10 ms·

I hate to use this tone but, so be it. Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more

I hate to use this tone but, so be it. Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more power for themselves will wake up and figure it out? How much more proof do you need? Does this make you angry yet or is Obama still your diety? Oh, and Republicans don't get a pass either. The point is that all of you morons voting like robots along party lines are destroying my country, from the inside, one fucking vote at a time. And it is sad. And it is painful. And it is almost unbearable to watch. You are destroying what this country is supposed to be about and turning it into something our children will have to suffer with. Terrorists won. You morons saw to it. Our way of life is, in many ways, unrecognizable from what it was before 9/11. When are you going to understand that a conservative Libertarian (as opposed to extreme and nearly anarchist) approach is the only path to recovery? Ultra limited government. They are OUR servants, we are not their property. They need to get the fuck out of our lives, homes, businesses, bedrooms, schools and more. Time to take it back. Peacefully. Vote with intelligence. Email. Write letters. Make calls. Let them know who they work for. Reboot the system.

snoshy 13y ago
Sadly, you forgot the most important factor in all of this: money. Vote with your wallet. Far more important and influential than voting once in 4 years.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Only if you have a big wallet. And that's the problem.
worldsayshi 13y ago
As a non american, my theory about why your state is allow to abuse it's power to such a degree is that your democratic system disincentivize multiple parties and so a fair competition. I understand that the ruling party is the one with the largest share of votes rather than whatever group of parties who can agree to work with each other comprising the majority of the votes. You should need 50% of the votes to rule. That means making compromises with minority parties. Compromises is a good thing in the political sphere, not something to avoid. And it incentivizes voting on small parties. It may lead to some bad apples but at least you have slightly better environment for competition.
- adventured 13y ago
  There are three particularly big problems in the US system today. 1) Lobbyists 2) Tort 3) The Federal Reserve / federal banker insider system The lobbyists are powerful because of what they can buy, because of the nearly total power over the economy that the Federal Govt. possesses. If the politicians can't dictate economic policy, then buying them is worthless. The desperate need for tort reform is obvious. The Federal Reserve has failed, basically across the board over the course of its entire history. It has created an economy dependent on one bubble after another. It has devalued the dollar by 97% over its history, and particularly dramatically since the 1960s. The dollar used to be regarded as being "as good as gold," that's a bad joke now. It is currently, intentionally, inflating massive asset bubbles with trillions worth of debt monetization ("QE") because it stupidly thinks that's how you create prosperity (or they're really clever and intentionally trying to crash the economy). It has to be abolished, and the US monetary system has to be returned to a sound basis, rather than relying on dollar devaluation to fund the government (ie we need strict balanced budget laws).
  - giardini 13y ago
    Lobbyists - I agree serious repair/surgery is needed. Ideas? Tort reform - Why? What, other than torts, provides a counterbalance to corporate and executive power? What, other than torts, protects the weak from the powerful? Most tort reform seems to be an attempt by a group to wipe out oversight. The Fed - needs to be restricted to a smaller role: control of inflation. But what about the TSA, FBI, NSA et al? What a miraculous event it would be were these agencies reduced to their pre-9/11 levels or better, to a level 20 years prior to that. IIRC the various states' attorneys-generals issued a statement that the Patriot Act was completely unnecessary, but here we are anyway.
Trufa 13y ago
I am not American, so I am not an as immersed in your politics as many of you so take it with a grain of salt but this is my opinion. Obama is about the most dangerous thing that could have happened to your government. Why? In most of the world outside from the US, after Bush's second term, you simply couldn't defend him. My family tends to be very pro USA (blindly), but with Bush, it got to the point that it was not "politically correct" any more to defend him, just about anybody criticized him. But then comes Obama, likable and with a promise to make things better, everybody likes him, and in between promises and small steps forwards, he/his goverment/others/whoever slip in huge blows to human rights, privacy and freedom. In my eyes, Obama is Bush with better PR. And why is this dangerous, because with bush at least most people knew they wanted better, and now for most, this is good enough or even good, and it's not.
- sounds 13y ago
  Bush : wolf :: Obama : wolf in sheep's clothing ?
- bmelton 13y ago
  The problem isn't really with Obama, it's that the American people haven't done much against the government's attempts at power grabs. There are a variety of reasons for why not, ignorance being high on the list, but perhaps the most prominent reason is that we expect our government to keep us safe, for better or worse. If Americans are just now getting upset about this, it's ultimately our own fault, as this was the fairly logically expected result of the Patriot Act, and we haven't really done enough to get rid of it. The 'right' response would have been to vote out every single Senator and House Representative that voted for such an egregious overstep on our liberties, but in reality, that ignores a whole slew of other interests those politicians may have supported. If, for example, I am gun-toting civil rights advocate, a Senator that votes against an assault weapons ban comes out slightly ahead, even if that same Senator also voted for the Patriot Act. If I'm a gay man, looking for federal recognition of marriage, I'm in the same boat. Someone who votes for gay marriage, but also against privacy, comes out ahead. The net, basically, is that privacy is nobody's 'hot-button' issue because even while somebody can espouse the inherent ignorance of the "If you have nothing to hide..." argument, we, for the most part, don't have anything to hide. So while we don't acquiesce to these intrusions of privacy, we let them fall by the wayside in the wake of more important issues. The real bitch of the matter, of course, is that Republicans are almost certainly going to scream 'outrage' to this new knowledge, even though it was Bush's policies that implemented their capability. Meanwhile, democrats will likely 'defend Obama' because it would otherwise reflect negatively on the party to not do so. In sort, it's political ammunition. The outrage we see won't even be universal. You'll probably see exceptions on either side (Lindsay Graham, Republican from South Carolina has already said this information "doesn't bother" him), and ultimately, if the 'blame' can be assigned in such a way that it advances someone's political agenda, that's what'll happen.
rhizome 13y ago
You could have deleted everything but the last line.
nkohari 13y ago
Name a conservative Libertarian candidate and I'll point out the socially regressive policies that make me not vote for them.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  by all means continue giving away your economic freedoms in order to signal your loyalty to social freedoms the president doesn't have control over anyway.
- durzagott 13y ago
  What is a socially regressive policy and why are Libertarian candidates prone to them?
  - lukevdp 13y ago
    A socially regressive policy is something like making abortions illegal. Libertarians aren't socially regressive, it's the conservative part that is
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - tesmar2 13y ago
      Outlawing murder would be something I consider moving in the right direction (pun intended)
      - lukevdp 13y ago
        I wasn't making a point on either side of the issue, just giving an example of a socially regressive policy
    - crusso 13y ago
      I do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. We have a government that is consuming massively more of the GDP than ever, is grabbing more and more power at every turn, is subsidizing every kind of bad behavior from international banks to a horribly corrupt food stamp program of epic proportions. Even if you hate the idea of illegal abortions, aligning yourself with "big government" in any way would seem to be a foolish move. Every day, you're building a government that's powerful enough to do whatever it wants. That means that when the right christian republican is in the White House with Congressional support who decides to make illegalizing abortion his issue... he/she does it. Just like Progressives have wanted government healthcare for the last century and then when they had a slim majority in Congress for 2 years with the presidency, they rammed through Obamacare and now we're all stuck with it.
Buzaga 13y ago
I wonder what the hell is voting for... this system is corrupted/failed already, politicians put millions and billions in marketing to get elected, sometimes with corruption money even(ruling party in Brazil admitted to it with a "everybody does it, it's normal" argument, also fucking lobbyists up there) and after they're there they don't have to answer to anyone anymore, it doesn't matter that the actions took by the government doesn't match the persona they marketed themselves to get there(As an outsider who rooted for Obama for his apparent reasoning and humanity, I'm severely disappointed with what I see), not to mention that probably in most countries the 'game' is already a two-party only play, with "you wouldn't want that other guy so pick me" as one of the prevalent voting reasonings, with parties getting more and more alike by the day, making the whole voting process look more like lucha-libre than a competition to me I don't disagree with what you said but I'm seriously in doubt if I really trust "voting", I'm in Brazil and over here seems like it's a lost case(uneducated population, obligatory voting <= marketing + corrupts power circle)
- robomartin 13y ago
  I lived in Argentina for a while. It's probably worst there. In many strange ways I see aspects of what I saw happening in Argentina happening here in the US.
loup-vaillant 13y ago
Don't reboot the system, rewrite it. Instead of a representative government most western countries suffer, switch to democracy. I mean, democracy. Where the people decide for their rules directly. Where real democratic processes such as random trials are used, instead elections which by nature are heavily influenced by a tiny elite. Where the constitution itself is not written by those who will later rule the country (that's such an obvious conflict of interest). Good luck, though.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Keep the representative system, but add a ton of direct democracy influences to it. You can even take real world examples from countries like Germany or Finland, I believe, where the citizens can create their own bills, and then pass them through a referendum. It doesn't need to be 100% democracy, and it doesn't need to be 80-90% representative like US, either. It definitely needs to be a lot more towards direct democracy than it is in US now. Also another huge problem that needs to be fixed in US, is making sure the incredibly skewed "money vote" is drastically reduced, by only allowing people to donate $100 per voter at an election, and no anonymous donations anymore. Votes are supposed to be equal, but this alternative money vote system, created by lobbying in US, has really compromised to the point that you can almost discard the real vote system. When 70% of the voters want decision A vs decision B, but 90% of the donors want decision B, in the vast majority of cases the politicians go with decision B - because they were basically paid to do it. But what's worse is that 90% of the funds usually comes from only a handful of people - therefore the incredibly skewed system. At least with $100 cap you can equalize it a lot.
  - khuey 13y ago
    I think the state of California is a pretty good counter-example to the purported benefits of increased direct democracy.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      As I understand it, one of the problems with California's referendum system is that there's no built-in requirement to fund the initiatives. A referendum system might work better if every initiative had to provide for its own funding, and/or the state constitution required a balanced budget.
rlx0x 13y ago
Thats great, lets minimize government, lets privatize schools, police, prison, the fire department and everything else! "Ultra limited government" for the future! Lets deregulate everything, because you know you can trust Corporations! The part you need to realize is, there already are on their way to your utopia. The point is, that you need a strong military, police and surveillance state in order to make the transition fully. There some people that don't like to be corporate slaves so you need power to force people into their brave new world! :)
- crusso 13y ago
  Name the corporation that has the self-given legal right to take ALL our data and store in insecurely. Name the corporation that has the right to spy on us, and even when caught doing it contrary to the law, no one goes to jail over it. Name the corporation that when it runs out of money on its stupid ideas just prints more or can raise its prices indefinitely and FORCE you to buy however much of its products that it wants you to. Name the corporation that has the authority to break into your house in the middle of the night, shoot your dog, put a boot on your throat, then say, "Sorry we had the wrong house" ... with little or no negative consequences for their mistake. Name the corporation that can sick its money collectors on you for disagreeing with them and then they'll audit your income over and over to make your existence miserable. Name the corporate agents who have the legal right to manipulate the markets with the creation of new laws and bureaucracies and then can use that knowledge to do as much insider trading as they want to enrich themselves... and it's all legal. Name the corporation that has the means and the authority take away your house, your children, your very life, and I'll be right there with you. Until then, I'm going to go ahead and keep pushing against the government that has ALL of the powers mentioned above and that abuses those powers on a daily basis.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Thats great, lets minimize government, lets privatize schools, police, prison, the fire department and everything else! Since when did "private" become a bad word? F%!# that, "private" business is me, you, your neighborhood plumber, the dive bar on the corner, IBM, Microsoft, Google and a whole range of "in between" companies. Nothing about a firm being "private" makes it "bad". In fact, I'd argue that it's just the opposite... anything that can be provided by a private firm, participating in a free market, should be provided by such, or not at all. Note, however, that "private firm" does not necessarily equate to "corporation" OR to "for profit business". The range of "private" organizations also includes various non-profit cooperatives, communes and collectives. Lets deregulate everything, because you know you can trust Corporations! If we were really serious about minimizing government, there wouldn't be any Corporations, as Corporations are a legal fiction which depend on the State for their very existence.
king_jester 13y ago
> I hate to use this tone but, so be it. Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more power for themselves will wake up and figure it out? How much more proof do you need? Does this make you angry yet or is Obama still your diety? Oh, and Republicans don't get a pass either. > The point is that all of you morons voting like robots along party lines are destroying my country, from the inside, one fucking vote at a time. And it is sad. And it is painful. And it is almost unbearable to watch. You are destroying what this country is supposed to be about and turning it into something our children will have to suffer with. I'm sorry but this is a load of crap. The US gov't at all levels has always suffered from this problem due to the way it is structured. Blaming individual people for not participating in that system the way you think they should is completely unhelpful and puts the blame in the wrong place. > Terrorists won. You morons saw to it. Our way of life is, in many ways, unrecognizable from what it was before 9/11. This is not true. Although some policies and attitudes have changed since 9/11, US society has not fundamentally changed and the major problems pre-9/11 are the same post-9/11. > When are you going to understand that a conservative Libertarian (as opposed to extreme and nearly anarchist) approach is the only path to recovery? Ultra limited government. They are OUR servants, we are not their property. They need to get the fuck out of our lives, homes, businesses, bedrooms, schools and more. I find it funny that you slight anarchism here while claiming that a different type of political candidate is all that is needed to change society. Limited government isn't just about reduced budgets and programs, but removing the bureaucratic and hierarchical elements of government. Further, if you feel that existing political parties all are contributing to the problem, picking a different party isn't going to change anything. > Time to take it back. Peacefully. Vote with intelligence. Email. Write letters. Make calls. Let them know who they work for. Reboot the system. This isn't rebooting the system, this is how most people interact with and solicit the government already.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > This is not true. Although some policies and attitudes have changed since 9/11, US society has not fundamentally changed and the major problems pre-9/11 are the same post-9/11. We have way more problems after 9-11. We've invented more problems, starting with the TSA that nudiescans and molests people -- the Patriot act, spying on Americans, other fear mongering.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jneal 13y ago
Vote Republican: Patriot act created Vote Democratic: Patriot act abused I'm not sure where this leaves us, which is worse?
- crusso 13y ago
  Get out of the Republican vs Democrat team mindset? Choose individual candidates who believe in and you trust to legislate based upon some core principles. Examine voting records when possible since speeches can be useless. Too many people get caught up in the complexity of noise issues that aren't that important. These noise issues are like the trade-in value of your used car when you go to buy a new one... or the infamous "under coating". They're just mixed in with the important issue (price of the car) in order to confuse you and maximize the power that the dealer has in the negotiation. Government abuse comes from too much government power. Too much government power comes from too much legislation and too much money through taxation and money printing. Vote for politicians who understand the beauty of the limitations created by our Constitution and who can push for following a more strict interpretation of it. In the end, it's all about power. Power corrupts. We want the people in government to have only as much power as they absolutely need to do things that we cannot do (national defense, TRUE interstate commerce regulation, etc.) The rest of the power we grant them is just ripe for abuse.
  - gregd 13y ago
    The problem is that if NONE of the candidates adhere to my principles and I don't vote, SOMEONE wins by default.
- TheFuture 13y ago
  Patriot act was overwhelming supported by Republicans AND Democrats when passed. Let's not rewrite history here. The more we learn about the Obama admin, the worse it gets. This isn't a R vs D thing.
- damoncali 13y ago
  “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” ― George Orwell
bilbo0s 13y ago
"...When are you going to understand that a conservative Libertarian (as opposed to extreme and nearly anarchist) approach is the only path to recovery?..." I think this is the issue in a nutshell. Partisanship. Even people who do not like the Demopublicans... are 'partisan'. I know it was probably not intended, but your post provides illustration of the issue by way of example. I'd wager you, like the average Democrat and Republican, would vote for whoever towed your party line. And this vote comes regardless of whether or not the party line is good for the US. If a given policy is good for the US, then great! But this is not a necessity to gain your support... it is incidental. The important thing for Partisans is not continuous improvement, but continuous compliance. It's far more important to a Partisan that we do things 'their way', than it is for us to improve ourselves. We need to move away from Partisanship toward an environment where each issue is judged on its merits. Without regard to preconceived grand ideas that underlie some Party's philosophy on the 'right way to do things'. This is the only way we will get the continuous improvement we are looking for. By abandoning the, sort of, 'sacred cow', ideas that have gripped the nation's political discourse on every front.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a total union whore, etc, I voted for Romney. I am a true independent in the full sense of the word. To be fair, our system is based on political parties. If these were abolished and politicians had to run without party affiliation then one could vote outside clans. I want an intellectually honest limited government that is fiscally conservative and socially, well, gets the fuck out of our lives. As an atheist it pains me to sometimes have to vote for uber-religious Republicans. Sometimes I have to choose between social and fiscal policies. Obama promised he would deal with all of it, and here we are we have wasted four years and are about to waste four more. None of the extreme's are good. Extreme left, right and yes, extreme Libertarians are deranged and delusional lunatics who ought to be nowhere near our government. As an example, I love Ron Paul but some of his foreign policy ideas were nutty. I still think we need to quickly shift into something that is closer to a moderate Libertarian concept. Beyond that, we need major structural changes in order to have a shot at recovering in FIFTY YEARS. Yes folks, do the math, recovery will take twenty five to fifty years. We've done a lot of damage to our country --all from the inside. Unions, entitlement programs, patents, tax code, Obamacare, IRS, Patriot act, NSA, EDUCATION, spending, political whore politicians, ignorant voters, budgets, OSHA, etc.
chez17 13y ago
There is nothing more intellectually childish than saying "x isn't working in this case, therefore x never works and should be totally abandoned." I agree 100% that 99% of people don't care about politics enough and vote blindly. Look at the turn out rate for primaries and years where people aren't voting for president. Libertarians like you are all talk. There plenty of places in this world with no government but you would never go there because they are 3rd world shit holes. Ask yourself, "why aren't there any first world countries that are prosperous that have libertarian governments?" You love government. You love roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, you take things like electricity, water, and internet for granted, you bathe in government funded projects that have made your life better in every way. The answer isn't no government, it's better government. In some areas that means drastically reducing it's power and I think even the left most progressive could agree with the right most libertarian on many things. However it's just childish to say "no government". It's been tried before in the past, and it's being tried now, it never works. We do better when we work together.
- talmand 13y ago
  He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.
  - d23 13y ago
    > Ultra limited government. Pretty damn close.
    - robomartin 13y ago
      Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government. "Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government". I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government. Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.
gregd 13y ago
It's funny how you call everyone BUT yourself, a moron. Oh wait, no it's not. So the only way to the promised land, is via the path you laid out? I see what you did there.
jbooth 13y ago
Most of the conservatives I know just want to spend more money investigating Benghazi.
vpeters25 13y ago
I'm afraid in this case voting for somebody else is just not going to be enough. History shows us the only way to really change the status quo is by massive mobilization akin to the Civil Rights movement.
tbatchelli 13y ago
You say that a conservative libertarian approach is the only path. I find it hard to believe it is the only option, tbh, and you provide no evidence --nor I have evidence to support that it is not. But, could it be that the problem is that the US citizens have no (effectively possible) way to effect power on the government? Could it be that with a two party system there is little incentive to cater to the constituents? Could it be that there is little incentive for Democrats to be anything other than a little to the left of the Republicans, and that there is little incentive for Republicans to be other than not Democrats? ... There are examples of countries out there with more government (lefties!!!) and a better life for their constituents. In any case, any form of goverment, big or small, if unchecked, will use it's power for self-serving interest. Governments are formed by human beings after all...
powertower 13y ago
> Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more power for themselves will wake up and figure it out? In my opinion, from everything I've seen, the only thing they are bent on is protecting people like you from the increased threats of crimes, radicalization, and terrorism. I know how that sounds, you can't figure out if I'm joking or if I'm a brain-washed moron. But think of it this way, Obama did a 180 when he got into office because a) power-lust made him do it, or b) he gained access to a much more detailed and clearer picture than you have?
cboppert 13y ago
I like the last line. The rest? You're insufferable. If you think it is up to the average voting American to deny the Green Party and the Libertarian Party time during our debates, then I suppose your points are valid. If you think it is up to the average American to black out coverage of protests happening in our country, then I suppose your points are valid. If you think the people on the street struggling to get by have enough time to learn about the complexities of our inane and nonfunctional system, then I suppose your points are bearable. But if you agree that a corporations 1,000,000 dollars of lobbying money is worth more than my vote, then your points are not. If you agree that big money has thoroughly corrupted our system of government to almost every level, then your points are not. And if you don't, where have you been?

snoshy 13y ago

Sadly, you forgot the most important factor in all of this: money. Vote with your wallet. Far more important and influential than voting once in 4 years.

acjohnson55 13y ago
Only if you have a big wallet. And that's the problem.

worldsayshi 13y ago

As a non american, my theory about why your state is allow to abuse it's power to such a degree is that your democratic system disincentivize multiple parties and so a fair competition. I understand that the ruling party is the one with the largest share of votes rather than whatever group of parties who can agree to work with each other comprising the majority of the votes. You should need 50% of the votes to rule. That means making compromises with minority parties. Compromises is a good thing in the political sphere, not something to avoid. And it incentivizes voting on small parties. It may lead to some bad apples but at least you have slightly better environment for competition.

adventured 13y ago
There are three particularly big problems in the US system today. 1) Lobbyists 2) Tort 3) The Federal Reserve / federal banker insider system The lobbyists are powerful because of what they can buy, because of the nearly total power over the economy that the Federal Govt. possesses. If the politicians can't dictate economic policy, then buying them is worthless. The desperate need for tort reform is obvious. The Federal Reserve has failed, basically across the board over the course of its entire history. It has created an economy dependent on one bubble after another. It has devalued the dollar by 97% over its history, and particularly dramatically since the 1960s. The dollar used to be regarded as being "as good as gold," that's a bad joke now. It is currently, intentionally, inflating massive asset bubbles with trillions worth of debt monetization ("QE") because it stupidly thinks that's how you create prosperity (or they're really clever and intentionally trying to crash the economy). It has to be abolished, and the US monetary system has to be returned to a sound basis, rather than relying on dollar devaluation to fund the government (ie we need strict balanced budget laws).
- giardini 13y ago
  Lobbyists - I agree serious repair/surgery is needed. Ideas? Tort reform - Why? What, other than torts, provides a counterbalance to corporate and executive power? What, other than torts, protects the weak from the powerful? Most tort reform seems to be an attempt by a group to wipe out oversight. The Fed - needs to be restricted to a smaller role: control of inflation. But what about the TSA, FBI, NSA et al? What a miraculous event it would be were these agencies reduced to their pre-9/11 levels or better, to a level 20 years prior to that. IIRC the various states' attorneys-generals issued a statement that the Patriot Act was completely unnecessary, but here we are anyway.

Trufa 13y ago

I am not American, so I am not an as immersed in your politics as many of you so take it with a grain of salt but this is my opinion. Obama is about the most dangerous thing that could have happened to your government. Why? In most of the world outside from the US, after Bush's second term, you simply couldn't defend him. My family tends to be very pro USA (blindly), but with Bush, it got to the point that it was not "politically correct" any more to defend him, just about anybody criticized him. But then comes Obama, likable and with a promise to make things better, everybody likes him, and in between promises and small steps forwards, he/his goverment/others/whoever slip in huge blows to human rights, privacy and freedom. In my eyes, Obama is Bush with better PR. And why is this dangerous, because with bush at least most people knew they wanted better, and now for most, this is good enough or even good, and it's not.

sounds 13y ago
Bush : wolf :: Obama : wolf in sheep's clothing ?
bmelton 13y ago
The problem isn't really with Obama, it's that the American people haven't done much against the government's attempts at power grabs. There are a variety of reasons for why not, ignorance being high on the list, but perhaps the most prominent reason is that we expect our government to keep us safe, for better or worse. If Americans are just now getting upset about this, it's ultimately our own fault, as this was the fairly logically expected result of the Patriot Act, and we haven't really done enough to get rid of it. The 'right' response would have been to vote out every single Senator and House Representative that voted for such an egregious overstep on our liberties, but in reality, that ignores a whole slew of other interests those politicians may have supported. If, for example, I am gun-toting civil rights advocate, a Senator that votes against an assault weapons ban comes out slightly ahead, even if that same Senator also voted for the Patriot Act. If I'm a gay man, looking for federal recognition of marriage, I'm in the same boat. Someone who votes for gay marriage, but also against privacy, comes out ahead. The net, basically, is that privacy is nobody's 'hot-button' issue because even while somebody can espouse the inherent ignorance of the "If you have nothing to hide..." argument, we, for the most part, don't have anything to hide. So while we don't acquiesce to these intrusions of privacy, we let them fall by the wayside in the wake of more important issues. The real bitch of the matter, of course, is that Republicans are almost certainly going to scream 'outrage' to this new knowledge, even though it was Bush's policies that implemented their capability. Meanwhile, democrats will likely 'defend Obama' because it would otherwise reflect negatively on the party to not do so. In sort, it's political ammunition. The outrage we see won't even be universal. You'll probably see exceptions on either side (Lindsay Graham, Republican from South Carolina has already said this information "doesn't bother" him), and ultimately, if the 'blame' can be assigned in such a way that it advances someone's political agenda, that's what'll happen.

rhizome 13y ago

You could have deleted everything but the last line.

nkohari 13y ago

Name a conservative Libertarian candidate and I'll point out the socially regressive policies that make me not vote for them.

nazgulnarsil 13y ago
by all means continue giving away your economic freedoms in order to signal your loyalty to social freedoms the president doesn't have control over anyway.
durzagott 13y ago
What is a socially regressive policy and why are Libertarian candidates prone to them?
- lukevdp 13y ago
  A socially regressive policy is something like making abortions illegal. Libertarians aren't socially regressive, it's the conservative part that is
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tesmar2 13y ago
    Outlawing murder would be something I consider moving in the right direction (pun intended)
    - lukevdp 13y ago
      I wasn't making a point on either side of the issue, just giving an example of a socially regressive policy
  - crusso 13y ago
    I do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. We have a government that is consuming massively more of the GDP than ever, is grabbing more and more power at every turn, is subsidizing every kind of bad behavior from international banks to a horribly corrupt food stamp program of epic proportions. Even if you hate the idea of illegal abortions, aligning yourself with "big government" in any way would seem to be a foolish move. Every day, you're building a government that's powerful enough to do whatever it wants. That means that when the right christian republican is in the White House with Congressional support who decides to make illegalizing abortion his issue... he/she does it. Just like Progressives have wanted government healthcare for the last century and then when they had a slim majority in Congress for 2 years with the presidency, they rammed through Obamacare and now we're all stuck with it.

Buzaga 13y ago

I wonder what the hell is voting for... this system is corrupted/failed already, politicians put millions and billions in marketing to get elected, sometimes with corruption money even(ruling party in Brazil admitted to it with a "everybody does it, it's normal" argument, also fucking lobbyists up there) and after they're there they don't have to answer to anyone anymore, it doesn't matter that the actions took by the government doesn't match the persona they marketed themselves to get there(As an outsider who rooted for Obama for his apparent reasoning and humanity, I'm severely disappointed with what I see), not to mention that probably in most countries the 'game' is already a two-party only play, with "you wouldn't want that other guy so pick me" as one of the prevalent voting reasonings, with parties getting more and more alike by the day, making the whole voting process look more like lucha-libre than a competition to me I don't disagree with what you said but I'm seriously in doubt if I really trust "voting", I'm in Brazil and over here seems like it's a lost case(uneducated population, obligatory voting <= marketing + corrupts power circle)

robomartin 13y ago
I lived in Argentina for a while. It's probably worst there. In many strange ways I see aspects of what I saw happening in Argentina happening here in the US.

loup-vaillant 13y ago

Don't reboot the system, rewrite it. Instead of a representative government most western countries suffer, switch to democracy. I mean, democracy. Where the people decide for their rules directly. Where real democratic processes such as random trials are used, instead elections which by nature are heavily influenced by a tiny elite. Where the constitution itself is not written by those who will later rule the country (that's such an obvious conflict of interest). Good luck, though.

mtgx 13y ago
Keep the representative system, but add a ton of direct democracy influences to it. You can even take real world examples from countries like Germany or Finland, I believe, where the citizens can create their own bills, and then pass them through a referendum. It doesn't need to be 100% democracy, and it doesn't need to be 80-90% representative like US, either. It definitely needs to be a lot more towards direct democracy than it is in US now. Also another huge problem that needs to be fixed in US, is making sure the incredibly skewed "money vote" is drastically reduced, by only allowing people to donate $100 per voter at an election, and no anonymous donations anymore. Votes are supposed to be equal, but this alternative money vote system, created by lobbying in US, has really compromised to the point that you can almost discard the real vote system. When 70% of the voters want decision A vs decision B, but 90% of the donors want decision B, in the vast majority of cases the politicians go with decision B - because they were basically paid to do it. But what's worse is that 90% of the funds usually comes from only a handful of people - therefore the incredibly skewed system. At least with $100 cap you can equalize it a lot.
- khuey 13y ago
  I think the state of California is a pretty good counter-example to the purported benefits of increased direct democracy.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    As I understand it, one of the problems with California's referendum system is that there's no built-in requirement to fund the initiatives. A referendum system might work better if every initiative had to provide for its own funding, and/or the state constitution required a balanced budget.

rlx0x 13y ago

Thats great, lets minimize government, lets privatize schools, police, prison, the fire department and everything else! "Ultra limited government" for the future! Lets deregulate everything, because you know you can trust Corporations! The part you need to realize is, there already are on their way to your utopia. The point is, that you need a strong military, police and surveillance state in order to make the transition fully. There some people that don't like to be corporate slaves so you need power to force people into their brave new world! :)

crusso 13y ago
Name the corporation that has the self-given legal right to take ALL our data and store in insecurely. Name the corporation that has the right to spy on us, and even when caught doing it contrary to the law, no one goes to jail over it. Name the corporation that when it runs out of money on its stupid ideas just prints more or can raise its prices indefinitely and FORCE you to buy however much of its products that it wants you to. Name the corporation that has the authority to break into your house in the middle of the night, shoot your dog, put a boot on your throat, then say, "Sorry we had the wrong house" ... with little or no negative consequences for their mistake. Name the corporation that can sick its money collectors on you for disagreeing with them and then they'll audit your income over and over to make your existence miserable. Name the corporate agents who have the legal right to manipulate the markets with the creation of new laws and bureaucracies and then can use that knowledge to do as much insider trading as they want to enrich themselves... and it's all legal. Name the corporation that has the means and the authority take away your house, your children, your very life, and I'll be right there with you. Until then, I'm going to go ahead and keep pushing against the government that has ALL of the powers mentioned above and that abuses those powers on a daily basis.
mindcrime 13y ago
Thats great, lets minimize government, lets privatize schools, police, prison, the fire department and everything else! Since when did "private" become a bad word? F%!# that, "private" business is me, you, your neighborhood plumber, the dive bar on the corner, IBM, Microsoft, Google and a whole range of "in between" companies. Nothing about a firm being "private" makes it "bad". In fact, I'd argue that it's just the opposite... anything that can be provided by a private firm, participating in a free market, should be provided by such, or not at all. Note, however, that "private firm" does not necessarily equate to "corporation" OR to "for profit business". The range of "private" organizations also includes various non-profit cooperatives, communes and collectives. Lets deregulate everything, because you know you can trust Corporations! If we were really serious about minimizing government, there wouldn't be any Corporations, as Corporations are a legal fiction which depend on the State for their very existence.

king_jester 13y ago

> I hate to use this tone but, so be it. Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more power for themselves will wake up and figure it out? How much more proof do you need? Does this make you angry yet or is Obama still your diety? Oh, and Republicans don't get a pass either. > The point is that all of you morons voting like robots along party lines are destroying my country, from the inside, one fucking vote at a time. And it is sad. And it is painful. And it is almost unbearable to watch. You are destroying what this country is supposed to be about and turning it into something our children will have to suffer with. I'm sorry but this is a load of crap. The US gov't at all levels has always suffered from this problem due to the way it is structured. Blaming individual people for not participating in that system the way you think they should is completely unhelpful and puts the blame in the wrong place. > Terrorists won. You morons saw to it. Our way of life is, in many ways, unrecognizable from what it was before 9/11. This is not true. Although some policies and attitudes have changed since 9/11, US society has not fundamentally changed and the major problems pre-9/11 are the same post-9/11. > When are you going to understand that a conservative Libertarian (as opposed to extreme and nearly anarchist) approach is the only path to recovery? Ultra limited government. They are OUR servants, we are not their property. They need to get the fuck out of our lives, homes, businesses, bedrooms, schools and more. I find it funny that you slight anarchism here while claiming that a different type of political candidate is all that is needed to change society. Limited government isn't just about reduced budgets and programs, but removing the bureaucratic and hierarchical elements of government. Further, if you feel that existing political parties all are contributing to the problem, picking a different party isn't going to change anything. > Time to take it back. Peacefully. Vote with intelligence. Email. Write letters. Make calls. Let them know who they work for. Reboot the system. This isn't rebooting the system, this is how most people interact with and solicit the government already.

darkarmani 13y ago
> This is not true. Although some policies and attitudes have changed since 9/11, US society has not fundamentally changed and the major problems pre-9/11 are the same post-9/11. We have way more problems after 9-11. We've invented more problems, starting with the TSA that nudiescans and molests people -- the Patriot act, spying on Americans, other fear mongering.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jneal 13y ago

Vote Republican: Patriot act created Vote Democratic: Patriot act abused I'm not sure where this leaves us, which is worse?

crusso 13y ago
Get out of the Republican vs Democrat team mindset? Choose individual candidates who believe in and you trust to legislate based upon some core principles. Examine voting records when possible since speeches can be useless. Too many people get caught up in the complexity of noise issues that aren't that important. These noise issues are like the trade-in value of your used car when you go to buy a new one... or the infamous "under coating". They're just mixed in with the important issue (price of the car) in order to confuse you and maximize the power that the dealer has in the negotiation. Government abuse comes from too much government power. Too much government power comes from too much legislation and too much money through taxation and money printing. Vote for politicians who understand the beauty of the limitations created by our Constitution and who can push for following a more strict interpretation of it. In the end, it's all about power. Power corrupts. We want the people in government to have only as much power as they absolutely need to do things that we cannot do (national defense, TRUE interstate commerce regulation, etc.) The rest of the power we grant them is just ripe for abuse.
- gregd 13y ago
  The problem is that if NONE of the candidates adhere to my principles and I don't vote, SOMEONE wins by default.
TheFuture 13y ago
Patriot act was overwhelming supported by Republicans AND Democrats when passed. Let's not rewrite history here. The more we learn about the Obama admin, the worse it gets. This isn't a R vs D thing.
damoncali 13y ago
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” ― George Orwell

bilbo0s 13y ago

"...When are you going to understand that a conservative Libertarian (as opposed to extreme and nearly anarchist) approach is the only path to recovery?..." I think this is the issue in a nutshell. Partisanship. Even people who do not like the Demopublicans... are 'partisan'. I know it was probably not intended, but your post provides illustration of the issue by way of example. I'd wager you, like the average Democrat and Republican, would vote for whoever towed your party line. And this vote comes regardless of whether or not the party line is good for the US. If a given policy is good for the US, then great! But this is not a necessity to gain your support... it is incidental. The important thing for Partisans is not continuous improvement, but continuous compliance. It's far more important to a Partisan that we do things 'their way', than it is for us to improve ourselves. We need to move away from Partisanship toward an environment where each issue is judged on its merits. Without regard to preconceived grand ideas that underlie some Party's philosophy on the 'right way to do things'. This is the only way we will get the continuous improvement we are looking for. By abandoning the, sort of, 'sacred cow', ideas that have gripped the nation's political discourse on every front.

robomartin 13y ago
Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a total union whore, etc, I voted for Romney. I am a true independent in the full sense of the word. To be fair, our system is based on political parties. If these were abolished and politicians had to run without party affiliation then one could vote outside clans. I want an intellectually honest limited government that is fiscally conservative and socially, well, gets the fuck out of our lives. As an atheist it pains me to sometimes have to vote for uber-religious Republicans. Sometimes I have to choose between social and fiscal policies. Obama promised he would deal with all of it, and here we are we have wasted four years and are about to waste four more. None of the extreme's are good. Extreme left, right and yes, extreme Libertarians are deranged and delusional lunatics who ought to be nowhere near our government. As an example, I love Ron Paul but some of his foreign policy ideas were nutty. I still think we need to quickly shift into something that is closer to a moderate Libertarian concept. Beyond that, we need major structural changes in order to have a shot at recovering in FIFTY YEARS. Yes folks, do the math, recovery will take twenty five to fifty years. We've done a lot of damage to our country --all from the inside. Unions, entitlement programs, patents, tax code, Obamacare, IRS, Patriot act, NSA, EDUCATION, spending, political whore politicians, ignorant voters, budgets, OSHA, etc.

chez17 13y ago

There is nothing more intellectually childish than saying "x isn't working in this case, therefore x never works and should be totally abandoned." I agree 100% that 99% of people don't care about politics enough and vote blindly. Look at the turn out rate for primaries and years where people aren't voting for president. Libertarians like you are all talk. There plenty of places in this world with no government but you would never go there because they are 3rd world shit holes. Ask yourself, "why aren't there any first world countries that are prosperous that have libertarian governments?" You love government. You love roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, you take things like electricity, water, and internet for granted, you bathe in government funded projects that have made your life better in every way. The answer isn't no government, it's better government. In some areas that means drastically reducing it's power and I think even the left most progressive could agree with the right most libertarian on many things. However it's just childish to say "no government". It's been tried before in the past, and it's being tried now, it never works. We do better when we work together.

talmand 13y ago
He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.
- d23 13y ago
  > Ultra limited government. Pretty damn close.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government. "Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government". I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government. Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.

gregd 13y ago

It's funny how you call everyone BUT yourself, a moron. Oh wait, no it's not. So the only way to the promised land, is via the path you laid out? I see what you did there.

jbooth 13y ago

Most of the conservatives I know just want to spend more money investigating Benghazi.

vpeters25 13y ago

I'm afraid in this case voting for somebody else is just not going to be enough. History shows us the only way to really change the status quo is by massive mobilization akin to the Civil Rights movement.

tbatchelli 13y ago

You say that a conservative libertarian approach is the only path. I find it hard to believe it is the only option, tbh, and you provide no evidence --nor I have evidence to support that it is not. But, could it be that the problem is that the US citizens have no (effectively possible) way to effect power on the government? Could it be that with a two party system there is little incentive to cater to the constituents? Could it be that there is little incentive for Democrats to be anything other than a little to the left of the Republicans, and that there is little incentive for Republicans to be other than not Democrats? ... There are examples of countries out there with more government (lefties!!!) and a better life for their constituents. In any case, any form of goverment, big or small, if unchecked, will use it's power for self-serving interest. Governments are formed by human beings after all...

powertower 13y ago

> Maybe now you morons who continue to vote in the pieces of shit into our government who are bent on taking more and more power for themselves will wake up and figure it out? In my opinion, from everything I've seen, the only thing they are bent on is protecting people like you from the increased threats of crimes, radicalization, and terrorism. I know how that sounds, you can't figure out if I'm joking or if I'm a brain-washed moron. But think of it this way, Obama did a 180 when he got into office because a) power-lust made him do it, or b) he gained access to a much more detailed and clearer picture than you have?

cboppert 13y ago

I like the last line. The rest? You're insufferable. If you think it is up to the average voting American to deny the Green Party and the Libertarian Party time during our debates, then I suppose your points are valid. If you think it is up to the average American to black out coverage of protests happening in our country, then I suppose your points are valid. If you think the people on the street struggling to get by have enough time to learn about the complexities of our inane and nonfunctional system, then I suppose your points are bearable. But if you agree that a corporations 1,000,000 dollars of lobbying money is worth more than my vote, then your points are not. If you agree that big money has thoroughly corrupted our system of government to almost every level, then your points are not. And if you don't, where have you been?