• PBS: Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous
    85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mon;33667043]i'm doubting he has actual knowledge / firsthand experience about what he's saying[/QUOTE] I work, I pay taxes, I attend continued education in the United States. I support my family financially. I make friends and I live the lifestyle. I drive as necessary here. I purchase things to support the economy. I use credit unions for my banking. I support locally-owned businesses and help support local communities. I volunteer to help the elderly and the homeless. I recycle and I try to save gas when I can. I try to become educated in current affairs as well as news and active topics Do [B]you[/B] have any actual knowledge/firsthand experience about what you're saying? These are facts, and if you can't have a single ounce of doubt about the USA then can you really call yourself a citizen?
[QUOTE=Mabus;33667076]I didn't know I was a genetically bred clone who partakes in ritual orgy's for a car manufacturer.[/QUOTE] Wow, someone couldn't fuck up the interpretation of Brave New World more but whatever floats your boat I guess.
[QUOTE=Mon;33667043]i'm doubting he has actual knowledge / firsthand experience about what he's saying[/QUOTE] first hand experience? off what, being locked up by the government? he doesn't need that to know this is wrong.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667080]I work, I pay taxes, I attend continued education in the United States. I support my family financially. I make friends and I live the lifestyle. I drive as necessary here. I purchase things to support the economy. I use credit unions for my banking. I support locally-owned businesses and help support local communities. I volunteer to help the elderly and the homeless. I recycle and I try to save gas when I can. I try to become educated in current affairs as well as news and active topics Do [B]you[/B] have any actual knowledge/firsthand experience about what you're saying? These are facts, and if you can't have a single ounce of doubt about the USA then can you really call yourself a citizen?[/QUOTE] 1. the things i'm saying don't need facts, i'm just doubting 2. i'm not a US citizen. i just think you people are either a) exaggerating or b) repeating what you've heard off of some pundit (who was exaggerating)
[QUOTE=Mon;33667137]1. the things i'm saying don't need facts, i'm just doubting 2. i'm not a US citizen. i just think you people are either a) exaggerating or b) repeating what you've heard off of some pundit (who was exaggerating)[/QUOTE] If you read what he said, is the world REALLY so different than that? [QUOTE]All the while local news channels go on their humdrum irrelevant news. [B]Check[/B] Your neighbors care more about Millionaire Matchmaker, Dancing With the Stars and American Idol than they do Congressional progression. [B]Check[/B] Schools assign tedious homework while our youth become more uneducated and consume drugs to escape. [B]Check[/B] You drive to work and grind all day and night just to survive; you're a legal slave of these corporate bigwigs, getting paid minimum wage way below what you deserve as a human being. [B]Depends, but I know many people in this situation.[/B] You're stuck in traffic while disgruntled drivers cut you off so they can make it home fast enough to watch their favorite sports game. [B]Assumption? Sure[/B] They drive huge SUV's and burn all the gas they want without a single thought about nature, the environment or the oil and car manufacturer conglomerates. [B]Depends on community but it does happen, or do you doubt that?[/B] You go to your local supermarket and purchase over-priced commercial goods and foodstuffs that have glaring regulation issues. [B]Almost all of North America suffers from this[/B] You go home and trap yourself in a pretty box with all the latest gadgets and electronics. [B]You're on the fucking internet, Check[/B] You watch your large HDTV in hopes of seeing the outside world, outside your little hamster cage. [B]Now we're getting dramatic[/B] All you see is irrelevance, ignorance, petty entertainment and mind-numbing television shows.[B]More dramatics but I agree[/B][/QUOTE] Please, what does YOUR world look like Mon, because I don't think it looks like mine.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667080]I work, I pay taxes, I attend continued education in the United States. I support my family financially. I make friends and I live the lifestyle. I drive as necessary here. I purchase things to support the economy. I use credit unions for my banking. I support locally-owned businesses and help support local communities. I volunteer to help the elderly and the homeless. I recycle and I try to save gas when I can. I try to become educated in current affairs as well as news and active topics Do [B]you[/B] have any actual knowledge/firsthand experience about what you're saying? These are facts, and if you can't have a single ounce of doubt about the USA then can you really call yourself a citizen?[/QUOTE] No, but you can call yourself a Patriot! :v:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33667188]If you read what he said, is the world REALLY so different than that? Please, what does YOUR world look like Mon, because I don't think it looks like mine.[/QUOTE] [quote]You drive to work and grind all day and night just to survive; you're a legal slave of these corporate bigwigs, getting paid minimum wage way below what you deserve as a human being.[/quote] it's mostly this line that gets me i know far more people who have gotten success out of work vs those who've been screwed over. and it's not like getting a job is a who-you-know type thing, those people worked hard to get where they are today - here, and abroad (shit, that actually works?). honestly, the point just sounds extremely misguided. and then there's the article itself - what you're reading is sensationalism at its finest. if anything, freedom is better today than it's ever been, and the OWS protests attest that to the finest detail. just compare what's going on today vs the vietnam era. back with vietnam, you had Kent State, one of the highest points of escalation - and you know what happened? the protesters were fired upon. 4 students died. now compare that to OWS - all 8 of the deaths have been from drug ODs. i'm sorry, but this is the most bullshit crisis i've ever seen. you can say that the world is going to shit, but in the end, it's just because you've been reading articles like this. go outside, get some fresh air, hang with your friends, and in general, ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM instead of complaining about it.
[QUOTE=Mon;33667333]it's mostly this line that gets me i know far more people who have gotten success out of work vs those who've been screwed over. and it's not like getting a job is a who-you-know type thing, those people worked hard to get where they are today - here, and abroad (shit, that actually works?). honestly, the point just sounds extremely misguided. and then there's the article itself - what you're reading is sensationalism at its finest. if anything, freedom is better today than it's ever been, and the OWS protests attest that to the finest detail. just compare what's going on today vs the vietnam era. back with vietnam, you had Kent State, one of the highest points of escalation - and you know what happened? the protesters were fired upon. 4 students died. now compare that to OWS - all 8 of the deaths have been from drug ODs. i'm sorry, but this is the most bullshit crisis i've ever seen. you can say that the world is going to shit, but in the end, it's just because you've been reading articles like this. go outside, get some fresh air, hang with your friends, and in general, ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM instead of complaining about it.[/QUOTE] Uhm, yes I remember Kent state quite well, and yes, I can realize that hasn't happened yet. But you can't look at this and tell me it's fine and that there's no threat of losing things here? Yes, I enjoy my freedoms by using them. Many people are doing JUST that with the Occupy movement. And what relevance does going outside have with being informed? Yes, there is an assault on your freedoms. And even look at what's going on today, look at what we've let our social, economic, and political, and even religious leaders get us into. How do you think this isn't bad? It's not as bad as before, but it's still fucking bad. Also compare what's going on today with the vietnam era, I didn't realize that they were protesting around the same causes, because that matters. The act of protesting in this comparison isn't all that matters. And good for you and the people you know, you just admitted your knowledge is anecdotal and no better than mine. Why do you argue from a point like you know more or are better?
[QUOTE=Mon;33667333] you can say that the world is going to shit, but in the end, it's just because you've been reading articles like this. go outside, get some fresh air, hang with your friends, and in general, ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM instead of complaining about it.[/QUOTE] Freedom? That statement is exactly what's wrong with the USA. Freedom to what? Where? Even to the very roads we use and the places we work, has been designed by corporations and conglomerates. Your suburbian commerical neighborhood has been planned out even to the very places where you'd want to hang out and purchase your products. Oh how convenient, a supermarket! Oh cool, a strip mall with the same cookie-cutter stores! I don't have to go anywhere anymore since we're all in this bubble anyway. Goodness forbid we don't have progression and stimulation of our minds anymore. The masses resort to things that are detrimental to societal and human advancement as a species. Sure, I might sound entirely pessimistic here, even at times dramatic, but it's hard man. Not everyone has the luxury to enjoy all their "freedom" when we barely have any freedom at all to live our lives. We're stuck on constant grind unless you're one of the wealthy today. Ofcourse, there's those fleeting moments of ecstacy but what's the use when you know you still have to face the problems the next day? It's not a trend, it's not a conspiracy theory. The facts are here and people seem to just cover their eyes and ears and scream LALALALALA. One day the roof will come crashing down unto our heads and what did we do to ready ourselves?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33667372]Uhm, yes I remember Kent state quite well, and yes, I can realize that hasn't happened yet. But you can't look at this and tell me it's fine and that there's no threat of losing things here? Yes, I enjoy my freedoms by using them. What are you doing with them? Squandering them? I'll defend my own freedoms with my freedoms for as long as I can. Yes, there is an assault on your freedoms. And even look at what's going on today, look at what we've let our social, economic, and political, and even religious leaders get us into. How do you think this isn't bad? It's not as bad as before, but it's still fucking bad. [/QUOTE] you're acting like that's new - it's not. things have always been that way. every teenage girl, doing party poppers for the first time, let her social leader get her into that. every bigot, yelling out damnation on the streets, let his religious leader get him into that. every veteran, suffering with PTSD, let his political leader get him into that. that's the way things are, have been, and will be. some mountains can't be moved. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33667372] Also compare what's going on today with the vietnam era, I didn't realize that they were protesting around the same causes, because that matters. The act of protesting in this comparison isn't all that matters.[/QUOTE] the thing about vietnam vs OWS is the fact that vietnam protestors had a specific, timely and easily achievable goal - they wanted the government to pull US troops out of vietnam. but look at OWS - there's so many different goals, even CNN is having a hard time keeping track.
[QUOTE=Mon;33667441]what's bad? letting our leaders make us do things? it's ALWAYS been that way. every teenage girl, doing party poppers for the first time, let her social leader get her into that. every bigot, yelling out damnation on the streets, let his religious leader get him into that. every veteran, suffering with PTSD, let his political leader get him into that. that's the way things are, have been, and will be. some mountains can't be moved. [B]Wow, you couldn't have taken this bit out of context more than this...[/B] the thing about vietnam vs OWS is the fact that vietnam protestors had a specific, timely and easily achievable goal - they wanted to pull US troops out. look at OWS - there's so many different goals, even CNN is having a hard time keeping track. [B]Because the problem isn't simple anymore.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hm, I saw PBS and thought "Oh man, is this going to actually provide real, well researched evidence?" The answer is no. An emphatic no. [QUOTE]1. Indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens The provision, part of the bill that authorizes Pentagon spending for 2012, was drafted by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and has bipartisan support in the Senate. The thinking, according to supporters, is that “America is part of the battlefield” in the so-called war on terror, as Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire put it, so Americans should be fair game when it comes to finding and arresting terrorists. The bill, however, takes the power to arrest and detain terrorists away from law enforcement officials, like the police or FBI, and gives it to the military, which, under the law, would have the power to imprison an American who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” indefinitely, “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” And those hostilities aren’t likely to “end” any time soon, since the law that authorizes the use of military force against terrorists has no expiration date. [/QUOTE] Wrong. United. States. Citizens. Are. Exempt. PBS confirmed for not reading that CLEAR AS CRYSTAL part of the bill. [QUOTE]2. Targeting U.S. citizens for killing Last week, lawyers for the Obama administration defended for the first time the administration’s decision to target radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, for killing. Awlawki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in an American missile strike in September; the ACLU has criticized the targeted killing program as blatantly violating the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that no American citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” At a national security conference last week, the lawyers for the Obama administration, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, said American citizens are legitimate targets for killing when they take up arms against the U.S., according to the Associated Press. Jameel Jaffer, a deputy legal director for the ACLU, said in an interview in September that the targeted killing program sets up a precedent in which “U.S. citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government.” [/QUOTE] Fear mongering. This isn't a ruling, though it's made to sound like it. Two lawyers at an conference said this. That means precisely dick all. The Supreme court didn't rule on it, NO court has ruled on it, so it sets precisely NO precedent. Not only that, but their defense of it, to me at least, seems legally sound. What they are saying is that if an American citizen is part of an organization that has attacked and is actively fighting the United States, or in other words has "taken up arms against" the Untied States, then they are able to be killed. And to me, that is reasonable. If it isn't to you, that's ok. Because two Lawyers' opinion, government affiliated or not, means dick all to legal precedent. This article likes to throw around phrases about this like "targeted killing program" and "executed by their own government", and it's the same yellow journalism that created the idea of "death panels". [QUOTE]3. Arresting witnesses for recording police actions The raids at Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country have earned media attention primarily for their glaring instances of police brutality. But they’ve also tested the boundaries of police authority when it comes to limiting media access to police operations. As many as 30 journalists have been arrested covering Occupy protests, including many who clearly identified themselves as credentialed members of the media. Officials in New York and L.A., for example, have also tried to tightly restrict media access to the Occupy encampments, setting up barricades far away from the actual raids and allowing only hand-picked journalists to go behind police lines. Civil liberties advocates have decried these tactics as attempts to stifle media coverage of the raids. But the media blackouts are representative of a broader trend in law enforcement in recent years in which the police have been arresting citizens simply for recording official police actions in public places. Twelve states, for example, have adopted “eavesdropping” laws that prohibit people from videotaping police actions without the officers’ consent. And in California, police officials have openly stated that they will arrest people taking photographs without “apparent esthetic value” if those people seem suspicious. Several courts have ruled these policies unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Totally valid. There needs to be a serious demilitarization of the police force and this is part of it. However, this is kinda shitty evidence that we're become a police state since "Several courts have ruled these policies unconstitutional." In a real police state, those courts would be shut right up by the executive. But they haven't. Because we're not one. [QUOTE]4. Using GPS to track your every move The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule soon on a case that could have far-reaching consequences for privacy in the 21st Century. The justices were asked to decide whether the police could use GPS devices to track people suspected of crimes without first obtaining a warrant. Police across the country use GPS devices to track the movements of thousands of criminal suspects every year, but critics say the practice violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In oral arguments in November, several justices expressed concern that, as technology improves, the power to track a U.S. citizens’ every move would only become more dangerous. “If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,” Justice Stephen Breyer told the lawyer for the Justice Department, which is defending warrantless GPS tracking. That, Breyer added, “sounds like ’1984.’” [/QUOTE] This is hardly evidence for two reasons. For one, they haven't ruled it constitutional. They haven't ruled it's not, so this, in the end, means nothing. For two, several (article's wording, mind you) justices have expressed concern. One of the justices even openly shits on the idea as being out of 1984. So, to me it looks as if the odds are decent that the SP could easily rule against this. [QUOTE]5. Surveillance drones spying on American soil The use of drones to spy on states like Pakistan and Iran has become so popular in national security circles that many domestic law enforcement agencies are now considering using these spy planes to conduct covert surveillance on American soil. Drones are already used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border, but now many police officials across the country are advocating for the use of drones in other types of police actions, like hunting fugitives, finding missing children and monitoring protest movements. These drones, advocates note, can not only monitor large urban expanses, they can also use artificial intelligence “seek out and record certain types of suspicious behavior,” whatever that may be. The Orlando police, for example, initially requested two spy drones to help police the Republican National Convention next year, before changing their minds for budgetary reasons. Some police officials have even openly discussed arming the spy planes with “non-lethal weapons” like Tasers or bean bag guns. These drones, and other tactics imported from battlefield to American soil, are an example of how the “war on terror” has threatened core protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution, civil liberties advocates say. The erosion of these protections has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike. And, as the ACLU put it, the debate over these tactics “goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans.”[/QUOTE] The drones one has to be the stupidest one of all. There isn't a future supreme court ruling that may or may not favor it, nor did lawyers write about it on a napkin! Police officials are [I]advocating[/I] for use of them. That's it. They aren't using them, there's no plan in place, they're [I]advocating[/I]. That literally means that some police officials are saying "Man, it would totally kick ass to have a spy drone." As well, it mentions precisely why this isn't going to happen for a long damn time, if ever. Because they're too fucking expensive! The costs of equipping any police department who thought they needed one would be ungodly. By the way, I like how the article notes that they could be used to "monitor protest movements" after stating that they could do really positive things like finding missing children or fugitives to balance it out. The idea of using drones to monitor something huge like a protest movement is retarded. If the police want to monitor a protest from the air, they'll use a HELICOPTER. Ya know, something they ALREADY HAVE. This article is grade A shit, and now I'm just going to point to it for why we AREN'T a police state. 0.5/5 (.5 points for reason 3, since it is a rights violation) of it's reasons are valid for the sensationalist claim that we're becoming a "police state". So if this is top five pieces of evidence that can be brought out, what does that mean for the whole "police state" theory?
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667421]Freedom? That statement is exactly what's wrong with the USA. Freedom to what? Where? Even to the very roads we use and the places we work, has been designed by corporations and conglomerates. Your suburbian commerical neighborhood has been planned out even to the very places where you'd want to hang out and purchase your products. Oh how convenient, a supermarket! Oh cool, a strip mall with the same cookie-cutter stores! I don't have to go anywhere anymore since we're all in this bubble anyway. [/QUOTE] is there anything wrong with that? corporations have made a heaven for us - albeit an artificial one. they make people like [U]you[/U] happy, so they can turn a profit. that's just how things work. [QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667421] [B]Goodness forbid we don't have progression and stimulation of our minds anymore. The masses resort to things that are detrimental to societal and human advancement as a species. [/B] [/QUOTE] hold it right there. look at where you are right now. you are on an internet forum, talking to someone in a totally different country about political and social issues. you have access to [B]almost all of the world's collective knowledge[/B] here, but still you're finding time to bitch about it. [QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667421] Sure, I might sound entirely pessimistic here, even at times dramatic, but it's hard man. Not everyone has the luxury to enjoy all their "freedom" when we barely have any freedom at all to live our lives. [B]We're stuck on constant grind unless you're one of the wealthy today[/B]. Ofcourse, there's those fleeting moments of ecstacy but what's the use when you know you still have to face the problems the next day? [/QUOTE] do you think that's different from the past? pioneers back in the days of old worked their asses off 24/7 - day in, day out. they did that to [B]SURVIVE.[/B] [U]you[/U] have everything handed to you on a silver platter - you have creative jobs that can still earn you a living - and guess what? they don't involve a "daily grind." [QUOTE=sHiBaN;33667421] It's not a trend, it's not a conspiracy theory. The facts are here and people seem to just cover their eyes and ears and scream LALALALALA. One day the roof will come crashing down unto our heads and what did we do to ready ourselves?[/QUOTE] [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] spooter i love you [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] you can make that as homo as you want
[QUOTE=Mon;33667441]you're acting like that's new - it's not. things have always been that way. every teenage girl, doing party poppers for the first time, let her social leader get her into that. every bigot, yelling out damnation on the streets, let his religious leader get him into that. every veteran, suffering with PTSD, let his political leader get him into that. that's the way things are, have been, and will be. some mountains can't be moved.[/QUOTE] You're right, we can't change what our corrupt politicians get us into. It's not like America was founded on the idea that we can change that.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667622]You're right, we can't change what our corrupt politicians get us into. It's not like America was founded on the idea that we can change that.[/QUOTE] are you actually going to do anything to "change that?"
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667622]You're right, we can't change what our corrupt politicians get us into. It's not like America was founded on the idea that we can change that.[/QUOTE] Or we can, every 2 years for congress and every 4 years for the president. You see, we can [B][I][U]VOTE[/U][/I][/B].
[QUOTE=Spooter;33667656]Or we can, every 2 years for congress and every 4 years for the president. You see, we can [B][I][U]VOTE[/U][/I][/B].[/QUOTE] he was being sarcastic [I]genius[/I]
[QUOTE=Spooter;33667656]Or we can, every 2 years for congress and every 4 years for the president. You see, we can [B][I][U]VOTE[/U][/I][/B].[/QUOTE] i swear everything this guy posts is like verbal gold
[QUOTE=Spooter;33667510]Hm, I saw PBS and thought "Oh man, is this going to actually provide real, well researched evidence?" The answer is no. An emphatic no. Wrong. United. States. Citizens. Are. Exempt. PBS confirmed for not reading that CLEAR AS CRYSTAL part of the bill. Fear mongering. This isn't a ruling, though it's made to sound like it. Two lawyers at an conference said this. That means precisely dick all. The Supreme court didn't rule on it, NO court has ruled on it, so it sets precisely NO precedent. Not only that, but their defense of it, to me at least, seems legally sound. What they are saying is that if an American citizen is part of an organization that has attacked and is actively fighting the United States, or in other words has "taken up arms against" the Untied States, then they are able to be killed. And to me, that is reasonable. If it isn't to you, that's ok. Because two Lawyers' opinion, government affiliated or not, means dick all to legal precedent. This article likes to throw around phrases about this like "targeted killing program" and "executed by their own government", and it's the same yellow journalism that created the idea of "death panels". Totally valid. There needs to be a serious demilitarization of the police force and this is part of it. However, this is kinda shitty evidence that we're become a police state since "Several courts have ruled these policies unconstitutional." In a real police state, those courts would be shut right up by the executive. But they haven't. Because we're not one. This is hardly evidence for two reasons. For one, they haven't ruled it constitutional. They haven't ruled it's not, so this, in the end, means nothing. For two, several (article's wording, mind you) justices have expressed concern. One of the justices even openly shits on the idea as being out of 1984. So, to me it looks as if the odds are decent that the SP could easily rule against this. The drones one has to be the stupidest one of all. There isn't a future supreme court ruling that may or may not favor it, nor did lawyers write about it on a napkin! Police officials are [I]advocating[/I] for use of them. That's it. They aren't using them, there's no plan in place, they're [I]advocating[/I]. That literally means that some police officials are saying "Man, it would totally kick ass to have a spy drone." As well, it mentions precisely why this isn't going to happen for a long damn time, if ever. Because they're too fucking expensive! The costs of equipping any police department who thought they needed one would be ungodly. By the way, I like how the article notes that they could be used to "monitor protest movements" after stating that they could do really positive things like finding missing children or fugitives to balance it out. The idea of using drones to monitor something huge like a protest movement is retarded. If the police want to monitor a protest from the air, they'll use a HELICOPTER. Ya know, something they ALREADY HAVE. This article is grade A shit, and now I'm just going to point to it for why we AREN'T a police state. 0.5/5 (.5 points for reason 3, since it is a rights violation) of it's reasons are valid for the sensationalist claim that we're becoming a "police state". So if this is top five pieces of evidence that can be brought out, what does that mean for the whole "police state" theory?[/QUOTE] Of course we aren't a police state. But this bill is still a problem, because it removes right of foreigners, even though everyone deserves rights. Then again we have been doing this before this bill was passed, so it's mostly superficial. and did anyone else notice how the main discussion here is now on OWS protests, not Counter-Terrorism? [editline]10th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Spooter;33667656]Or we can, every 2 years for congress and every 4 years for the president. You see, we can [B][I][U]VOTE[/U][/I][/B].[/QUOTE] I was being sarcastic, because Mon seems to think we have to live with corrupt politicians.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33667469]Because the problem isn't simple anymore.[/QUOTE] ... vietnam wasn't simple at all if the US pulled out immediately, they would lose saigon, and with it, a lot influence in asia, and a shit tonne of confidence with other states they were protecting at the time. so when they [U]did[/U] pull out, do you know what happened? exactly that. the problems today are as complex as they were yesterday.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667661] I was being sarcastic, because Mon seems to think we have to live with corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see candidates that get in without being significantly influenced by corporate interests. That's also impossible.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667661]I was being sarcastic, because Mon seems to think we have to live with corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] i do?
[QUOTE=Mon;33667712]... vietnam wasn't simple at all if the US pulled out immediately, they would lose saigon, and with it, a lot influence in asia, and a shit tonne of confidence with other states they were protecting at the time. so when they [U]did[/U] pull out, do you know what happened? exactly that. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] the problems today are as complex as they were yesterday.[/QUOTE] yes, but the solution is not. If you are against war in Vietnam, then ofcourse the answer is end the war. If you are against capitalist pigs abusing the system, what's the solution? better regulation? socialism? there are lots of possible solutions.
[QUOTE=Contag;33667738]I'd like to see candidates that get in without being influenced by corporate interests. That's also impossible.[/QUOTE] is it?
[QUOTE=Mon;33667441] that's the way things are, have been, and will be. some mountains can't be moved.[/QUOTE] yes, you do imply that it is impossible to change. [editline]10th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mon;33667752]is it?[/QUOTE] sadly it seems so.
[QUOTE=Mon;33667752]is it?[/QUOTE] Uh yeah because corporations have huge influence in the economy and uh, the economy is awfully important
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667661]Of course we aren't a police state. But this bill is still a problem, because it removes right of foreigners, even though everyone deserves rights. Then again we have been doing this before this bill was passed, so it's mostly superficial. and did anyone else notice how the main discussion here is now on OWS protests, not Counter-Terrorism?[/QUOTE] I agree. The indefinite detention of foreigners isn't good either, and the whole bill is unnecessary. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667661]I was being sarcastic, because Mon seems to think we have to live with corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, it's hard to gleam sarcasm through text sometimes. I guess I am just used to people talking about the situation in politics and leadership as if it's totally unchangeable, stagnant and out of their control via legitimate means.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667748]yes, but the solution is not. If you are against war in Vietnam, then ofcourse the answer is end the war. If you are against capitalist pigs abusing the system, what's the solution? better regulation? socialism? there are lots of possible solutions.[/QUOTE] yes the solution is democratic socialism, a hundred anti-trust cases and more regulation
[QUOTE=Contag;33667794]yes the solution is democratic socialism, a hundred anti-trust cases and more regulation[/QUOTE] ah, you went with the "all of the above" choice.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33667778]yes, you do imply that it is impossible to change. [/QUOTE] that was with regards to leaders getting people into shit that's always going to happen i don't think that it's impossible to bring down the 1%, i just think that things aren't [I]nearly[/I] as bad as you people here think
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.