Shooting protesters is a time honored American tradition Andrew.
Yeah, but at least now it's codified into law.
Actually, it is not.
FWIW, criminal charges were brought up against the Kent State shooters, but they were acquitted as the court believed their claims of self defense. However, there was a legal civil settlement against the shooters and they were forced to apologize for the shooting as part of the settlement.
I don't know why you think people are apologetic for Obama's unfortunate expansion of executive power. Almost everyone I know is very unhappy about it, and we criticize him justly. However, we are pragmatists. I am able to see Obama for what he is: Not perfect in his policy, but a far more palatable option for a liberal progressive than Romney. I'd rather go two steps forward, one step back than endorse the reactionary conservatism of the current Republican party.
And you know what? Every case of domestic terror in this country has been handled properly by the courts. The Oklahoma City bombings? Handled by the standard civil court. Even the ridiculous Jose Padilla case was eventually filtered to the civilian courts and he got a civilian sentence. There is currently a case going through the courts now involving some folks living in Massachusetts who plotted to use remote control model airplanes to commit terrorist attacks. This is also going through the civilian court system.
Just because it's going through the civilian court doesn't mean there isn't shit going on. The expansion of powers to both Federal and Local entities to gather and collect evidence has gotten out of hand. You can thank the NDAA for that.
And you know what? Every case of domestic terror in this country has been handled properly by the courts. The Oklahoma City bombings? Handled by the standard civil court. Even the ridiculous Jose Padilla case was eventually filtered to the civilian courts and he got a civilian sentence. There is currently a case going through the courts now involving some folks living in Massachusetts who plotted to use remote control model airplanes to commit terrorist attacks. This is also going through the civilian court system.
Just because it's going through the civilian court doesn't mean there isn't shit going on. The expansion of powers to both Federal and Local entities to gather and collect evidence has gotten out of hand. You can thank the NDAA for that.
And you know what? I agree that we need to clean up all the legal issues surrounding Guantanamo and shut it down. I also agree that the NDAA's provisions against US citizens are bad juju, but so far it's been shot down in the courts as well and hopefully it'll be completely chucked out as well.
However, I have faith that, eventually, once we get past this ridiculous scare, things will fix themselves. We had the horrible incident of Japanese internment camps during WW2. We had the McCarthy witchhunts of the 50's. Now we have these terrorist witchhunts. These are just temporary things that, unfortunately, we fall into doing as a country every so often. I hope and wish and will do what I can to make sure they don't happen again, but I am at least somewhat relieved that they are all temporary and viewed as negatives in hindsight. I am sure the current terrorist hysteria will go the same way as these other black eyes in our history.
No, because when it comes to expansion of government and presidential powers, Obama is just as bad (if not worse) than his predecessors. The differences between Obama and Romney's economic plans are negligible in action and most social issues will be decided in the courts (although the next president will get some supreme court noms which is probably a huge downside if Romney wins). The corruption in the system has been festering, but those who would take action are laying on the laurels because a D is in the White House.
However, if Romney wins the silent civil liberties/anti-war crowd will wake up from their slumber. Obama has been killing citizens and expanding the drone program (and fighting several proxy wars in the Middle East). Now, if a Republican had done these actions, the liberals would out in force, but because it's Obama, they rationalize it away because Obama is a benevolent "dictator" in their eyes. However, they don't see the long term erosion of our government system and the expansion of tyrannical presidential powers that have been on the rise since Reagan.
Furthermore, it's possible that if Obama loses there will be a dramatic reform of the Democratic party away from the lip-service politics they play for the middle and working classes and actually become the party that represents them.
At least, that's the hope.
Of course, your hopeful scenario doesn't happen. What does happen is that people get riled up, then don't get everything they want and become disenfranchised.
The problem is that we keep inserting passion into what, increasingly, needs to be a coldly intellectual discipline. You cannot run a country of 300 million people on "guts instinct," "folksy wisdom," and "heart."
Yeah, Obama has expanded the powers of the President. I don't care about that. I WANT a powerful central government. Quite frankly, the office of the President still doesn't do that much.
But Obama has done many things I like, too. Romney would do very few things I would like.
You want sweeping change? Start a revolution. Dramatic turns don't give us progress- incremental, measured changes do.
I don't know why you think people are apologetic for Obama's unfortunate expansion of executive power. Almost everyone I know is very unhappy about it, and we criticize him justly. However, we are pragmatists. I am able to see Obama for what he is: Not perfect in his policy, but a far more palatable option for a liberal progressive than Romney. I'd rather go two steps forward, one step back than endorse the reactionary conservatism of the current Republican party.
I'm not convinced that Obama is really all that better than Romney. Furthermore, voting for the lesser of two evils is the best way to compromise and slowly lose the fight.
Yeah, Obama has expanded the powers of the President. I don't care about that. I WANT a powerful central government. Quite frankly, the office of the President still doesn't do that much.
You like it until the powerful central government is in the hands of someone who actively wants to crush those who dissent against him. It'll be too late then to change your mind.
And I shouldn't have to start a revolution to see drastic change in the system when we are a democracy. That sort of talk makes it sound like it's too late anyways.
I'm not convinced that Obama is really all that better than Romney. Furthermore, voting for the lesser of two evils is the best way to compromise and slowly lose the fight.
Al Gore of 2000 would like to speak with you on line 2...
I don't know why you think people are apologetic for Obama's unfortunate expansion of executive power. Almost everyone I know is very unhappy about it, and we criticize him justly. However, we are pragmatists. I am able to see Obama for what he is: Not perfect in his policy, but a far more palatable option for a liberal progressive than Romney. I'd rather go two steps forward, one step back than endorse the reactionary conservatism of the current Republican party.
^ this. Good grief, Romney's being all hurrdurr Amurikan cowboy. That is STUPID. He is STUPID ("why don't airplane windows open??"). He seems perfectly happy making decisions out of truthiness. Do not want.
Yeap, I'd say if Gore was president there is a good 90% chance that we would never have gone into Iraq. I used to have the attitude that Andrew is exposing, but then I lived through the 2000-2008 period. I remember in college going "Eh, they are all the same". What a moron I was. I didn't vote that year. (PA did go to Gore sooo but still)
Yeah, Obama has expanded the powers of the President. I don't care about that. I WANT a powerful central government. Quite frankly, the office of the President still doesn't do that much.
You like it until the powerful central government is in the hands of someone who actively wants to crush those who dissent against him. It'll be too late then to change your mind.
And I shouldn't have to start a revolution to see drastic change in the system when we are a democracy. That sort of talk makes it sound like it's too late anyways.
Democracy evolved as a system of government because it provides stability. If you want to change anything in this country, it is hard - and that is intentional.
The problem I see is that you want a DRASTIC change. I want everything to change in time. I don't want it to change suddenly, because that most often leads to needless loss of life and severe disruption of existence.
Any drastic change to such a massive political system is, by definiton, a revolution
I certainly have my "burn it the fuck down" moments, but you have to recognize that it's a pipe dream.
But what do you do in a two party system, though? I don't see any way that voting more right wing would help further our progressive agenda. Obama is better on a lot of social issues, but he still exhibits the flaws that I expect from any centrist politician. There are no viable candidates that reflect my socialist /techno-progressiveist /humanist /bright green environmentalist /equalist views. In our political system, I don't see "lesser of two evils" being worse, I see it as the unfortunately the only way to move forward, albeit at a glacial pace. A little forward motion is better than none. I believe that a Republican like Romney would implement similar measures while denying us the benefits of Obama's slightly more liberal social stances. What would you do to prevent the erosion of our civil liberties, other than pushing the incumbent Democrats to throw out these unpopular ideas by using pressure from the electorate? Unfortunately, ideas like Guantanamo and the Patriot act (like the TSA) are actually fairly popular among many centrist voters. It sucks.
What scares me is what could happen if we have one; Treason trials, political purges, possible theocracy, and in an ironic twist, possible foriegn occupation of a country in chaos to provide "stability".
I'll stick with nonviolent political discourse thank you,
If you want gradual change with stability, it is slow and frustrating. If you want fast, right-the-fuck-now change, it is unstable and scary.
We just have to keep pushing, a little at a time, going forward. Like I said, the progress of civilization is not linear, like a line, nor is it cyclical, as in some Asian schools of thought. It is more like a slinky or spring, stretching out (progress), then bouncing back (backlash) but gradually making it's way forward to a better tomorrow.
Admittedly, as a self-professed centrist voter, I despise Guantanamo, the TSA, and the Patriot Act, so don't lump us all together.
I can't help but be reminded of a little cartoon that was handed out to my freshman year high school American government (AKA civics, I guess) class explaining the political spectrum. It demonstrated how four different points along the political spectrum would react to a request to build a new train station in a town in four panels:
Liberal: We agree we need to build a new train station. Let's build the station.
Conservative: We don't need to build a new train station as the current station is sufficient for our needs.
Radical: We really need to build a new train station. Therefore, we'll blow up the old train station to force them to build a new one!
Reactionary: We don't believe in trains, so let's just tear down the old station and not bother building a new one.
I'd argue that based on this metric, the modern day Democrats are actually the true "Conservatives" (although I suspect they would be slightly more willing to build a new train station than the Conservatives in this cartoon). However, the modern day Republicans are definitely in the Reactionary camp and aren't Conservatives at all.
I've had the thought, "I want Romney to win the white house and Republicans to win the House and Senate... THEN when it gets horrible I can say "TOLD YOU SO"."
I want a voting system that isn't a dichotomy. By any means necessary.
You ever been shot? Have you ever shot someone? Had a friend beaten to death by an angry mob? Watched people "on your side" execute children? These things happen in power struggles.I'm not trying to be overly dramatic. I just don't think you're thinking that statement through.
If you want gradual change with stability, it is slow and frustrating. If you want fast, right-the-fuck-now change, it is unstable and scary.
We just have to keep pushing, a little at a time, going forward. Like I said, the progress of civilization is not linear, like a line, nor is it cyclical, as in some Asian schools of thought. It is more like a slinky or spring, stretching out (progress), then bouncing back (backlash) but gradually making it's way forward to a better tomorrow.
Seems to me the better tomorrow depends on where you live. The Third world seems to be more fucked now than it was 500 years ago, but the sentiment is right on.
I want a voting system that isn't a dichotomy. By any means necessary.
You ever been shot? Have you ever shot someone? Had a friend beaten to death by an angry mob? Watched people "on your side" execute children? These things happen in power struggles.I'm not trying to be overly dramatic. I just don't think you're thinking that statement through.
That or I just got trolled something fierce.
Dude, are you a survivor of one of the Balkan revolutions? You seem to be really afraid and angry.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
If you want gradual change with stability, it is slow and frustrating. If you want fast, right-the-fuck-now change, it is unstable and scary.
We just have to keep pushing, a little at a time, going forward. Like I said, the progress of civilization is not linear, like a line, nor is it cyclical, as in some Asian schools of thought. It is more like a slinky or spring, stretching out (progress), then bouncing back (backlash) but gradually making it's way forward to a better tomorrow.
It depends on your priorities. I'm not convinced that we are making slow progress in the areas I think are most important (government corruption, overreach of the government, and degradation of many civil liberties).
Yeap, I'd say if Gore was president there is a good 90% chance that we would never have gone into Iraq. I used to have the attitude that Andrew is exposing, but then I lived through the 2000-2008 period. I remember in college going "Eh, they are all the same". What a moron I was. I didn't vote that year. (PA did go to Gore sooo but still)
This is exactly why the two parties will continue to dominate the system. If everyone voted for 3rd parties or Independents we'd be have a completely different conversation. I shouldn't have to compromise my beliefs to convince myself that I'm being represented.
Dude, are you a survivor of one of the Balkan revolutions? You seem to be really afraid and angry.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
The term "any means necessary" implies that you find violence an acceptable option. I was under the impression you were arguing for violent revolution. I hear people talking like we are on the verge of bloodletting and succession all the time. It worries me. My apologies if I came off as a bit over zealous.
Andrew, you missed the point, I was politically naive back then and didn't realize that I actually agreed with Gore more and didn't realize I was making a political mistake till it was too late because I was misinformed.
Back then I wanted McCain or Colin Powell :-p and had "voted" for Ross Perot in 1996. (went in with my mom)
//McCain really took a dive in my opinion, lately he's been sounding like an old man yelling at clouds.
Comments
FWIW, criminal charges were brought up against the Kent State shooters, but they were acquitted as the court believed their claims of self defense. However, there was a legal civil settlement against the shooters and they were forced to apologize for the shooting as part of the settlement.
However, I have faith that, eventually, once we get past this ridiculous scare, things will fix themselves. We had the horrible incident of Japanese internment camps during WW2. We had the McCarthy witchhunts of the 50's. Now we have these terrorist witchhunts. These are just temporary things that, unfortunately, we fall into doing as a country every so often. I hope and wish and will do what I can to make sure they don't happen again, but I am at least somewhat relieved that they are all temporary and viewed as negatives in hindsight. I am sure the current terrorist hysteria will go the same way as these other black eyes in our history.
The problem is that we keep inserting passion into what, increasingly, needs to be a coldly intellectual discipline. You cannot run a country of 300 million people on "guts instinct," "folksy wisdom," and "heart."
Yeah, Obama has expanded the powers of the President. I don't care about that. I WANT a powerful central government. Quite frankly, the office of the President still doesn't do that much.
But Obama has done many things I like, too. Romney would do very few things I would like.
You want sweeping change? Start a revolution. Dramatic turns don't give us progress- incremental, measured changes do.
And I shouldn't have to start a revolution to see drastic change in the system when we are a democracy. That sort of talk makes it sound like it's too late anyways.
Good grief, Romney's being all hurrdurr Amurikan cowboy. That is STUPID. He is STUPID ("why don't airplane windows open??"). He seems perfectly happy making decisions out of truthiness. Do not want.
The problem I see is that you want a DRASTIC change. I want everything to change in time. I don't want it to change suddenly, because that most often leads to needless loss of life and severe disruption of existence.
Any drastic change to such a massive political system is, by definiton, a revolution
I certainly have my "burn it the fuck down" moments, but you have to recognize that it's a pipe dream.
What would you do to prevent the erosion of our civil liberties, other than pushing the incumbent Democrats to throw out these unpopular ideas by using pressure from the electorate? Unfortunately, ideas like Guantanamo and the Patriot act (like the TSA) are actually fairly popular among many centrist voters. It sucks.
I'll stick with nonviolent political discourse thank you,
If you want fast, right-the-fuck-now change, it is unstable and scary.
We just have to keep pushing, a little at a time, going forward.
Like I said, the progress of civilization is not linear, like a line, nor is it cyclical, as in some Asian schools of thought.
It is more like a slinky or spring, stretching out (progress), then bouncing back (backlash) but gradually making it's way forward to a better tomorrow.
I can't help but be reminded of a little cartoon that was handed out to my freshman year high school American government (AKA civics, I guess) class explaining the political spectrum. It demonstrated how four different points along the political spectrum would react to a request to build a new train station in a town in four panels:
- Liberal: We agree we need to build a new train station. Let's build the station.
- Conservative: We don't need to build a new train station as the current station is sufficient for our needs.
- Radical: We really need to build a new train station. Therefore, we'll blow up the old train station to force them to build a new one!
- Reactionary: We don't believe in trains, so let's just tear down the old station and not bother building a new one.
I'd argue that based on this metric, the modern day Democrats are actually the true "Conservatives" (although I suspect they would be slightly more willing to build a new train station than the Conservatives in this cartoon). However, the modern day Republicans are definitely in the Reactionary camp and aren't Conservatives at all.Unfortunately, this would kill me.
That or I just got trolled something fierce.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
Back then I wanted McCain or Colin Powell :-p and had "voted" for Ross Perot in 1996. (went in with my mom)
//McCain really took a dive in my opinion, lately he's been sounding like an old man yelling at clouds.