"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin
"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. "<p>But you didn't work on it, Mr. President. Just like your preceding, you established a corrupt administration hell-bent upon restriction of freedom and secrecy. You are no better than Bush, and regardless of what party differences both of you had, you are one and the same behind the scenes.<p>You just don't give a fuck.
Is the headline trying to mislead?<p>A) Phone records are not wiretaps.
B) They weren't warrantless.<p>However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.
<i>"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack,"</i><p>In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.
Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.
Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based on their promises. If they try to carry out those promises and fail in good faith that is one thing, but if I give them my vote based on their promises and they don't make a good-faith effort to carry out those promises then they basically committed fraud.
The Office of the President of the United States is controlled my the machinery of government. At this point, the person you put in there does one thing that we need to pay attention to: appoint judges. Everything else is just nuance of a system so entrenched, even the staunchest Green Party candidate would have problems doing anything he/she claimed as a candidate. Once the person is elected, "realism" kicks in, and the person is merely a guide on an already sailing ship.
It's cute that this surprises anyone. Someone who's not an egomaniac psychopath has about has much chances to win a presidential election as an average person has to win a gold medal in the olympics.
The oddest thing about this is that people seem totally fine that corporations control all of their personal data (and use it to develop new revenue streams), but if the government gets that data (that already exists), then there's a serious problem. What?
June 3, 2008
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." --Barack Obama<p>...on what will happen if we elect him POTUS.
Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.<p>Where is the balance?
The problem is US started so many fights with other states (just to bring "their democracy") that now they are facing a big amount of guerrilla-not-centralized terrorism that they have to sacrifice freedom to have security. And for more time US keep this type of political, for more they will have to give up on a lot of rights his population have now. I already see new patriot acts-like caming.
I have a problem with the article and title on 2 levels. 1) It identifies a "bad" guy. In a two party system the other party is the "bad" guy no matter how or whom signed legislation into law. If you identify yourself as a democrat or republican, then you are part of the problem. It's unrealistic to think that you'll ever agree with a single person on all issues let alone an entire political group. 2) It does not address the real problem. We have a problem with add-ons in legislation that have absolutely nothing to do with the essence or spirit of the bill. These egregious actions occur all the time, no matter who is in charge. We need to rid our political system of money and lobbyists. Oh, and by the way, a bill that probably mostly affects tech companies, the Immigration Bill, contains the authority to create a biometric database. Note "authority to create" and not "setup a database". News outlets are mincing words.
I dont understand why more United States citizens aren't voting for the underdogs. In the last election, it was possible for the greens to "win" . If you want to protest, instead of not voting, vote for the least likely to win. It makes a statistical analysis of the "protest votes" possible.. Under some (eg, normal curves) statistical models, you assume that the non-sampled closely resemble the sampled (with some level of confidence). By not voting you're basically saying "dont worry, I am very much like the 'norm'" . By voting for the underdog you're helping to elucidate the fact that you are not represented by the main parties.
While I am not a fan of what's been going on in our security sector, and I don't think Obama is living up to the spirit in which he campaigned on this issue (amongst others), it's worth noting that there's an easy weasel way out here: collecting records that would have been generated anyway after the fact is not a "wiretap".<p>While I am uncomfortable with some of the choices around the wiretapping of the Fox News reporter, I was pleased to note that they <i>had</i> obtained a warrant in that case.
At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for.<p>Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhere in the 24 to 30 range?
When thinking about the end game of NSA surveillance it is useful to think of the NSA as a tech company with no need to be profitable, almost no legal constraints, the best connections to the biggest corporations (enforced by the power of law with the urgency of national security) and de facto unlimited funds for hardware and top talent.<p>Total information awareness is their goal, and they will succeed.
Perhaps he learned something in the last 4 years that persuaded him to allow these things? Or perhaps the president is actually not so powerful as to overturn laws and policies passed by congress?<p>Maybe we should be raging at congress for allowing these things in the first place? In secret hearings and committees with closed doors?
When election campaign advisers are making a "list of promises to make" they never considered with possibility of fulfillment, but focusing on a percentage of electorate which could be "taped" by such and such promise.))
Isn't there a site that tracks politicians' promises and what has been done while in the office? It'd be a great tool to weed out the fraud.<p>Words get easily forgotten in a couple of years. This would make them count.
video from 2007 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4</a><p>There is also a video from December 15th 2005 that I cannot find online which is even more hypocritical than this one.
but its okay if its a secret warrant?<p>Why do people think that throwing up quotes to the contrary matter to these people? I mean, its no different than listening to talk radio, just a days difference.<p>These guys do not care, they don't have to care, and they know it.
regarding the voting dilemma, the only real solution is: <a href="http://rangevoting.org&#x2F" rel="nofollow">http://rangevoting.org&#x2F</a>;
Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago:<p>"If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2]<p>There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg</a>
If you think politicians nowadays are here for your best interest and will not go back on the their word, then well..... I got a bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn.