external pressure in the form of China actually wanting to own our debt and not allowing us to gain a foothold because that would mean interest would no longer accumulate and their economy would suffer to a degree and there's internal pressure in the form of politicians taking advantage of stupid constituents who merely want more money for their own district regardless of international politics and economic possibilities thereof. I'd say it's likely the internal pressure that is a bigger issue, because that's just how politics are done here. Big promises, not delivering, and taking advantage of people not paying enough attention to realize that you're scamming them. It's stupid, self-destructive, and therefore not worth my time since I assume the majority of politicians are like this. Libertarians don't get elected because their ideas are scary, even if they'd work for what they are. I'm a libertarian centrist. How do you do? Quote:
So uhh... yeah. Take that.
|
|
#44
01-29-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well we are already feeling the aftershocks of SOPA as internet companies begin to really hit hard on copyright in any form with new policy articles and hundreds of websites being closed down.
Whether this just token of good will or real change in way internet works, we will have to see, though cannot complain because is just stopping outright piracy at moment or least looks to be it. However there is something more sinster coming through now...ACTA and this is not only scarier than SOPA, but actually being pushed forward by EU aka, the worlds biggest and most unelected Government. :P What does it do, simple, internet companies can and do, generally already track our IP addresses, but this will not make it mandatory for them to do this, it will make them then pass this information onto hundreds of other, often private organisations...this means all your actions and private information, including emails, will be readable by nameless and unknown companies. Dislike.
|
|
#45
01-29-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Allow me to summarize the entirety of this thread for those of you who just came in:
HATE HATE HATE FUCK DON'T GIVE A SHIT BITCH SOPA POLITICS RON PAUL = JESUS STRAWMAN ACCUSATION DERAILment Oh my god it's full of santorum Obama.
|
|
#46
01-29-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
all right Ladies and Germans.
The US's highest law is the US constitution. Quote:
Congress can't pass a law like SOPA or PIPA because it would restrict free speech and if they do, that's what our courts are for. SOPA and PIPA are unconstitutional and therefor CANNOT be made laws.
|
|
#47
01-29-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
ACTA is just an agreement between countries but the countries that signed it have to pass additional laws in order for ACTA to have legal weight. And since SOPA didn't pass, ACTA has no legal weight
|
|
#48
01-29-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The only reason we're not a nazi storm trooper state or a bunch of treehugging hippies is because it's been fairly balanced recently. Not because most of them have any sort of respect for the constitution. Quote:
Though even if what you say is true, that just gives Obama more fuel to blame congress for not going along with his every whim, using them as an effective scapegoat as a way to get re-elected despite the real fact being that it's because of his failure in unifying congress that's resulted in congress not going along with what he says... Obama's an asskisser, which is the whole reason he's going along with all of this. His foreign policy is asskissing, and while that works to the extent that it makes other countries hate us less, the stark reality is that no matter what we do most other countries see us as the one with power, and the ones with power in history are always demonized because they're always amoral entities, who are more focused in self-aggrandizing and survival than world peace and tranquility. Donald Trump's too gung-ho. Obama's too laid-back. We need someone who'll be respectful to our allies, tough on our enemies, be unapologetic about success, and yet be willing to admit their own shortcomings when reality doesn't meet expectations. However, in politics no such person exists, so it's pointless to talk about. Last edited by HolyShadow; 01-29-2012 at 06:47 PM.
|
|
#49
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
-Sometimes it does some good, but often it actually used erroneously to just give power to whatever morals the court has at this time. Quote:
Also what need to realise is that this works differently to SOPA and friends. SOPA and friends were about government having control over what is allowed/disallowed online, but this is very different, this will not stop doing anything online, but makes it a legal responsibly for the internet providers to watch and inform the authorities of what you are doing, then already existing laws will be used to punish you. -This is literally big brother online Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-30-2012 at 12:06 AM.
|
|
#50
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#51
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#52
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#54
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#55
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This meant they made this documents with a very presumptuous, presumption that any and all people who regarded these document, would read/view it/its ideals in same way they did. They never thought Freedom of Speech would have to content with homosexual hating, religious nuts or that privacy would come face to face with abortion and they certainly never thought that ever have to content with anything as alien as internet and globalisation. The world is very different place to one that your 'fore fathers' inhabited and so their legendary is now contending with things it was never given the ability to contend with and as such modern, amoral governments easily make it say/do as they wish. Another thing your 'fore fathers' never wanted was for the Judiciary and Government to suddenly become so close. Heck even the 'primitive British' system managed to realise that is bad idea.
|
|
#56
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
One of my favorite episodes of Bewitched is the one where she her daughter accidentally brings either Ben Franklin or President Washington (can't remember which) to modern times, and he begins making a speech in the park to the people, who all love it. Then a cop comes over and gives him a ticket for protesting without a permit...he becomes enraged, funny 1960s antics ensue...
|
|
#57
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just because it's a different place doesn't mean the ideas therein aren't good ideas. It just means you have to think about the original intent of the constitution of the land, and figure out exactly how they would apply those rules to what we have now. Abortion existed at the time. Globalization even existed at the time in a primitive form. Homosexuals existed at the time. All these things, save the internet, existed-- and even the internet can be regarded as essentially a very advanced form of the printing press. The problem is that the constitution is very libertarian, whereas most government officials are authoritarian. The general idea was that you shouldn't give two shits about another person's actions unless they hurt someone, and that government's trend was toward authoritarianism, which basically means that their actions would only give a limited amount of freedom over time before the government destroyed any notion of freedom they once had. If we wanted to look at abortion from a libertarian perspective, it's a clusterfuck, admittedly. You can't both respect the will of a mother-not-to-be and their unborn child simultaneously in a single blanket statement. Thus they didn't try. There's no real constitutional argument to be gained either way, because you can use the constitution as a counterargument. It's a moral conundrum, and I don't think the courts should've even tried to touch it. But because our government is authoritarian now, it has to legislate EVERY TINY THING so we all have to follow a rule of law that controls even our daily lives. Thanks, government! Globalization existed at the form, because nations would trade all over the world. If there was imperialism, that means there were colonies, and that means there were goods being exported to their European masters. I mean, it's not like corporation is only a few decades old. East India Trading Company, yo. Globalization doesn't necessarily refer to global government or governance. It refers to the interconnectedness between people, and trade did exactly that. China already had opened trading routes several hundred years before the US constitution happened. While you can make a reasonable argument with abortion, the idea that globalization didn't exist at the time is bogus. Their idea regarding free trade was largely that free trade is good, capitalism is good, and we shouldn't have allies or enemies, but instead many trading partners. That was the foreign policy of the time. There were religious nuts at the time. Not everyone wanted free religion at the time. A fair number of people wanted there to be a State religion, and there were indeed official religions for certain states for a while. Ultimately though, that became illegal, because it was a case of the State telling people how they should live. Again, libertarianism won. As for homosexuality-hating, I'm not sure about this, but there were likely many people who hated homosexuals then too, and there were likely those who didn't mind homosexuals. But because it was bad in virtually any religious perspective (at least ones popular in the western world), it was seen as generally negative. This meant they usually hid it. The world we have now I'd say is actually better, not because of the libertarian victory, but actually because of the victory of politics. Homosexuals can hide their orientation. Therefore, even if you somehow made homosexuals voting illegal, they could do so anyway. Thus, homosexuals will vote, and it's better to get their votes than to demonize them. The KKK had a lot of power in government until just a few decades ago, and suddenly civil rights activists had more power than the KKK, and laws changed because of it. But again, why should any of us care? Politics is all it's about. Politics, authoritarianism. Finally, the internet. Viewed as a form of the printing press, it allows for a huge amount of self-expression. The issue we're dealing with now, free-expression, however, is specifically avoiding the parts of the internet that deal in the press. What they're trying to censor are ordinary users. And that's fine, given the corrupted laws we have that allow judges to declare certain places that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that we should reasonably have an expectation of privacy in. But this doesn't matter. What REALLY matters to me is the complete ignoring of the requirement of a warrant and other forms of due process. SOPA allowed government entities to seize any site they wanted even if they had no actual proof any illegal activity was involved. The laws on the books even (supposedly) allow this now. This is directly against any notion of reason in a libertarian society. But we don't live in a libertarian society any more. Our world is a world where the government can swoop in and take anything they want from us because we're too big pussies to truly revolt against them. We're easily distracted and they know it. They also know money is essentially the deciding factor in any political contest. They know that lies are more effective than truths, because lies are more damning because no one pays enough attention to find out whether these things are true or not. The tea party crowd is played against the occupy movement and vice-versa, thus causing them to get distracted from their true enemy: Big, oppressive government. And it's depressing as hell. He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both. Never before have truer words been spoken.
|
|
#58
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok, you have completely missed the point because you have looked at the ought, not the is. I am sorry to tell you that whether you that constitution is inflectual at best and whether you like this problem or not, holds no baring on its truth. I was not claiming that we should ignore the constitutions ideals, but that the constitution as legal document is simply no longer fit for purpose.
As Lord Styrn so adaptly noted, "In politics no such thing as entrenched law exists, only words which quickly become inadequate." Your point about interpretating them as feel founders would, sounds nice, but it wholly flawed in logic and application:- 1=you are those men, or even remotely like those men, so you cannot fairly judge their view 2=those whom have power to do this, do actually do this and most honestly believe in their view is right form, despite them probably being wrong because not men or time who founded this. -This is why the constitution is ineffective and fails to defend even the foundations it was built on, let alone the ideals it encapsulates. Holy your admittance that the constitution is failing is telling and though your ideals on how to fix it are admirable in own idealistic like way, they will not work because problem is deeper than mere misreading. =Now if you want whole rebuttal on the points you brought up, we need a more on top thread, but for now I will abridge:- 1=Abortion=At time, your founders believed it was wrong and presumed so did everyone else in country, so never thought would become an issue. However I agree now it should not be made one ether because as you admit constitution cannot deal with this and it an abuse of all concerned to try and force it to do so. 2= Globalisation=Not going to argue definition because sure word can fit both our meaning depending on context, but instead clarify mine. I mean mass international organisations of law and political conjunctions. Your founders were basically isolationists in all but trade which offered enough money reward. Now the Governments of world are so close and linked that it is not wrong to say the ideal of international that 'men are kings of own land only." is dead because now a law passed in Europe will have massive applicably even in USA. Heck it is the USA who are pushing for the effects doctrine to be recognised in international laws courts. 3= Religious nuts were limited example, but basically your founders held a presumption that all those who would 'need' freedom of speech would be those fighting the good fight and arguing against social injustice. It would have boggled their minds to think that their ideals would be abused by individuals in way are now and more importantly that everything would get so contentious and confusing. We live in world were even those on same side cannot agree what argument should be. =This is why failed and is so easily manipulated by those whom use it for own ends, both in power and out. Note many people who need constitutional protection now days are not that nice but are certainly not corrupt officials ether. This is also why seen raise of authoritarianism, because libertarianism is living in the past and been found wanting today, if ever applied and now its legendary is being used contrary to very reasons it was made, because of this. (A lot forget, Locke was bit of douche and made most of his arguments to merely justify appropriation of Native American land.) As I said, things like freedom of speech are good, but now days nothing is black and white in application and needs more cultured hand to apply it. Now to bring back to internet, you claim that internet is like painting press, that is stupid. Now to avoid being called out, I will explain the self-evident for sake of explaining the self-evident: 1=The internet is used and controlled by masses; the press was used by few. 2=The internet give and revive information to almost anyone, anywhere, instantously on a mass scale. 3=Internet can use movies...etc and is just far to advanced to called a painting press. 4=The internet is not only used as form of mass information distribution, but also communication 5=The most information point:-the internet can work like conversation. You cannot really talk back to newspaper, but certainly can voice opinion back to them online. =This is why the constitution cannot save you, loopholes and misapplication aside, it fundamentally offers no protection because the internet is rarely people making a speech or big political/social message...just ordinary slack-jawed folk like me and you, having conversation and that is something very difference and lot more complex to defend.
|
|
#59
01-30-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
This hurts my head. How can I agree with what you say and disagree with it at the same time for the same reasons?
Fuck logic.
|
 |
|
|
