You do know the government is just trying to take care of us,
right? Heck, I got the warm fuzzy long ago when Claritin-D, technically an OTC drug
would only be sold from behind TC, and then only if you present picture
identification, and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for
ten days! Of course, if it isn't in stock when you want to purchase, you're out of
luck... but you're being taken care of. (If you didn't know, the government was/is
protecting us from the proliferation of me
I disagree. I think that terrorists very much care about chemistry sets. They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care
They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...
If by "them" you mean the people who are in power, then this comment is spot on. If by "them" you mean those most people think of as "terrorists" then those "terrorists" are idiots of the worst kind.
Why?
Simple: because the government in charge of an oppressive police state is even mor
Against a fascist totalitarian U.S. (which isn't there yet but is really close now, I think)
Get a grip there, Kos boy.
As long as there's a better than one-to-one ratio of private firearms to adults to wield them, there is no danger of a totalitarian state being able to assume control. Examine the history of Communist China, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and any other state you deem "totalitarian". What is the common thread to consolidation of power? Yup, firearm confiscation.
Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.
In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your fucking gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.
At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.
There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.
Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.
America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.
And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)
Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way.
You make some very good points, especially with regard to fascism in our current society. Unfortunately, I do not see much that can be done to prevent it from growing. Infotainment keeps some political candidates out of the spotlight while promoting others on both sides of America's political aisle. This pre-selection leads to low poll ratings for some. At least Leno had Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, though for a much lesser amount of time than Tom Cruise.
I sit and talk reasonable about fascism, and you think Ron Paul is a reasonable alternative.
Newsflash: Libertarians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You do not actually understand the problem, or libertarianism.
They like to assert how they'd reduce government, but as social programs are immensely popular, they'd have absolutely no luck in reducing those any reasonable amount, and attempts to do so would quickly get them removed from office.
Logically, of course, that doesn't make them part of the problem, but, rather, simply ineffective.
Meanwhile, they would happily remove government controls of corporation, leading us to fascism faster, and gut bankruptcy law even more, so now when your company fires you because you went to a political protest and you lose your house, now it's entirely legal! Or when your landlord does a check on what political party you belong to.
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
Oh wait. No they wouldn't. Darn, now I's is CORNFUZED!
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
No, the government would do that, rewarding companies that play along.
See, this is where you are being illogical. You are making straw man attacks against libertarians, who would OPPOSE such government intervention. You can't cherry-pick libertarian philosophy and call them the enemy because a half-assed implementation of their philosophy would have ill effects.
I know in magical libertarian land this isn't possible because government spending would be vastly reduced
It's not just spending. I guess I was right when I said you ddidn't understand libertarianism. In a libertarian society, the government would not have the right to reward companies who "play along," and indeed, t
Ah, yes, libertarianism, the communism of the right.
Yeah, libertarianism is stupid. Fuck freedom!
What will actually happen were they elected? Not important.
How is it any worse than what anyone else will do?
The fact their movement is being operated by rich people who have the entirely different motive of not paying taxes, instead of any sort of 'freedom'? Not important.
Also? Not true. Not even remotely. Did you pull that put of your own ass, or did it come from someone else's ass before it came out your lips?
The fact that American doesn't actually like their ideas
Yeah. Americans fucking HATE the Constitution! You're so RIGHT!
and that existing social nets int his country have approximately an 80% approval rating?
Yeah! Fuck freedom and the Constitution! Democracy rules, even if the Constitution is violated! (Funny how you care so deeply about the Fourth Amendment, but not about the Tenth. Why is that?)
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.
I don't know why you think I, or anyone, is trying to have it 'both ways'. I'm not trying to have it any way at all.
Yes, you are. You are presenting two arguments that are inconsistent with each other based on your own interpretation of the facts. You are arguing they are so unpopular they won't get into power, which necessarily implies they care more about their principles than being elected; and then you argue they would, if they got power, sacrifice those principles in order to be elected again. That's trying to have it both ways.
However, they've reached the point where they are less unpopular than the Bush-lites running for president.
That's a total illusion. No Pauline libertarian would have nearly the chance of win
I never remotely thought or expressed any such thing. Either you are incompetent, or a liar. Or both, I suppose. Indeed, I was explicitly accepting the fact that they would get health care.
"The minimum that most minimalists want leaves in place just the institutions who protect their interests. That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
I don't know who said that, but obviously it was someone who has no clue about libertarianism, which would utterly outlaw slavery in every form. More incompetence/ignorance.
I said they wouldn't be able to implement the changes they want, not that they wouldn't try.
No. You did not say that. Indeed, and on the contrary, you said they would be in power, which directly implies they couldn't be stopped from implementing it. You may have MEANT that, but you didn't express it well, and I misunderstood it.
Everyone else would stop them, and even if they succeeded, the changes would be undone when they were unceremoniously voted out of office the next election.
That "if" cannot logically be applied to your original statement, which said they would get nothing else done, not that they would get it done and then it would be repealed.
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war,
'Many'? How many is many?
At least 10 percent, perhaps 20 percent or more, of normal Republican voters, just based on his
So, in your opinion then, it's ok for corporations to arbitrarily hire and fire on any basis, discriminatory or otherwise because, after all - here's the magic of the marketplace! - the person will just get hired by a different corporation!
No. In my opinion, it is OK for a company to fire anyone at any time for any reason because that's what liberty necessarily means. I wasn't saying that we should remove restrictions on liberty because people will be hired anyway. I was just pointing out the fact that removing restrictions on liberty won't result in people being out of work, as was falsely claimed.
In your fairytale world, the market always smoothes things out.
No. But it's still better than any alternative.
In real life, however, market forces are quite chaotic. Our example employee just might be one of the randoms who don't find another job, who lose their house and savings, who sink into depression and who die an untimely death.
Which is no different than how it is now, in any other large-scale system man has ever devis
This is the friggin' best post I've read in a long time.
The only thing I'd like to add is some general tips on What-to-do(TM)
Get involved. Write your congressman about invasion of privacy. Sponsor EFF. Develop that über-safe anonymizing program, make it widespread.
Get Informed. Read stuff (for example Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine"), get unbiased news (NOT FOX!), analyze what's being done rather than what's being said. Ask questions (who benifits from this?)
You need to overcome the denial of what the parent post said about fascism. Just saing "I't ain't so", instead of asking "how do we fix this" - that's a path down a very dark road. Do Something!
Your mistake is thinking there is such a thing as an unbiased news source. Tip for you: they're all biased. The real thing is exercising a little discernment and critical thinking!
You gotta be kidding if you think "writing your Congressman" is going to make any difference on any thing of substance. If you can round up thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from you and your friends, then yes he might take some action for you, assuming someone on the other side of the issue didn't give him more money. The more you want, and the harder it is for him to do, the more money you are going to have to give him. Oh and if you want something really hard you are going to have to give m
The best source of unbiased news is to follow different viewpoints. Follow the BBC, follow Fox, follow al-Jazeera, follow Xinhua, follow Indymedia, follow the Economist, follow the Guardian, follow the Telegraph. Don't take the average of these views, though - synthesise your own views, and find the truth yourself.
I agree DynamicPhil, best friggin post all year. Hitler was a hero before people realised it was too late. America has only just started on the road to true fascism. First there will be the economic crash, and the enusing chaos and poverty. Thats been in the works since the 60's when the USA went off the Gold standard and became a fiat currency. You embraced globalisation, and your manufacturing has disapeared. Notice whats happening to your infrastructure, your dollar, your mortgages. Terrorism is the biggest con yet. USA does not have a terrorism problem. 9-11 was not done by Arabs with stanley knives. 9-11 was the excuse to take away your freedom.
Dynamic Phil is right, go make some noise.... but you know what.... it won't happen. While the general populace has food in their bellies and their mind numbing TV, nothing will change.
I know what fascism is, I'm using it the way it was originally used by Mussolini, where there is almost no distinction between businesses and governments, but, unlike communism, the partnership is used to funnel huge amounts of money to corporations. It's basically the opposite of communism, instead of the government controlling the means of production, corporations control the means of governance.
You're apparently using it to mean 'totalitarian' or 'authoritative', which is just silly, we already have wor
There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively.
From what I gathered by reading posts from "freedom loving gun totin' US people" in here (assuming those guns are indeed for protecting their freedom and not for fondling at night), there should have been lots of shootings involving telco personnel already. I must be reading the wrong news sites.
*That's* why Iraq has been so easy to pacify. How blind could I be?
Only damn reason I can think of for this stupid war: proving once and for all that the people who say random jerks with guns can't fight off an oppressive government with modern weapons and gazillions of dollars are completely full of shit.
*That's* why Iraq has been so easy to pacify. How blind could I be? Only damn reason I can think of for this stupid war: proving once and for all that the people who say random jerks with guns can't fight off an oppressive government with modern weapons and gazillions of dollars are completely full of shit.
False logic. First, we only have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Here in the US the government would have several million. So yes, you can hold a technological military at bay when you have a ten to one superio
Dude... could you use *anymore* Liberal-Democrat talking points and keywords in a fricking post? Jesus H. Christ. It's clear that your response is not your own. *gah* I mean... think for yourself! Your point was completely lost by that rhetoric.
What I was referring to was the constant epithets that are repeated in your post that are constantly stated everywhere else on the web. Jackboot thugs, etc. It's annoying. It's obnoxious, and it's downright wrong (as in incorrect). Hence why I used the term 'rhetoric'. Straight out of DNC talking points, man. TNR, KOS, etc. And like I give a fuck about your userid. Userid does not denote ability to think for oneself or intelligence. It's NOT a status symbol, as much as ya'll seem to measure your peep
Okay, but how did you get the gun to kill the cop with no money (you *are* wandering around with no house and car and nobody will hire you, after all)?
(ducks and hides)
In the real world, people do not act alone. They "play the game" and form organizations of like minded individuals. One man shooting a cop is an idiot. A group of men planing together can have hope of success.
The American Revolution was started by such groups. Revolutions in other countries often have similar histories.
Most of what you wrote is incorrect, all that anti-coporation bullshit, that broadly translates as "avoiding fascism means having more government control over our lives." I won't bother addressing that, but there's something else you addressed that you got wrong, that many might not have understood.
... have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively.
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken. But let's assume it was. It is utter nonsense to hold the corporations responsible: they did what the government told them to do. If Bu
It's utter nonsense to say we should hold anyone responsible for doing what the government told them they could do, when there's someone much more obvious and culpable to go after: the people who told them they could do it.
So if I tell you to kill someone and you do it, you think that I will be the (only) one held responsible?
Um, are you the government, the embodiment of law and order and authority? (Pssst: no! You're not!)
Um, are you the government, the embodiment of law and order and authority? (Pssst: no! You're not!)
I understand your argument, but it is wrong.
Both of those phrases cannot be true.
No I am not the government. But the government is not the embodiment of law and order as you suggest.
Yes, it is.
The military swears to the constitution, not the government.
I await the completion of this argument!
Also read about what happened to Nazi's defense that they are personally not to blame because they were just following orders, all the way up the chain of command, towards the government.
Except that everyone already knows that you're a fatass who's on the take anyway. In a fascist society you're one of the fascist sympathizers who's benefitting from the system.
Tell me more about that movie script you're writing!
Freedom and liberty, the supposed foundation of the USA, would probably usher in a society where you wouldn't have it so easy.
I love the doublespeak. It's so cute. "You will have freedom and liberty when the government takes it by force."
Well, no. Indeed, my views are antithetical to fascism. You either do not know my views, or do not know what fascism is. Hint: it is anti-fascist to want the government to aggressively protect our rights, and to do nothing to take away anyone's rights except in the course of protecting rights.
So really your opinion is not important.
Well, sure. But no less so than yours. Indeed, mine matters a hell of a lot more than yours.
I know your views based on your post, dipshit. What do you think I'm responding to?
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I know you are responding to me. The problem is that nothing I said was remotely fascist, so I am forced to conclude you're a complete idiot who probably goes around wearing a Che t-shirt, not realizing that if Che were around, you'd be the first one he'd kill.
Hint asshole: it isn't "anti-fascist" to want the government to aggressively protect your rights to abuse the minority.
Correct. Which is why I am, in fact, anti-fascist, because I want the government to aggressively protect the rights of all minorities. Glad to see you agree with me.
Get it? It's fascism by definition. You are a fascist.
Wait a minute. You said I was fascist, but then you
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
It's not the least bit questionable, at all.
False.
Asserting it is does not make it so.
Back at you.
We know for a fact the telecoms continued to wiretap without AG authorization for several months in 2004, which is, you know, illegal.
Actually, no. There is a significant dispute over whether those things are illegal. Yes, there is a law on the books about it, but no, we don't know for certain whether those laws violate the Constitutional grant of authority to the executive.
I'm not even going to bother with this topic anymore, as you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Back at you.
You really don't even slightly know what's going on, do you?
Back at you.
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority.
That is an opinion, not fact. You are expressing the opinion -- assuming you know what you are talking about -- that the only authority could have come from Congress, which is what is precisely in question.
The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004
Nope. Absolutely false. That shows a dramatic lack of understanding about how executive authority works. If something is legal just because the AG signs a piece of paper, then it is legal just because the President tells someone to do it, too. The only authority
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant
False. You are saying they asked someone else to perform an illegal act, which is in itself illegal. Further, you are missing the point: if the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to conduct wiretaps without Congressional approval (or even against Congressional prohibition), then it is not illegal for a company to provide them the information or tools or other means toward that end.
What you have here in this scenario is an unconstitutional law from Congress (unconstitutional in this contex
There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal.
You didn't state a third option here (though you allude to it later): that it was illegal because it is not Constitutionally authorized. This is the argument that many people who are against the wiretapping make, actually. The limits and requirements within the wiretapping law are there because the law would be unconstitutional otherwise.
That is not substantially different from the first option.
What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Um, actually, Congress has done exactly things like that, although usually attached to funding. Stating that the President can't use any government resources to do X.
No, they haven't. You are changing the scenario to be something other than what I said.
If we assume the president has the power to do these wiretaps, then, yes, he can ask companies to do them, and they couldn't be charged with anything.
However, that wouldn't remove any civil liability the companies incurred, thanks to laws. The law says you can sue them for a certain amount of damages if they wiretap without X's signature, and they wiretapped without X's signature, you can sue them.
And IF the President has the power to do them, then it's bullshit that anyone should be sued for helping the President exercise his legal authority. No dice.
(And, just so we're both clear, neither of actually thinks the president has constitutional authority to order wiretaps on American citizens
Correct, however, unlike you, I recognize that this is an open legal question. If I had to make the legal decision, I'd say he doesn't have that authority. And I don't see where it would come from. But many people smarter than either of us, including people wh
The first option was, if I'm not misreading things, congressional authorization. But congressional authorization has as its basis of legality the very same thing that executive power does: the Constitution.
In the case of the wiretapping in question, the executive branch very clearly didn't have congressional authorization because it violated provisions of the law that congress had passed.
Sure. The question is whether that congressional authorization was necessary.
But even if Congress had passed a law allowing the executive branch to conduct warrantless wiretapping directly against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, that congressional authorization would be worthless, because it exceeds (for the very same reasons those who argue the unconstitutionality of the wiretapping in question use) the power granted to both congress and the executive branch by the Constitution.
But for practical purposes here, that's a distinction without a difference. If that's the case, then surely the President couldn't be blamed by Congress for exercising authority granted to him by Congress, and since only Congress can hold him accountable, then that's, practically speaking, irrelevant. Similarly, if Congress does not give him authorization, but it is unconstitutional, then it doesn't really matter whether the P
Have you ever heard the term accessory or accomplice (especially the ties the administration actually has to these companies)?
What makes you think either term applies here? If, as some claim, they committed crimes, then that is not being an accomplice or accessory.
Or the fact YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS?
It is entirely unclear as to whether those "orders" were unconstitutional. Indeed, we have judges -- including the FISA Court of Appeals -- which brings into question whether Congress has the authority to restrict the President's surveillance powers in such cases, which could mean that it's Congress giving the President an unconstitutional order, by ordering the Pres
In the *real* world, fascism includes a totalitarian government and big businesses that act more like arms of the mob.If you lived in a fascist society, you would NOT be3 posting this rubbish to Slashdot (or at least not without using about 10 cutouts), because you would be arrested. Hell, the US is so tame that you don't even have to worry about being drafted (unlike people my age). For the most part, the west - especially the US - is freer and less fascistic now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Those who d
And just exactly is how does Blackwater fit into your fascism theory? Do you see them running around the US doing evil? They are a large security firm, hired by the government and many other organizations to help in dangerous areas, such as Iraq. They engage in lethal violence as part of their business, Legally (in spite of some misleading news reports). Furthermore, the government has used private companies for diplomatic and other security for a long time.
Exactly how is Blackwater immune to the laws of the
Your comment is insightful as far as fascism is concerned, but I strongly disagree with your take on waterboarding. Waterboarding is clearly torture, which is considered a war crime, a crime against humanity, under a variety of International conventions and US law, and information extracted by torture, contrary to what you were taught in the military, often yields inaccurate information, according to the scientific and medical consensus. http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html for m
Thanks... Torture is indeed a difficult subject. However, in today's political debate, waterboarding is a proxy for attacks against Bush and the war on terror. The debate is less about the real nature of waterboarding in the context of terror prevention than about finding another way to hurt the administration (and its war on terror, which is considered illegitimate by many). Also, there is a puritanism at work here - we must be perfect, fight by Marquis de Queensbury rules, even while opponents are committi
....Unfortunately, the wiretaps (which were ONLY on international calls)........Do you have any proof of that whatsoever?........When the government does things in secret, and, what's more, lies about said things for three years, you'd have to be a particular sort of stupid to believe them now. Do you have any proof to the contary? As for secrecy, duh.... did it occur to you that perhaps keeping secret methods of intelligence gathering might, just might, be a good idea? Consider that in WW-II, Churchill re
To answer your question: Catholic. Not moral relativist (your stereotyping is turned on again) - perhaps more correct would be not being a moral absolutist in areas where interpretation is required. You are familiar with the "just war" doctrine of the church? But you are right, one can cherry pick the bible for all kinds of things - such as absolute pacifism or revenge (eye for an eye). You are assuming that it is an absolute truth that waterboarding is torture. I disagree. Many others do also. One can defin
You raise a numeric calculus in an attempt to prove moral relativism. So lets turn it around: are you willing to inflict 3 minutes of fear on one killer in order to save the lives of thousands of innocents? Is your world monochromatic - one is a moral relativist if one is not an absolute moral absolutist?
You also play word games with the term Catholic. If you don't know exactly what I mean, I'd be really surprised. RCC, of course.
I am, but, you, by mentioning it in the discussion, are indicating that perhaps
Ah, you don't get to assert 'one killer', you've already said they were just suspects. And, no, because I'm a Christian, and, as such, is not supposed to cause harm to other people.
That killer(KSH) is a killer of thousands of innocent people - Americans and other nationalities in the WTC, and bragged about it to his interrogators.
Does your Christian duty prevent you from harming others in self defense or in defense of innocents?
So it's not just torture. Catholics, expect for you apparently, disapprove of in
Sigh... don't waste your time on him. He's a first class troll. I haven't figured out if he's really retarded or just trolling, but it's a waste of time to have a reasonable discussion with him. Though he's fun to watch if you just want to see his contortions. Kinda like a train wreck.
just taking care to take care. (Score:5, Interesting)
You do know the government is just trying to take care of us, right? Heck, I got the warm fuzzy long ago when Claritin-D, technically an OTC drug would only be sold from behind TC, and then only if you present picture identification, and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days! Of course, if it isn't in stock when you want to purchase, you're out of luck... but you're being taken care of. (If you didn't know, the government was/is protecting us from the proliferation of me
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "them" you mean the people who are in power, then this comment is spot on. If by "them" you mean those most people think of as "terrorists" then those "terrorists" are idiots of the worst kind.
Why?
Simple: because the government in charge of an oppressive police state is even mor
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Get a grip there, Kos boy.
As long as there's a better than one-to-one ratio of private firearms to adults to wield them, there is no danger of a totalitarian state being able to assume control. Examine the history of Communist China, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and any other state you deem "totalitarian". What is the common thread to consolidation of power? Yup, firearm confiscation.
And in present U.S. society, i
Re:just taking care to take care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.
In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your fucking gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.
At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.
There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.
Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.
America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.
And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)
Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You make some very good points, especially with regard to fascism in our current society. Unfortunately, I do not see much that can be done to prevent it from growing. Infotainment keeps some political candidates out of the spotlight while promoting others on both sides of America's political aisle. This pre-selection leads to low poll ratings for some. At least Leno had Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, though for a much lesser amount of time than Tom Cruise.
With regards to guns, once the common populace h
Re: (Score:2)
I sit and talk reasonable about fascism, and you think Ron Paul is a reasonable alternative.
Newsflash: Libertarians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You do not actually understand the problem, or libertarianism.
They like to assert how they'd reduce government, but as social programs are immensely popular, they'd have absolutely no luck in reducing those any reasonable amount, and attempts to do so would quickly get them removed from office.
Logically, of course, that doesn't make them part of the problem, but, rather, simply ineffective.
Meanwhile, they would happily remove government controls of corporation, leading us to fascism faster, and gut bankruptcy law even more, so now when your company fires you because you went to a political protest and you lose your house, now it's entirely legal! Or when your landlord does a check on what political party you belong to.
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
Oh wait. No they wouldn't. Darn, now I's is CORNFUZED!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
No, the government would do that, rewarding companies that play along.
See, this is where you are being illogical. You are making straw man attacks against libertarians, who would OPPOSE such government intervention. You can't cherry-pick libertarian philosophy and call them the enemy because a half-assed implementation of their philosophy would have ill effects.
I know in magical libertarian land this isn't possible because government spending would be vastly reduced
It's not just spending. I guess I was right when I said you ddidn't understand libertarianism. In a libertarian society, the government would not have the right to reward companies who "play along," and indeed, t
Re: (Score:2)
But that is not libertarianism.
Ah, yes, libertarianism, the communism of the right.
Yeah, libertarianism is stupid. Fuck freedom!
What will actually happen were they elected? Not important.
How is it any worse than what anyone else will do?
The fact their movement is being operated by rich people who have the entirely different motive of not paying taxes, instead of any sort of 'freedom'? Not important.
Also? Not true. Not even remotely. Did you pull that put of your own ass, or did it come from someone else's ass before it came out your lips?
The fact that American doesn't actually like their ideas
Yeah. Americans fucking HATE the Constitution! You're so RIGHT!
and that existing social nets int his country have approximately an 80% approval rating?
Yeah! Fuck freedom and the Constitution! Democracy rules, even if the Constitution is violated! (Funny how you care so deeply about the Fourth Amendment, but not about the Tenth. Why is that?)
Not important.
Also
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.
I don't know why you think I, or anyone, is trying to have it 'both ways'. I'm not trying to have it any way at all.
Yes, you are. You are presenting two arguments that are inconsistent with each other based on your own interpretation of the facts. You are arguing they are so unpopular they won't get into power, which necessarily implies they care more about their principles than being elected; and then you argue they would, if they got power, sacrifice those principles in order to be elected again. That's trying to have it both ways.
However, they've reached the point where they are less unpopular than the Bush-lites running for president.
That's a total illusion. No Pauline libertarian would have nearly the chance of win
Re: (Score:2)
Especially to people like you with your lock 'em up and deny 'em medical care [slashdot.org] mentality
I never remotely thought or expressed any such thing. Either you are incompetent, or a liar. Or both, I suppose. Indeed, I was explicitly accepting the fact that they would get health care.
"The minimum that most minimalists want leaves in place just the institutions who protect their interests. That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
I don't know who said that, but obviously it was someone who has no clue about libertarianism, which would utterly outlaw slavery in every form. More incompetence/ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I said they wouldn't be able to implement the changes they want, not that they wouldn't try.
No. You did not say that. Indeed, and on the contrary, you said they would be in power, which directly implies they couldn't be stopped from implementing it. You may have MEANT that, but you didn't express it well, and I misunderstood it.
Everyone else would stop them, and even if they succeeded, the changes would be undone when they were unceremoniously voted out of office the next election.
That "if" cannot logically be applied to your original statement, which said they would get nothing else done, not that they would get it done and then it would be repealed.
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war,
'Many'? How many is many?
At least 10 percent, perhaps 20 percent or more, of normal Republican voters, just based on his
Re: (Score:2)
So, in your opinion then, it's ok for corporations to arbitrarily hire and fire on any basis, discriminatory or otherwise because, after all - here's the magic of the marketplace! - the person will just get hired by a different corporation!
No. In my opinion, it is OK for a company to fire anyone at any time for any reason because that's what liberty necessarily means. I wasn't saying that we should remove restrictions on liberty because people will be hired anyway. I was just pointing out the fact that removing restrictions on liberty won't result in people being out of work, as was falsely claimed.
In your fairytale world, the market always smoothes things out.
No. But it's still better than any alternative.
In real life, however, market forces are quite chaotic. Our example employee just might be one of the randoms who don't find another job, who lose their house and savings, who sink into depression and who die an untimely death.
Which is no different than how it is now, in any other large-scale system man has ever devis
Re:just taking care to take care. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing I'd like to add is some general tips on What-to-do(TM)
Get involved. Write your congressman about invasion of privacy. Sponsor EFF. Develop that über-safe anonymizing program, make it widespread.
Get Informed. Read stuff (for example Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine"), get unbiased news (NOT FOX!), analyze what's being done rather than what's being said. Ask questions (who benifits from this?)
You need to overcome the denial of what the parent post said about fascism. Just saing "I't ain't so", instead of asking "how do we fix this" - that's a path down a very dark road. Do Something!
Parent
news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your mistake is thinking there is such a thing as an unbiased news source. Tip for you: they're all biased. The real thing is exercising a little discernment and critical thinking!
Re: (Score:2)
If you can round up thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from you and your friends, then yes he might take some action for you, assuming someone on the other side of the issue didn't give him more money. The more you want, and the harder it is for him to do, the more money you are going to have to give him. Oh and if you want something really hard you are going to have to give m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the Americans People take capitol hill back by force just yet, no... but we can hope!
Re:just taking care to take care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitler was a hero before people realised it was too late.
America has only just started on the road to true fascism. First there will be the economic crash, and the enusing chaos and poverty.
Thats been in the works since the 60's when the USA went off the Gold standard and became a fiat currency.
You embraced globalisation, and your manufacturing has disapeared.
Notice whats happening to your infrastructure, your dollar, your mortgages.
Terrorism is the biggest con yet. USA does not have a terrorism problem. 9-11 was not done by Arabs with stanley knives.
9-11 was the excuse to take away your freedom.
Dynamic Phil is right, go make some noise.... but you know what.... it won't happen. While the general populace has food in their bellies and their mind numbing TV, nothing will change.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me Ms. O'donell, who "did" 9-11?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know what fascism is, I'm using it the way it was originally used by Mussolini, where there is almost no distinction between businesses and governments, but, unlike communism, the partnership is used to funnel huge amounts of money to corporations. It's basically the opposite of communism, instead of the government controlling the means of production, corporations control the means of governance.
You're apparently using it to mean 'totalitarian' or 'authoritative', which is just silly, we already have wor
Re: (Score:2)
There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively.
From what I gathered by reading posts from "freedom loving gun totin' US people" in here (assuming those guns are indeed for protecting their freedom and not for fondling at night), there should have been lots of shootings involving telco personnel already.
I must be reading the wrong news sites.
D'oh, Of Course!!!! (Score:2)
Only damn reason I can think of for this stupid war: proving once and for all that the people who say random jerks with guns can't fight off an oppressive government with modern weapons and gazillions of dollars are completely full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Only damn reason I can think of for this stupid war: proving once and for all that the people who say random jerks with guns can't fight off an oppressive government with modern weapons and gazillions of dollars are completely full of shit.
False logic. First, we only have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Here in the US the government would have several million. So yes, you can hold a technological military at bay when you have a ten to one superio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And like I give a fuck about your userid. Userid does not denote ability to think for oneself or intelligence. It's NOT a status symbol, as much as ya'll seem to measure your peep
Re: (Score:2)
(ducks and hides)
Re: (Score:2)
The American Revolution was started by such groups. Revolutions in other countries often have similar histories.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively.
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken. But let's assume it was. It is utter nonsense to hold the corporations responsible: they did what the government told them to do. If Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, are you the government, the embodiment of law and order and authority? (Pssst: no! You're not!)
I understand your argument, but it is wrong.
Both of those phrases cannot be true.
No I am not the government. But the government is not the embodiment of law and order as you suggest.
Yes, it is.
The military swears to the constitution, not the government.
I await the completion of this argument!
Also read about what happened to Nazi's defense that they are personally not to blame because they were just following orders, all the way up the chain of command, towards the government.
Also this one!
Re: (Score:2)
Except that everyone already knows that you're a fatass who's on the take anyway. In a fascist society you're one of the fascist sympathizers who's benefitting from the system.
Tell me more about that movie script you're writing!
Freedom and liberty, the supposed foundation of the USA, would probably usher in a society where you wouldn't have it so easy.
I love the doublespeak. It's so cute. "You will have freedom and liberty when the government takes it by force."
Re: (Score:2)
You would be the classic fascist.
Well, no. Indeed, my views are antithetical to fascism. You either do not know my views, or do not know what fascism is. Hint: it is anti-fascist to want the government to aggressively protect our rights, and to do nothing to take away anyone's rights except in the course of protecting rights.
So really your opinion is not important.
Well, sure. But no less so than yours. Indeed, mine matters a hell of a lot more than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I know your views based on your post, dipshit. What do you think I'm responding to?
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I know you are responding to me. The problem is that nothing I said was remotely fascist, so I am forced to conclude you're a complete idiot who probably goes around wearing a Che t-shirt, not realizing that if Che were around, you'd be the first one he'd kill.
Hint asshole: it isn't "anti-fascist" to want the government to aggressively protect your rights to abuse the minority.
Correct. Which is why I am, in fact, anti-fascist, because I want the government to aggressively protect the rights of all minorities. Glad to see you agree with me.
Get it? It's fascism by definition. You are a fascist.
Wait a minute. You said I was fascist, but then you
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
It's not the least bit questionable, at all.
False.
Asserting it is does not make it so.
Back at you.
We know for a fact the telecoms continued to wiretap without AG authorization for several months in 2004, which is, you know, illegal.
Actually, no. There is a significant dispute over whether those things are illegal. Yes, there is a law on the books about it, but no, we don't know for certain whether those laws violate the Constitutional grant of authority to the executive.
I'm not even going to bother with this topic anymore, as you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Back at you.
You really don't even slightly know what's going on, do you?
Back at you.
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
False.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
Read [nytimes.com]
I already know the story quite well.
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority.
That is an opinion, not fact. You are expressing the opinion -- assuming you know what you are talking about -- that the only authority could have come from Congress, which is what is precisely in question.
The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004
Nope. Absolutely false. That shows a dramatic lack of understanding about how executive authority works. If something is legal just because the AG signs a piece of paper, then it is legal just because the President tells someone to do it, too. The only authority
Re: (Score:2)
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant
False. You are saying they asked someone else to perform an illegal act, which is in itself illegal. Further, you are missing the point: if the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to conduct wiretaps without Congressional approval (or even against Congressional prohibition), then it is not illegal for a company to provide them the information or tools or other means toward that end.
What you have here in this scenario is an unconstitutional law from Congress (unconstitutional in this contex
Re: (Score:2)
There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal.
You didn't state a third option here (though you allude to it later): that it was illegal because it is not Constitutionally authorized. This is the argument that many people who are against the wiretapping make, actually. The limits and requirements within the wiretapping law are there because the law would be unconstitutional otherwise.
That is not substantially different from the first option.
Re: (Score:2)
What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to ... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Um, actually, Congress has done exactly things like that, although usually attached to funding. Stating that the President can't use any government resources to do X.
No, they haven't. You are changing the scenario to be something other than what I said.
If we assume the president has the power to do these wiretaps, then, yes, he can ask companies to do them, and they couldn't be charged with anything.
However, that wouldn't remove any civil liability the companies incurred, thanks to laws. The law says you can sue them for a certain amount of damages if they wiretap without X's signature, and they wiretapped without X's signature, you can sue them.
And IF the President has the power to do them, then it's bullshit that anyone should be sued for helping the President exercise his legal authority. No dice.
(And, just so we're both clear, neither of actually thinks the president has constitutional authority to order wiretaps on American citizens
Correct, however, unlike you, I recognize that this is an open legal question. If I had to make the legal decision, I'd say he doesn't have that authority. And I don't see where it would come from. But many people smarter than either of us, including people wh
Re: (Score:2)
The first option was, if I'm not misreading things, congressional authorization. But congressional authorization has as its basis of legality the very same thing that executive power does: the Constitution.
In the case of the wiretapping in question, the executive branch very clearly didn't have congressional authorization because it violated provisions of the law that congress had passed.
Sure. The question is whether that congressional authorization was necessary.
But even if Congress had passed a law allowing the executive branch to conduct warrantless wiretapping directly against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, that congressional authorization would be worthless, because it exceeds (for the very same reasons those who argue the unconstitutionality of the wiretapping in question use) the power granted to both congress and the executive branch by the Constitution.
But for practical purposes here, that's a distinction without a difference. If that's the case, then surely the President couldn't be blamed by Congress for exercising authority granted to him by Congress, and since only Congress can hold him accountable, then that's, practically speaking, irrelevant. Similarly, if Congress does not give him authorization, but it is unconstitutional, then it doesn't really matter whether the P
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard the term accessory or accomplice (especially the ties the administration actually has to these companies)?
What makes you think either term applies here? If, as some claim, they committed crimes, then that is not being an accomplice or accessory.
Or the fact YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS?
It is entirely unclear as to whether those "orders" were unconstitutional. Indeed, we have judges -- including the FISA Court of Appeals -- which brings into question whether Congress has the authority to restrict the President's surveillance powers in such cases, which could mean that it's Congress giving the President an unconstitutional order, by ordering the Pres
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are a large security firm, hired by the government and many other organizations to help in dangerous areas, such as Iraq. They engage in lethal violence as part of their business, Legally (in spite of some misleading news reports). Furthermore, the government has used private companies for diplomatic and other security for a long time.
Exactly how is Blackwater immune to the laws of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Torture is indeed a difficult subject. However, in today's political debate, waterboarding is a proxy for attacks against Bush and the war on terror. The debate is less about the real nature of waterboarding in the context of terror prevention than about finding another way to hurt the administration (and its war on terror, which is considered illegitimate by many). Also, there is a puritanism at work here - we must be perfect, fight by Marquis de Queensbury rules, even while opponents are committi
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any proof to the contary? As for secrecy, duh.... did it occur to you that perhaps keeping secret methods of intelligence gathering might, just might, be a good idea? Consider that in WW-II, Churchill re
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that it is an absolute truth that waterboarding is torture. I disagree. Many others do also. One can defin
Re: (Score:2)
Is your world monochromatic - one is a moral relativist if one is not an absolute moral absolutist?
You also play word games with the term Catholic. If you don't know exactly what I mean, I'd be really surprised. RCC, of course.
I am, but, you, by mentioning it in the discussion, are indicating that perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
That killer(KSH) is a killer of thousands of innocent people - Americans and other nationalities in the WTC, and bragged about it to his interrogators.
Does your Christian duty prevent you from harming others in self defense or in defense of innocents?
So it's not just torture. Catholics, expect for you apparently, disapprove of in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dance, monkey boy! Dance!