Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders.

And the families damaged by false arrests, unjust accusations and punishments? The individuals who can never get a decent job again, anywhere, what about their families?

Seems to me that's what the cops think is ok for them to do, is ok to do to them.

Should the police only be able to drive 10mpg cars with a 30 mile range so that they can't abuse their authority?

Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.

Or better yet, to kill off the rioting hoards of people

Wait, what? Who is hoarding people? Oh, wait. You meant "horde." Sorry.

Aside from the badges they carry, police are indistinguishable from criminal gangs and this guy turned against them.

Also, legislators, lawyers and judges, unfortunately. The entire system is corrupt from top to bottom.

Are all the gun-nuts going to start shooting the LAPD now? Why not? Are you for or against government tyranny?

This is about someone using weapons to fight out of control government. In this case, he's the only one who knows the facts, so it's appropriate that he's the one doing the fighting, taking the risks, etc. Before you can co-opt large numbers, you have to do a lot better job of establishing your case than anecdotes. Even if he's 100% right, no one else can really know that.

This is simply not the kind of issue where you'd see a revolt. It is neither serious enough, well documented enough, or of consequence to a wide enough spectrum of people.

It is, however, the kind of thing that will happen from time to time, as the powerful crush the lives and dreams of the (relatively) little guy. When you takes actions that ruin someone's life, you'd better be sure they've got plenty of reasons left not to go off the reservation, as it were.

Because it's of huge benefit to the US government, that's why.

It doesn't matter. He bypassed the customs and border guards. He could carry *anything* in his boat - or anyone, to that matter.

No, doesn't follow. The boat may have been allowed to pass, having been scanned for nuclear materials, for instance. Not being stopped isn't the same thing as not being examined. You might be quite surprised at some of the surveillance tech in use.

Even the satellite observation is pointless if two identical boats approach the same point at the border and then "turn around" and go back where they came from.

No. Just... no. That wouldn't be true even if you had said "cats" instead of "boats."

If you were growing your, uh, more valuable crops indoors, using the most modern techniques, this would not be an issue. The fact that hemp pollen might affect ditchweed, I mean, your outdoor crops, isn't really of concern to the market.

Surely from that point of view the Earth isn't even broken.

Oh, no. It's broken, all right. And we're the thing that broke it. But the earth will fix the problem. See "super-volcano", LOL.

You mean as opoosed to the "left wing nutjobs" who ran in 2008 and in 2012?

No. When I say "nutjob", I'm talking about things like not knowing how the reproductive system works; not knowing where strategic countries are located; pushing for more warfare and more fronts and more troops and more military under conditions where we clearly need less of all of those; where candidates spout such gems as "you're entitled to the best education you can afford"; anything at all that came out of Bachman's mouth; "Corporations are people"; that sort of thing. The republicans fielded an entire class of idiots this year, and it didn't help at all that the republican dominated congress was screwing up left, right and center.

While I'm not happy with either party when it comes to personal liberties and military adventurism, lately, I'm not happy with the republicans on any issue. They literally seem to me to be nuts, or if not nuts, then terminally stupid. Most likely, both.

Certainly Paul would not have expanded and would have reversed, if only be executive order, as much as he could.

Paul was utterly, completely unelectable. If I thought he had even a ghost of a chance, and he had stayed in there, and he'd had an understanding that the ACA (or something better) is needed, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't. He doesn't give a crap about anyone who isn't moneyed, and even if he did, there are not even close to enough voters who will step out of the democratic / republican veins. That's not even counting the fuckery that went on at the convention, and the outright blockage the media engaged in.

Paul is strong on military reductionism, currency control and civil liberties, all of which I like, but he's batshit crazy on healthcare and religion, and the topping on the sundae is he's simply unelectable.

there are always other choices, one of which was to vote for Romney because he would not be able to get what he wanted out of the senate

No. Romney is a cast iron idiot and would have been either a terrible president or a puppet president like Bush (and that would mean we'd have had Ryan running things... omFg.) He could have screwed up the ACA, something the country desperately needs, in any number of ways. Just that alone disqualified him. Presidents can do a lot to get in the way of progress. Veto funding bills, issue executive orders, etc. Just as bad, the president has a great deal of autonomy in foreign relations, and Romney is a senseless hawk. Between the two positions, that means he didn't want to spend where we should (ACA) and he did want to spend where we shouldn't (military.) If republicans want the presidency, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's not all about making war.

I guess the weakness in that argument is that Bush rolled the Dems even when they had both houses.

You mean Cheney. Bush could barely pick his nose, let alone spell it correctly. Bush was and is a superstitious, culturally clueless man with a mouth full of marbles and a head full of cocaine voids. Cheney was responsible for the most massive intrusion on civil liberties since WWII, something we still haven't extricated ourselves from. They put the "terrorist, omg" earworm in the low functioners, and it stuck like glue. Not to mention putting the economy into a tailspin that didn't even begin to recover until Obama took office. Now we have the homeland security jackboots, the TSA, hammered travel, search, privacy and court rights... Bush's reign was indeed a nightmare, but Cheney gets all the credit in circles more sophisticated than the Fox news droolers.

This last election, the only reason the republicans retained the lower house was gerrymandering. They lost the presidency handily. They couldn't win the upper house. Hell, in my state, Montana, a very red state, we elected a Democrat to the senate. I honestly think that until or unless the republicans start to address the entire population, they've entered into a long dry spell WRT the presidency. Next time there's a redistricting, I rather suspect that they're going to find themselves out of congress as well.

My perfect president would be strong on personal liberty; would do something about the sophist bullshit spewing from congress and the supreme court (starting with an amendment to add to the definition of treason, "fostering legislation that is counter to the plain, contemporaneous English reading of the constitution.") Then moving along to prosecuting those members of the supreme court, and congress, that voted for, or supported at the court level, ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, the drug war, torture, "rendition", pretending email and the like aren't "papers" in modern parlance, etc. Such a president would pull us out of every foreign theater, shut down our foreign bases, and bring our military home, where it actually has a reason to exist. He or she would set up an engine to pull religious symbolism and activity out of government (no more crap on money, no prayers in congress, no "symbols", no treacly "gawd bless" in speech, no religion at all in the government from top to bottom.)

But since such a president has no chance of making it into the electable parties, I vote for the one that will do the least harm and the most good. Republicans, as currently presenting themselves, are well below my horizon.

no endless military budgets and drone killings, no draconian drug laws, nothing.

I immediately imagine it invaded and conquered.

If someone threatens you, and your response is to draw a line on the ground and assert it can't be crossed, without having force to back you up, guess what happens next?

The point to be made here, however, is, would a right wing nutjob like (well, any of the republican candidates) done any better? Or would they have done more of the same, while in the meantime, trampling on the progress made in the last four years, such as in consumer credit laws, the ACA, gay rights, etc.

See, speaking AS an Obama supporter, I did not vote for the man because I was under any illusion he was going to roll back Bush's policies. No, I voted for him because I was pretty sure (and still am) that he'd do less damage than the republicans would have, and there were no other choices.

Now some enterprising wonk has pushed this 10x in claiming 100mi.

The "enterprising wonk" was congress. Who gave the authority to define the size of the zone to the attorney general. Who did so. 100 miles.

"They" have fighters, frigates, submarines, and if you were to really make them annoyed, torpedos and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And satellites to watch you. And SONUS to track you.

Now. What do you have? A gaff?

Well, yes, they will. They'll see you in leg irons and handcuffs. Then you'll go back to the cellblock, where Bubba is waiting to introduce you, again and again, to the pleasures of anal sex. Without lube. Or a reach-around. Or your consent.

See, that's the problem. You contemplate resisting? They have something very, very, very bad they can introduce you to. For months. Perhaps years. As your case drags on.

This is reality. Whatever you might want to do other than play in the courtroom, you can't do it from jail; and you can arrive in jail on the very thinnest of pretexts. Once you're playing in the courtroom, it's their rules; their timing; their decision if and when you get to talk to a lawyer, or if you do at all.