Obama won!

Hey guys, Obama won!!!!! : )? : (? You tell me!

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 240Next »
Pumpkin$8 years ago
Today is the day, the largest and most expensive legislation in U.S. history being voted on today. It will pass, there are too many demoncrats to stop it. Less than 1/3 of the $800 BILLION will go to Americans, the rest goes to "infrastructure" earmarks and special interests. The document is over 1,000 pages long! Obama promised to change the way Washington works, he did, this bill is the most corrupt piece of legislation ever proposed. Given the state of our economy, our government shouldn't be spending record amounts of tax payer dollars on programs that do not create jobs or give Americans the tax breaks they need. This bill is an epic waste of money and will cripple our country. My bet is that after the bill fails to stimulate the economy, Obama and his followers will implement more socialist solutions to fix it. Create a disease and then sell the cure, that seems to be his plan. Say good-bye to the free market.
Spint8 years ago
Prepare for the most uber-liberal four years of your life. Bye second amendment. Bye-bye morals. Bye-bye money.
kelseymh Spint8 years ago
Isn't it great that your Republican overlords have already taken away your money and all your other amendments? And who needs morals when we have realpolitik?
Spint kelseymh8 years ago
My Republican "overlords" have not taken away any rights or money and I would love some justification to your statement. Are you saying that Obabma is going to use realpolitik?
gmoon Spint8 years ago
Here's an incomplete rundown.

Warrantless wiretaps, without probable cause; The 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No presentation of charges, no representation, no speedy trial; the 6th amendment; Guantanamo Bay (and they are criminal cases, since Congress has not issued a declaration of war. Capturing and detaining persons outside the continental US doesn't excuse the government from due process.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Waterboarding and other torture activities: The Geneva convention; (Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay) and the 8th amendment (Guantanamo Bay.)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Not to mention Black ops within other sovereign nations, etc., etc...
randofo gmoon8 years ago
And the current government surely has not done the 1st amendment any favors either.
Spint randofo8 years ago
I have not noticed any censorship if our current government did not support the first amendment than why is the slander against our current President allowed.
randofo Spint8 years ago
Perhaps you are too young to remember a point when we had more free speech. Thanks to current legislation there is now a fine line about what you can say, in what context and where. For instance, try having an intelligent conversation about terrorism near an airport screening area. That alone is grounds for arrest (What of your thoughts are so dangerous? What crime have you committed by expressing yourself?) Openly criticizing public officials is enough to put you on a terror watch list (which are real and presumably still used) and possibly enough to get your phone tapped and finances monitored. Another favorite of mine is the "free speech zones" setup during the visits of the president and other dignitaries. These are carefully controlled zones where you can go to peaceably assemble and freely criticize the president. If peaceful assembly and protest is cordoned off behind plastic barriers, then it is no longer free, but zoned, regulated and controlled by the existing powers. Zoned protest is another clever way the government has taken away constitutional freedoms and limited public dissent (expressing your views outside of these zones is subject to arrest... how far outside? Yet to be determined, I believe). I have a funny story for you. I had a friend that worked at a design firm in midtown Manhattan during the 2004 RNC. Upon walking home to the East Village one sunny summer afternoon, the police saw this peaceful young woman, suspected her of being a protester, arrested her, and illegally held her for three days without charging her. During this time they gave her little food or water and since she is diabetic, she proceeded to have serious complications and needed hospitalization. How can someone in a free country be criminalized for the mere suspicion of expressing peaceful dissent and held for three days without being charged or properly cared for? Such a thing would be unheard of under Clinton, Bush Sr. or even, for that matter, Reagan. (anyhow, case still pending...) Let us not forget poor Star who was almost killed for wearing LEDs on her shirt and then forced to give a public apology for the government's own incompetence simply because the government needed to seem tough on innocent bystanders. This case shows us that it is a dangerous time not just for "terrorists," but also for social deviants, because as far as the government is concerned, they are one in the same. Social deviants didn't have to risk getting shot by going out into the public space just ten years ago. This is another example of fear-fueled totalitarianism slipping into American life. "The patriot act does not violate rights the wiretaps are warranted because the probable cause is there. Possible terrorist activity." Do you know what "ex post facto" means. That is legal speak for "after the fact." In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. This system of wiretapping makes the average citizen guilty until proven innocent. True, when you don't know who "the enemy" is, exactly, there is probable cause to suspect everyone as being the enemy (be vigilant of those suspicious looking people on the subway young man!) But, the problem is, once you suspect everyone as a possible terror suspect and arbitrarily selecting people for surveillance, you are essentially arbitrarily and illegally incriminating a large swath of average law abiding citizens (in hopes of possibly catching one or two bad apples). That is the action of a totalitarian government.
Spint randofo8 years ago
The story of your friend while tragic seems more of a local crime that I can't really see how you could blame the Bush Administration for. I have yet to hear about someone getting arrested for criticizing the the President (although I may be uninformed). As I have said searching a house with probable cause is also the presumption of guilt so why don't we illegalize that. Wiretapping is not the best way to go about things but I belive it does help. If after it is no longer neccesary the government is still wiretapping people believe me I would be the first to speak out against the government. Star was the unfortunate victim of the times, I think it's sad that thad had to happen to her but in an airport that's kind of a touchy thing to wear. I know violation of the first amendment but me getting arrested for wearing a shirt that said "I have a bomb!" is also a violation. The purpose of government is to allow freedom while not allowing you to encroach on others freedom. Wearing clothes that could possibly frighten other citizens or cause panic is encroching on their freedom. That's a very touchy subject, but a lot of it has to do with common sense. It also has to do with the difference between people like us who could tell hey thats a circuit board, and the general public who are going to be like "OMG a bomb!" Unfortunatley the media today paints a picture of people wearing things like that has scary which also probably had something to do with that. Or like you said having a conversation about terrorism in an airport I personally would never do that in the first place because I know if I heard people talking about terrorism which could be heard out of context like I walk by and hear "blow up the plane." it would scare me so I would not do that. A violation of the first amendment yes. A violation of my freedom of peace of mind yes. So it's give and take. The "free speech zones" you mention are the first I've heard of that. I'm going to look into it so thank-you for informing me. Zoned protests sound like another protection for the public. That's a touchy one for me though. If the protest has a tendency to get violent then yes please zone it. If they are usualy peaceful then don't. Please reply I enjoyed your argument seriously not being sarcastic.
randofo Spint8 years ago
As I have said searching a house with probable cause is also the presumption of guilt so why don't we illegalize that. Wiretapping is not the best way to go about things but I belive it does help. If after it is no longer neccesary the government is still wiretapping people believe me I would be the first to speak out against the government.

Who and how do we make that determination? Terrorism has always existed. In its modern form (and thinking), it dates back to the far left labor movements of the 19th century. Few people foresee the war on terror being as being a battle that can realistically be won (and those people who think we can win it have a very low approval rating). Never ending war and constant surveillance sounds more like Orwell's 1984 than American democracy.

Star was the unfortunate victim of the times, I think it's sad that thad had to happen to her but in an airport that's kind of a touchy thing to wear. I know violation of the first amendment but me getting arrested for wearing a shirt that said "I have a bomb!" is also a violation.

The fundamental difference between those two statements is that Star was not trying to provoke a scare. It was the over-reaction and misunderstanding of the city of Boston that created a scare. Wearing a shirt that says "I have a bomb" is intended to incite panic and is clearly illegal. Wearing LEDs on your shirt is not. I can walk around all day with LEDs on my shirt and not incite panic.

(On a side note, if the shirt was store-bought and more finished looking, no one would think twice, but when it looks handmade, people freak out. It is a testament to Americans fear of handcrafted goods and are reliance on mass production. In spite of the whole "Maker Movement," society as a whole treats this general population with mistrust)

The purpose of government is to allow freedom while not allowing you to encroach on others freedom. Wearing clothes that could possibly frighten other citizens or cause panic is encroching on their freedom. That's a very touchy subject, but a lot of it has to do with common sense.

Telling people what they can or can not wear is encroaching on the freedom of others. If we reduce everything to the mentality of children, we will be a nation of children. Fortunately, we are a nation mostly of adults. Adults should be able to come to terms with the fact that there will be things in life that they won't readily be able to understand. These things aren't necessarily bad or harmful and, as adults, we should think critically before we consider shooting a teenage girl at an airport with blinky lights on her shirt.

Or like you said having a conversation about terrorism in an airport I personally would never do that in the first place because I know if I heard people talking about terrorism which could be heard out of context like I walk by and hear "blow up the plane." it would scare me so I would not do that. A violation of the first amendment yes. A violation of my freedom of peace of mind yes. So it's give and take.

Than you are a willing participant of the theatre of security. Talking about one thing objectively, inciting action upon a thing and taking direct action are all completely different things. Merely discussing something does not mean you are intending to engage in such action, nor does it make you any safer. The likelihood of a terrorist calmly discussing terrorism at a security checkpoint is very slim. To think it is a crime to do so is almost laughable.

Zoned protests are a tool used to keep protesters "in line." It is very easy to claim that a group of protestors has become disorderly and rope them in and cart them off if their politics get too far out of line. I have no examples to back up this scenario, but I am sure I can find some in recent years.
1-10 of 240Next »