backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jul 25 at 1:08 PM

Republicans, Democrats both support measure to expand federal power, but Ron Paul leads minority opposition

In an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper published by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS), President Obama laid out his opinion of why poor cybersecurity is such a dire threat to the nation and his opinion on what should be done about it.

I. President Obama Calls Out Businesses for Poor Security

In the piece he describes the results of a recent wargames simulation by nation defense and intelligence agencies, recalling, "Across the country trains had derailed, including one carrying industrial chemicals that exploded into a toxic cloud. Water treatment plants in several states had shut down, contaminating drinking water and causing Americans to fall ill."

The scenario was fictional, but President Obama warns it could happen, if safeguards are not put in place.

Train derailed
President Obama claims terrorists could use cyber-attacks to derail trains.
[Image Source: Zimbio]

He blames poor security partially on the corporate sector, calling out the glaring incompetence security-wise of decision makers at some utilities and other vital infrastructure firms.  He writes:

Yet simply sharing more information is not enough. Ultimately, this is about security gaps that have to be filled. To their credit, many of these companies have boosted their cyber defenses. But many others have not, with some lacking even the most basic protection: a good password. That puts public safety and our national security at risk.

The American people deserve to know that companies running our critical infrastructure meet basic, commonsense cybersecurity standards, just as they already meet other security requirements.
 
 
Obama speaking
President Obama wants to expand the federal gov't to "solve" the cybersecurity "crisis".
[Image Source: U.S. Aid]

President Obama is proposing an amendment National Security Act of 1947 [PDF], which is ostensibly targeted at promoting information and expertise sharing between U.S. government agencies and key civilian-sector contractors/infrastructure providers.

II. Bill to Expand DHS is Backed by Both Parties, But Has a Few Vocal Critics

The bill, S.2105 [PDF], is a redraft of earlier House bill H.R. 3523.  

The new bill is dubbed the "Cybersecurity Act of 2012".  The key change from the earlier house measure is that the Senate bill funnels the information shared by private sector firms through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  President Obama vocally opposed the earlier House bill, which put the DHS in more of a backseat role.

Homeland Security
The bill would expand the scope of the DHS. [Image Source: CyTalk]
 
The new bill enjoys a fair measure of bipartisan support in the Senate.  It is sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R- Maine), Joe Lieberman (I/D- Connecticut), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and J. D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D- West Virginia).

However, the bill has a couple of vocal opponents among the more liberal and more conservative members of the House.  Among those opposed to expanding the DHS's role is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  Rep. Paul called the bill "Big Brother writ large."

Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul is one of the few opponents of the measure to expand federal government.
[Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul has suggested that the Department of Homeland Security is poor in talent, offensive to civil liberties, and redundant, commenting [source]:

Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

President Obama is urging Democrats and Republicans to come together, as they oft do, to overlook civil liberties and debt concerns and pass a bill to expand the federal government.  As with many such expansions of federal government pushed by America's two ruling parties in recent years, there will likely be large price tag to this measure.  And as usual the justification is "national security".

Sources: WSJ, U.S. Senate



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By taisingera on 7/20/2012 5:59:33 PM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't let DHS have a hand in controlling security of companies. Instead, if govt was so concerned, set a minimum level of security required by companies to reach. If not reached either fine them or something. I can see how govt wants to protect consumers (passwords hacked, etc) but they always go about it the most socialist way they can.




By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2012 6:04:59 PM , Rating: 1
When hasn't he tried to nationalize something? Nationalized Banks, nationalized Wall Street, Nationalized Health Care...

How ironic that he's become a Bush-styled fear-monger. Trains full of chemicals derailing and killing people...really dude? Come on Barry, nobody's buying that.

Even more ironic is that from Iran and others point of view, he's the single biggest cyber terrorist EVER.


By retrospooty on 7/20/2012 6:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
Ya, this whole thing stinks... And stinks more with every moth that goes by. WTF is he thinking?

I like that Ron Paul is against it. I have only heard him speak 3 or 4 times, but I really liked everything he said. It kind of pissed me off in the rep. debates in 2008. He spoke and had some great stuff to say, and both McCain and Romney treated him like he was some wingnut. No respect at all.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2012 7:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Listening to Ron Paul is like watching a great porno. It's hot, you're getting into it, you start jerking it....

...and then the chick pulls out three midget amputees and a massive dildo out of the closet and starts taking a dump in her hand. Boner ruined!

For every great thing he says, he ruins it by saying stupid crap like he wouldn't sign the Civil Rights Act. Or that 9/11 was an inside job committed by the Bush admin. And that Gold Standard...I don't know. I just don't know.

quote:
Ya, this whole thing stinks... And stinks more with every moth that goes by. WTF is he thinking?


You said it. He's just a radical, what can you say.


By retrospooty on 7/20/2012 7:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
"and then the chick pulls out three midget amputees and a massive dildo out of the closet and starts taking a dump in her hand. Boner ruined"

I think you have successfully ruined Ron Paul for me now LOL.

"You said it. He's just a radical, what can you say."

I think I have to say, and I cant believe I am even saying it... Obama is even worse than Bush.


By The Raven on 7/20/2012 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is fine if you don't like Paul because of the 9/11 crap (I don't either) but the comparison (though humorous) is unfair.

It is more like you get to direct your own Pr0n and leave the midgets out of it.

But when you are forced into a war or paying for someone else's healthcare etc... Do you follow?

But if you don't like Paul, you can still support most of his ideals and vote Libertarian. Hell if I was running for president I would be similar to RP without the consiracy theories.

And also in Paul's defense, if you had seen so much crap happening within your gov't... I used to think that Fast and furious was a crazy conspiracy... now I don't and maybe I should look into the whole 9/11 thing lol.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By jeffkro on 7/22/12, Rating: -1
By steven975 on 7/23/2012 9:12:47 AM , Rating: 3
I keep hearing people say this, but they never come up with a coherent reason as to WHY and HOW?

How does a stable currency ruin an economy again?

And, he's on record as it not necessarily being gold, but backed by SOMETHING other than fiat.


By juserbogus on 7/23/2012 9:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
the gold standard was NOT a stable currency! don't you guys ever read any history about the crap you talk about?


By steven975 on 7/23/2012 10:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
While it had some short-term price fluctuations, long-term it is more stable than fiat currency.

Also, it doesn't have to be gold. Are you saying fiat currency is inherently superior than a commodity-backed currency, and for what reasons?


By The Raven on 7/23/2012 5:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Don't argue with him. Find common ground which was my point. RP nor anyone else is going to single handedly bring back the gold standard. Only Nixon could do that lol. That aside we should all be in agreement. I mean there have got to be plenty of people who say the same type of stuff about the republicans right? Like,"If they would just get rid of all their moral regulations and prolife this and that, then I could agree with them." So if I vote republican does that automatically make me prolife? I just don't understand the push against RP because people think he is a nut. He may be a nut but he is not the kind of nut that you have to worry about putting in charge of the military/nukes or economy. Those nuts are Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. All the ones who think they know better than the rest of us and want to play Risk with our kids.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
You know I'm never one of these people who pull the "Everyone else is doing it" card, but in this case I'm pretty sure there's a good reason the entire civilized world switched to fiat currency. Maybe "gold standard" worked well in the past when we weren't part of a global economy, but how in the hell could it work today and allow us to be competitive?

quote:
Those nuts are Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. All the ones who think they know better than the rest of us and want to play Risk with our kids.


Why would you put Romney along with Obama? That's just harsh. What has the man ever did to you?

quote:
I just don't understand the push against RP because people think he is a nut.


Because he is? The man is nuttier than a fruitcake lol. But most of it is the good kind of nuts.

Also we're just very cynical. Let's be honest, most of what Ron Paul wants to do doesn't have a hope in a hell of actually being done in today's highly partisan culture, and we know it. His Presidency would most likely be very ineffective. 4 years? It would take him 20 years to do everything he wants to do.


By The Raven on 7/25/2012 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also we're just very cynical. Let's be honest, most of what Ron Paul wants to do doesn't have a hope in a hell of actually being done in today's highly partisan culture, and we know it. His Presidency would most likely be very ineffective. 4 years? It would take him 20 years to do everything he wants to do.
This is one point that he lost during the debates when people asked him how he would do anything with more than half of the legislature against his small gov't ideas. I can't even remember what he said (it wasn't very good) but he should have said that "at least with me you know that I will not push to make things worse (e.g. More bailouts, stimulus, war, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, bans, QE5...6...7...)."

Sounds pretty damn effective to me. The alternative is to encourage the gov't get bigger and bigger as it has most dramatically since WWII. Doesn't matter if it is a dem or a rep. No difference. Granted there were people who would have surely minimized gov't like Goldwater or Uncle Milton. But they didn't get elected because they didn't promise to 'pay off' voters. Well we have seen where that has gotten us and it is folly to keep going down that road.

Public servants have become public suckups. RP is sucking up to no one. He just plain represents a bunch of like minded individuals who want smaller gov't.


By The Raven on 7/25/2012 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(e.g. Cybersecurity Act , More bailouts, stimulus, war, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, bans, QE5...6...7...)
Whoops, forgot one lol.

Also regarding the fiat currency and central banking. Essentially it is like gov'ts running around using nuclear armaments on foreign countries. And just because you don't see mushroom clouds people don't mind it. But when you explain that the mushroom clouds are disguised as limited personal economic mobility and the armament is controlled by the likes of Bernanke, Volcker and Greenspan (unelected BTW), you start to think it is not a good idea.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2012 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Public servants have become public suckups. RP is sucking up to no one. He just plain represents a bunch of like minded individuals who want smaller gov't.


If he was smart he would suck up just a little in order to win. Then when he's in office he can slash the Government and shoot down the protestors like dogs in the street lol.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Lerianis on 7/21/12, Rating: -1
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2012 2:41:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In fact, Obama is nothing more than a moderate Republican in Democrat guise.


LOL, an insult to moderate Republicans. Are you suffering from a mental break? While it's true that Obama extended most of Bush's policies, to claim this makes him anywhere close to a Republican is insane. He's FAR left of most Democrats. Wtf are you smoking?


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 3:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
to claim this makes him anywhere close to a Republican is insane. He's FAR left of most Democrats.


All a matter of perspective apparently.. He didn't eradicate insurance companies, coal power plants, surrender to the Taliban, annihilate banks, or institute a wealth tax, 90% top marginal rates or 100% death taxes. Charter schools haven't been shut down. So sure, CPUSA.org members probably think he's awfully moderate. :P


By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2012 4:07:49 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah it's just scary to me that there are people so radical out there they actually view Obama as some kind of moderate or centrist.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/21/2012 5:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
It scares me that there are people who can look at Obama's record, platform, and public statements and see a radical leftist. The pull out of Iraq? Already planned by Bush. PPACA? An idea straight out of a right-wing think tank. Supporting gay marriage? He's in the majority. About the only thing I can think of is wanting to close Guantanamo, and he wasn't planning on releasing anybody Bush wasn't releasing.

Ineffective? You can make an argument there, maybe. But the argument seems to be if Obama proposes a policy, it must be socialist, based on some erroneous preconceived notion of the man.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 9:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
Easy. He tried to use the commerce clause to, in effect and by extension, be able to mandate any and all economic behavior. Supreme Court can rule all it wants, I suspect most liberals know ObamaCare is grossly unconstitutional, liberals just don't think that's a bad thing.

Then business leaders that've met with him from day 1 have come away saying he doesn't understand business or job creation, which recent off-teleprompter comments only reinforce. In his world, sweat-equity doesn't exist; success of any individual belongs entirely to the collective.

If we combine the 'red' and 'green' folks in a 21st century unified group, as is some times the case in Europe, he's been about as tough on energy as possible. Shale gas has boomed but no thanks to him -- all development has been on private land. He's not released, to my knowledge, any federal land to unconventional natural gas drilling. He promised the LA Times he'd go to war with coal, and has largely succeeded.

Meanwhile, like any good statist, he's tried his hand at state-run venture capital -- and failed, abysmally. GM's stock would have to about double for the state to be in the black, and the GM and Chrysler deals will go down in history as one of the biggest government take-overs and abominations of standard bankruptcy procedures in this countries history.

The guy wants to go back to Clinton era tax rates, but not Clinton era size of government (hint: MUCH larger as a % of GDP). He obviously has no concern for the economic impact, either; Ernst & Young released analysis last week that showed a long term loss of 710k jobs and 1.8% lower growth for the middle class by raising the top income bracket rate. It's a price he's happy to pay for his version of fairness.

If you can't see the radicalism, you're not looking. Jesus, even admits in his books he was a Marxist in college, and recently it was uncovered who his mentor/pal 'Frank' was (hint: card-carrying member of CP USA). What makes you think he changed his core convictions?

I've said it before. Joe Lieberman is what the Democrat party pretends it still is, and look what the Democrat party did to him: attempted political assassination.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Samus on 7/21/2012 9:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
I really wish Ron Paul had a chance...he's the only one that actually "gets it."


By inperfectdarkness on 7/23/2012 1:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
"Gets" what, exactly? He doesn't stand a chance because for every great idea, he has an insanely stupid one to match. He wants to close all overseas US military basing. Seriously. I mean, I'm all in favor of centralizing some of our basing and closing smaller satellite units, but "pulling out" altogether?

It's like the man makes basic logical blunders that a high-school student with any working knowledge of the military wouldn't make.


By steven975 on 7/23/2012 9:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
What function do those bases serve exactly?

Are we making sure the National Socialists don't come back to power. Korea's about the only one I can think of that makes sense.


By wempa on 7/23/2012 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
How many Ron Paul books have you actually read ? He does not want to close all overseas bases. He just wants to close the ones we don't absolutely need. Do we really need 30000 troops in Germany ? What exactly is going on there ? Our country is falling apart and we are wasting billions of dollars keeping these bases in over 100 countries. I'm sorry, but we clearly don't need to be in all of them. We could probably easily cut them by half.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/22/2012 8:23:35 PM , Rating: 1
Here's the problem. It isn't that liberals think PPACA is unconstitutional. It's that you apparently have no idea what is and isn't constitutional, but think your ideas of what is in the Constitution are more valid than those of a President who specialized in constitutional law and five (of nine) of the most knowledgeable constitutional specialists in the country. And again, since the plan was one advanced by a conservative think tank (the Heritage Foundation, I believe?), it is strange that conservatives have now decided it's a radical leftist policy, apparently solely because it was passed by the Fount of All Socialism </sarcasm>.

I'm not sure why you give the opinions of business leaders regarding job creation higher than those of economists and bureaucrats. You wouldn't ask a carpenter about civil engineering. And that's being generous with those business leaders - their interests are at least partially in conflict with job creation: higher unemployment reduces wages and increases retention, helping maximize profits. And either way, the question wasn't whether Obama is an effective president, the question was whether his actions or words demonstrated a radical left ideology. I can understand why his recent speech highlighting the fact (and I emphasize, fact) that all businesses benefit from government programs causes some radical libertarians to squirm. After all, the cognitive dissonance produced by encountering facts that directly clash with your world view is unnerving. But it's hardly radical leftist thinking. It's a fact embodied in conservative legislation like the Eisenhower interstate highway system.

The investment in GM wasn't about making money, it was about preserving American private industry. In that sense, it has been a success. And I think you're misusing the term "statist", unless you're arguing for anarchy, but then why would you worry if any policy is unconstitutional, since you'd be opposed to the Constitution as well. So I have to assume you're using it as a stand in for socialist. But if Obama's bailouts make him a radical leftist, then Bush's bailouts would do the same for him, which would seem to be patently false. Ergo, our original assumption, that Obama's bailouts make him a socialist, looks to be false.

The size of government is not a question of left or right. It is a question of libertarianism versus fascism. Left or right is about how the state should use whatever power it is vested in it. As for the economic impact of changing the current tax structure back to the one that made America great in second half of the 20th century, it is certainly a policy that is up for debate (considering the E&Y analysis contradicts several other analyses, including the one by the CBO), but if anything, it shows a radicalization of the right, not of the left, considering that those tax rates were considered acceptable by Republicans for generations.

Again, as to your final point, I am looking for policies, actions, or speeches that show that Obama is a radical leftist. I briefly thought Marxism was a good idea in college, too, though I am decidedly against it now, barely a decade later. I was at the Seattle WTO protests in '99. It was stupid childish petulance. People change. Obama did cocaine when he was young, too, but he isn't a cokehead now. His previous beliefs may be a reason to be on the lookout for crazy radical ideas, but it doesn't make everything he does Marxist, and there are only a couple of policies a moderate politician of either stripe wouldn't undertake, and those exceptions are hardly radical, and the reasons they wouldn't be undertaken have more to do with politics than political philosophy. Republicans can't touch social programs without being accused of destroying them (see the Medicare Part D hoopla).


By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 1:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, as to your final point, I am looking for policies, actions, or speeches that show that Obama is a radical leftist.


Do you watch the news? Do you have a radio? Have you been living in a cave?

There's really no point in even talking to someone who actually requires "proof", almost 4 years later, of Obama's leftness. Wtf, are you serious?

I guess his latest Marxist diatribe about business leaders and entrepreneurs wasn't leftist either, right? Come on, take the blinders off!


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/23/2012 10:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's that you apparently have no idea what is and isn't constitutional


If you've read a great deal of the works of the founding fathers as well as the philosophers who inspired them and came away thinking that the framers would view Obamacare is constitutional, then you're either a poor liar or there is something wrong with your brain. Seriously. It's that obvious.

I'm also a member of the Heritage Foundation, and can assure you they'd sooner hang themselves then ever submit anything like that.

quote:
I'm not sure why you give the opinions of business leaders regarding job creation higher than those of economists and bureaucrats.


Thank you for the Marxist world view of job creation. Business leaders understand the growth of business leads to expansion to enable higher sales, and that job growth is the publicly beneficial side-effect of the business worlds profit-motive. Adam Smith understood this, Hume before him did, and all non-Marxist economists since have as well.

The fact that you even consider bureaucrats a source of information on job creation is hilarious. WTF does someone who has spent their lives working for a government agency know about how the private sector creates jobs?

quote:
I can understand why his recent speech highlighting the fact (and I emphasize, fact) that all businesses benefit from government programs


Listen to his whole speech. You and him are trying to engage some sort of reality distortion field around what he said to make it sound like he was talking about roads and bridges. No. He was denigrating hard work and intelligence, implying success was collective success and down to luck, presumably. Every form of government around the world builds roads and bridges, ffs. Libertarian sorts do not often complain about that, though there's plenty of economic evidence to suggest greater roles for privatization or public-private partnerships. It was the rant against individual achievement that bothered people.

quote:
In that sense, it has been a success.


We won't know until years down the road. We've bailed out Chrysler before. The historical record for government bailouts is pretty poor; they tend to come back again and again until it's clear the party is over.

Further, Bush was no ideal leader on bailouts either. He combined the worst of both parties in some ways, I don't deny that. But I know clinging to Bush helps your side, even if its now irrelevant in the current election since Bush isn't running for office.

quote:
As for the economic impact of changing the current tax structure back to the one that made America great in second half of the 20th century


Typical. Classic difference between left and right. To a liberal, its government policy that made America great. To the right, it's American individuals who made America great. The gap is one that, IMO, can't be closed, ever, so again I'll say we'd of been better off if the North had let the South go on amicable terms.

quote:
that those tax rates were considered acceptable by Republicans for generations.


Not entirely true, but perhaps you know that. Democrats held the House for about fifty years before Newt Gingrich lead them to victory in the 90s. Prior to that, Reagan tried to be a tax cutter.

quote:
People change.


You haven't budged much, since your views line up pretty well with the hard-left and their 'living constitution' notions, agreement with Obama's collectivist view of achievement, state-sponsored bailout of industry (GM), and the hilarious notion businessmen and women can't speak to job growth but academic ivory-tower economists (academic economists are disproportionately Marxist, as many universities had moved and shielded their Economics departments not in the college of business but of liberal arts) and, even better, bureaucrats. But some people do change, but many don't. He was a Marxist as a young adult and as an older adult wrote about his mentor, a card-carrying Communist Party USA member, in every single chapter of his last book. You see everything he's done as moderate because you're so far left you don't realize that the left in America post-Vietnam has radicalized itself, but looking at his proposals and speeches from a classical perspective, he fits the bill and offers no evidence of reform from Marxism.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/24/2012 6:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
If the Founding Fathers didn't want PPACA, they shouldn't have given Congress the power to tax. Besides, the idea that the Founding Fathers' views would be absolute, and not adaptable to the facts of the world we live in, is absolutely asinine. That's why they entrusted a branch of the government with interpreting the Constitution.

The Heritage Foundation wasn't the source of the individual mandate idea? http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-...

Have you ever read Adam Smith? The entire wealth of nations is a diatribe against government working hand in hand with business to promote business interests. Businessmen favored protectionist trade restrictions, local monopolies and cartels, because they were good for their business. But they were bad for the nation. Your understanding of Adam Smith is apparently only rivaled by your understanding of the Constitution. You might want to check yourself here, because you also don't know what the hell Marxism is either. Apparently for you, anything but trickle-down capitalism is Marxism.

A bureaucrat whose job it has been to study public sector job creation and implement government policies to promote it has a lot more experience in what works and what doesn't, what the limits of government capabilities are, etc., than a guy who has spent the past 20 years focused on their narrow little world in business. I used the word bureaucrat specifically because I knew it would rile you up. Sorry. But it's true, bureaucrats aren't all the useless wastes we associate with the DMV.

Arguing that someone who has become successful should be thankful for the help they received along the way isn't denigrating their hard work. Reminding them that they owe society something back for everything they've received isn't denigrating their hard work. Again, this is a case of you trying to assign the worst motives to Obama because you have preconceived notions of who he is.

Reagan was the beginning of the drive to cut taxes, a philosophy that began taking roots in the Republican party a decade before he took office thanks to the efforts of people like William F. Buckley. Prior to that, the Republican party was very different. Conservativism was very different. Remember, it was Nixon who created the EPA.

And by the way, the difference between conservatives and liberals isn't whether the government or individuals are responsible for American success. We both think it's American individuals who are responsible - but which individuals? Conservatives seem to think it's Donald Trump. Liberals think it's the everyman, and promote government policies which give the average American the best chance at being successful.

You can throw around labels all you want, but it's pointless when they mean nothing. That's my point. When the policies of Obama don't differ qualitatively from those of Bush, how do you justify applying a moniker to one but not the other? I'm not bringing Bush up to try to bash him, or promote Obama's popularity. I'm just trying to demonstrate many conservatives' hypocrisy in considering Obama's policies.

And finally (though I'm pretty sure you won't even come back to read this), your attempt to paint me as some kind of radical from a handful of statements demonstrates a lack of acceptance of nuance. This may be the reason that you've decided Obama is a Marxist - anything less than a doctrinal adherence to a libertarian conservative ideal is radical socialism to you.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2012 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Getting tired of that argument. I love how Liberals quote from the Heritage foundation on this one thing, then on the other hand call it a "Right wing extremist" group on every other point that they prove the utter failure of Liberalism. You can't have it both ways.

But here's a hint, I don't care what the Heritage Foundation thought about it. Why? They aren't lawmakers. They aren't Congress. They can have whatever opinion they want, it's Obama and his radical thugs that passed Obamacare.

quote:
Arguing that someone who has become successful should be thankful for the help they received along the way isn't denigrating their hard work. Reminding them that they owe society something back for everything they've received isn't denigrating their hard work. Again, this is a case of you trying to assign the worst motives to Obama because you have preconceived notions of who he is.


Telling people they "owe society" is usually the first step in some Marxist/Socialist agenda. Obama want's higher taxes on the rich, higher fees for everything, mandated Obamacare...then scratches his head why his job creation plans have failed and unemployment still sucks and we still have a sluggish economy.

quote:
And by the way, the difference between conservatives and liberals isn't whether the government or individuals are responsible for American success. We both think it's American individuals who are responsible - but which individuals? Conservatives seem to think it's Donald Trump. Liberals think it's the everyman, and promote government policies which give the average American the best chance at being successful.


LOL oh that's classic! Well if that's what you believe, Obama has been a perfect example of why that Liberal ideology doesn't work.

In essence you believe you can redistribute wealth better than the free market can, for the betterment of everyone. Not just a "select few" rich.

The problem is the Government doesn't have it's own money. It has OUR money. The money the Government spends is essentially taken out of the peoples hands. So when Obama increases spending by 300+%, and claims he can "stimulate" the economy with it, how is that possible?

Liberals destroy the wealth of the populace with reckless spending. The money Obama and the Liberals are spending, WE assume the responsibility for paying back. Fools, how can you give Americans the best chance of being successful, when you're reaping money from them and incurring debt that's MORE than our GDP? The collective American public, rich and poor and middle class alike, cannot even sustain this debt.

Who have you bettered? Who's been helped? Ask the African American community, who saw Obama as their savior, how they've been helped. Nearly 20% unemployment rates for that demographic. But by god, they'll keep voting those Democrats in because they want to "help" them. Please. It's a sham. Liberal ideology helps nobody, and scaled up to a national level, does MUCH harm to all of us.

quote:
If the Founding Fathers didn't want PPACA, they shouldn't have given Congress the power to tax.


First of all, they didn't. Even Roberts said they cannot use the Commerce Clause to impose such a tax. The Commerce Clause CANNOT be used to compel entry to a market.

Secondly, it's not a "tax" at all. But a penalty. And just because you Liberals now pretend you don't know what the difference is, the Founders sure as hell did.


By ScotterQX6700 on 7/25/2012 2:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a list of some of the freedoms we have lost since Obama has come into office. I've been working on this for a year or so. I'm all ears if you have an item to add.
http://www.clearsay.net/freedom_erosion_chart.asp?


By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2012 10:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently you don't know what "left" even means, since none of those things are indicative of their beliefs, so I don't even know why you're speaking.


By retrospooty on 7/23/2012 8:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
"How exactly is Obama 'worse than Bush'? 99% of his policies are leftovers from the Bush years and/or are Republican ideas from the past."

This + complete lunacy on economic matters (unchecked spending like we have an endless supply of money) = Obama.


By jwcalla on 7/20/2012 11:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
"...9/11 was an inside job committed by the Bush admin."

Seriously... where do you get this stuff?


By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 7/21/2012 6:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not signing the Civil Rights Act isn't as bad as it sounds. Whether on purpose or not you presented it a very political manner, meaning someone could easily interpret your statement correctly or massively incorrectly. So I want to add that he wasn't for segregation in public schools or state/federal government run programs. He was talking about private businesses being able to choose who they wanted to serve.


By steven975 on 7/23/2012 9:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
exactly.

He did vote for MLK day.

When the time came up to give out gold medals to civil rights leaders, he voted no and pledged some of his own money to actually buy the medals instead of footing it to the taxpayer. No one else followed.

RP is probably one of the more pro-civil rights people we have in Congress.


By inperfectdarkness on 7/23/2012 1:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
So freaking true. It's like he'll start talking about smaller government and fiscal responsibility....and the BANG: now he wants to return the US back into early 1800's isolationist policies.

I suppose every fecal flinger can at times craft poetry of sheer brilliance in between the mad ravings.


By steven975 on 7/23/2012 9:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
isolationism =/= actually being a good neighbor and having good relations.

He's not for shutting off foreign relations. He's more for the Ben Franklin model.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By MZperX on 7/23/2012 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the guy is perfect, but it's important to note that he is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Huge difference!

Isolationist means to pretend the outside world does not exist and live in your own cocoon. Essentially ostrich policy.

Non-interventionist means maintaining relations with all nations open to mutual trade and respect and minding our own business. Essentially to not go around the world kicking ass and taking names.


By wempa on 7/23/2012 4:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It cracks me up how so many people make these idiotic claims about Ron Paul. Let's see. We waste billions of dollars on over 100 military bases in other countries, most of which aren't necessary. So, he wants to close the less important ones to use the money saved and more important things. So, this makes him an isolationist ? Great logic !


By PontiusP on 7/24/2012 1:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer,

I often enjoy your rational comments and have never posted on DT till now. But I just couldn't let your disinformation slide.

Disagreeing is fine. Outright lying is not.

RP has *NEVER*, not even once, supported the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. He has said that it was in response to our foreign policy, which it was.

Regarding the Civil Rights act, most of it was about prohibiting the government from discriminating on race, which he completely supported. The only provision he had a problem with is prohibiting private business from discrimination. It's not that he supports racism at all. Rather, he sees the larger picture of things. He knew that once you get the camel's nose in the tent, eventually the whole thing is inside. Once you start telling a private business who they can serve, then bit by bit, the government will end up running the entire business. See today for proof.

Regarding the gold standard, let me just say that fractional reserved, debt based fiat currency isn't working out so well. The gold standard failed in the past during certain times not because people were adhering to it, but rather because they were disobeying it. Meaning, they issued more paper receipts than gold on deposit existed. Which is basically fractional reserve banking, which will always fail as it is based on fraud (lying).

He's not perfect, but he's been mostly right on just about every other issue as well: war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, civil liberties, economic interventionism (specifically housing). The list goes on and on and with every passing day he is proved more and more right than anyone else. Give credit where it's due.

Like I said above, I generally enjoy your logical comments, but that one was way out of line. I even had to make a DT account to respond =)


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By nolisi on 7/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By nolisi on 7/20/2012 7:21:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "most centrist and transparent" according to the Left, waged a secret cyber war against Iran. Obama committed acts of war, fact.


While substantial elements of the extreme right want to start another war by invading Iran regardless of the cost. While the extreme left advocates non-hostile negotiation and bargaining. I'd suggest the non-military cyber solution sits safely somewhere between those two solutions. And it was a solution started by Bush. I think it was a smart move.

In order to make your point, you have to ignore all other facts.

I can only assume that you would rather let Iran have nukes given that you're critiquing a bloodless action that put no soldiers lives in jeopardy to achieve an objective championed by the right.


By hsew on 7/21/2012 12:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can only assume that you would rather let Iran have nukes given that you're critiquing a bloodless action that put no soldiers lives in jeopardy to achieve an objective championed by the right.


Look up "neoconservative". Have an epiphany and understand that the "right wing" has been hijacked.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 1:18:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
critiquing a bloodless action that put no soldiers lives in jeopardy


Didn't pick up on this the first time I read it, but that's not entirely true. CIA agents and informants aren't technically soldiers, but just as important, and by leaking our involvement it absolutely put someone in jeopardy over there, who ever we had that was close to or inside the targeted facilities.

You also either can't possibly know for certain that that's not the case, or you DO know, in which case you are bound for jail for blabbing classified intel in a public forum. Only White House staff can get away with that.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By nolisi on 7/23/2012 1:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, are we down to debating semantics and technicalities in order to make a point? Is this point of yours so important that it renders the plan completely ineffective? That's the only conclusion I can come to by this line:

quote:
You also either can't possibly know for certain that that's not the case, or you DO know, in which case you are bound for jail for blabbing classified intel in a public forum.


Because I'm pretty sure my interpretation is a pretty good one in spite of your supposition that I'm "bound for jail". Unless you'd like to spend a ton of money deploying destroyers and fighter jets while shedding lives on both sides (or have a better solution), stop trying to invalidate my point based on technicalities and BS nonesnes that has nothing to do with the actual discussion


By Ringold on 7/23/2012 10:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
I was partly going in a different direction, troll;

quote:
and by leaking our involvement


Unless you disagree with even Diane Feinstein, huge liberal that she is, that the leaks coming out of the White House are dangerous to our nation, damaging our ability to recruit informants and agents overseas and, most important to Obama of course, damaging his re-election bid. And while it hasn't been in the news yet and may never be, the odds are good that somewhere in Iran a body is in a shallow grave -- or will be as soon as they figure out who the CIA/Mossad mole was now that, thanks to your folks, they know for a fact there is at least one.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By nolisi on 7/20/12, Rating: 0
By Ringold on 7/20/2012 9:31:01 PM , Rating: 4
If you can't read up on history to know why nationalizing all banks would be a bad idea then you're beyond help.

They also didn't "sell" jobs to China. Chinese workers and factories were willing to do low-skilled work cheaper. Indian doctors offer procedures for less, and Indian companies are starting to offer professional services (law, engineering, etc) as well. So it's not selling out America to use other vendors, we've only got ourselves to blame for protectionist policies that breed a lack of competitiveness. Germany went a different route and have none of our problems. Don't blame companies, blame yourself, the voter, responsible for electing politicians that coddle you with words while avoiding taking the hard choices in a cold world. (Much easier to blame others though, I know)


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By tecknurd on 7/21/2012 12:45:55 AM , Rating: 1
Presidents in the past did make dramatic statements like "Trains full of chemicals derailing and killing people" to get your attention. It seems to be working because it got your attention. Since hacking has increase and more and more companies are showing their vulnerabilities, of course something like the law Cybersecurity Act is showing up. Probably this law is just enforcing that all companies comply to the standard security configuration. Banks have to go through a set security standard and why it is any different for corporation sites. Right now the security that companies setup is not working, so Cybersecurity Act should hopefully make it better.

The nationalized health care is not what it means. It basically means that all health insurance companies are required to include the basic coverage. Also every American citizen are required to get health insurance or else be penalized/taxed. This is the same law as driver's insurance. I think this health care reform should have been done before driver's insurance was require by law. It is better late than never. People that are healthy or have no diseases do not understand why the new health law is pass while people that have a disease are applauding it. The health reform has nothing about an American citizen paying bills for the people that have diseases. Medicaid and Medicare is those ugly's services that the government pays some of the bills or all the bills. Those two are redundant. Just one of those services are fine enough, but old people bitch that they want their Medicaid or Medicare.

Nationalized Banks! LOL

Nationalized Wall Street! LOL

It seems you do not know what you are talking about.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 1:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It basically means that all health insurance companies are required to include the basic coverage. Also every American citizen are required to get health insurance or else be penalized/taxed.


If that were all there was to it, the law would've been 5 pages long, max. Maybe 100 pages of related regulation.

Instead, it's so long and complex that people suspect more Chinese have read it then Americans (Chinese bureaucrats keep a very close eye on what we do). ObamaCare will probably top out at 30 to 50,000 pages of related regulation once all the various involved agencies are done with it.


RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Lerianis on 7/21/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2012 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Best thing we could have done was to go to a nationalized health care industry and moved on. Other countries have done that.... why shouldn't the United States?


And this puts your firmly in the "idiot" category.


By Ringold on 7/21/2012 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
stop lying. The truth is that most European nations have LESS of a waiting time for doctors and specialists than the United States.


You're the one that's either a liar or simply ignorant. Wikipedia's a fairly well-known slightly left-leaning institution, so allow me to use it as a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

quote:
Using Canada as an example, an estimated 782,936 Canadians spent time on medical waiting lists in 2005, waiting an average of 9.4 weeks.[10] Canada has set waiting-time benchmarks, e. g. 26 weeks for a hip replacement and 16 weeks for cataract surgery, for non-urgent medical procedures.


Someone in actual need of a hip replacement that can barely walk wouldn't call it non-urgent, but hey, that's socialism. Meanwhile, I had work done on my knee within 24 hours of what Canada would call a non-urgent injury a couple years ago, and was offered knee replacement within the same time frame. My folks are older and both had cataracts removed, within a week.

It goes on to describe the hundreds of thousands in total that flee what are generally socialized medicine advanced economies, and it lists the popular destinations... None of which are in the EU, though a few EU states are thinking about trying to get in on the action.

So tell me, if you are correct, then why do so many Europeans and Canadians pay for something they already paid for through taxes if it's so good and quick?

Further, laws can be written broadly but clearly. Note the constitution. The Roman's, and I think ancient Greeks even, understood that short, simple laws provide the most transparency. Complexity is used to hide shenanigans from the ignorant masses. Most of our countries greatest legislation is no longer then a childs story book, it's only been since WW2 generally that length has exploded.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/21/2012 5:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
He bought a stake in GM. He gave loans (with conditions) to Wall Street. Other than that, he hasn't even come close to nationalization of any industry. Those examples fall well short of nationalization themselves, and they were measures taken in exigent circumstances. The ACA is an attempt to keep private insurance as a viable industry, despite it being pretty clear it's a failed idea if your goal is to keep people healthy. So where is the evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything?

As for (in less inflammatory terms) the US waging cyberwarfare, doesn't that suggest we know what is needed with respect to cyberdefenses? I don't know what the proposed changes will look like, but I assume they'll be a series of regulations that mandate cyberprotections for critical infrastructure, and a system of inspections to ensure compliance, performed by the DHS. Hardly a nationalization program, and hardly unreasonable.

But maybe you're right, and Obama will take possession of every power plant, shipping company, telecommunications network, etc. in the US. Because apparently neither he nor any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any desire to be reelected.


By EnzoFX on 7/21/2012 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Get out of here with that level or rational thinking. You'll hurt some of the idiocy here.


By Ringold on 7/21/2012 9:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I assume they'll be a series of regulations that mandate cyberprotections for critical infrastructure, and a system of inspections to ensure compliance, performed by the DHS. Hardly a nationalization program, and hardly unreasonable.


Perfectly reasonable, sure sure, if your goal is maximum government employment. I proposed a solution that requires no such police-state creation. Ron Paul is right, the country accomplished pretty much everything it needed to prior to the creation of the DHS. The prior system worked generally, it just needed updating.

quote:
The ACA is an attempt to keep private insurance as a viable industry


That's a joke. The next step, to follow in the foot steps of the European socialists he looks up to, would be the 'public option'. Then, as is almost always the case when one exists, it's price will drop, drop, and drop, until the private options are eliminated. No private firm can compete with an entity that has the implicit or explicit backing of the Treasury department.

Case in point: Homeowners insurance in Florida. Sun-soaked retirees were having a hard time affording it along the coast, so the state created Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. It priced competitors along the coasts out of the market bit by bit until now 95% of all homes east of I-95 are insured through Citizens. How did it manage that? Completely ignoring actuarial science. It's an open secret that the next Category 4 or 5 that hits a populated chunk of the Florida coast will immediately plunge the state in to either bankruptcy or austerity that makes Greece look like Disney. But, leather-skinned retirees that are being subsidized by the taxpayer for living in high-risk area's don't complain!

That's simply how government always works.

Plus, if he wanted the Swiss model of private insurance, well, ObamaCare sure did a hideous job of copying it. Looks nothing alike.


By ComradeTaco on 7/21/2012 12:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the first image in-text image is an excellent metaphor for this act.


By gorehound on 7/23/2012 12:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
Obama and his Administration along with a bunch of clueless power hungry Politicians would love to expand the Government Powers.Big Brother is what they want to see.


By idiot77 on 7/24/2012 8:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, everything you say sounded great.

Until a bunch of Arabs flew planes into buildings.


By BigEdMan on 7/21/2012 11:25:22 AM , Rating: 1
+100000


By Ringold on 7/21/2012 1:13:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The second (and related initiative) would be a general migration to free/open source software, since this software allows code review to find security holes.


The transition to unix wouldn't solve two core problems.

The first is that the biggest weak link with any OS is the user. It'll never change, that's an OS-independent problem.

The second is this notion that people reviewing code will report the bugs. The CIA and Mossad had some of the brightest people in both nations in the field working on it, and they exploited some hitherto unknown exploits. Giving that caliber of organization access to source code simply saves them a little time, as they're sure as hell not going to submit a patch to fix a vulnerability they want to exploit against their enemies.

That plan also totally ignores that some people would like compensation for their work on software and don't care to give away their secret sauce for free. Unlike internet OSS neo-Marxists in their mothers basements, some people want to be compensated for their work to put food on the table. Open source has its uses, but its not a panacea.


By drycrust3 on 7/21/2012 5:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only should the US government switch its own computers and encourage businesses and individuals to switch, but it should regulate the industry, so that hardware can be sold separately from software and consumers can buy PCs and mobile devices with any operating system and software which they like.

We saw all the fuss when Apple withdrew the EPEAT rating on some of their products, with places like American city councils not allowed to use those Apple products, so why not have a cyber security rating similar to the EPEAT rating, where failure to meet the required threshold means those products can't be purchased and those already purchased have to be replaced with ones that do comply. For example, say you used a 5 star rating, and say Ubuntu 12.04 running Firefox 14.0.1 was 5 stars and Windows XP running IE6 was 0 star, then the US Government says anything with a rating below 4 stars is unacceptable and will attract higher tax rates. You can bet that suddenly all those "essential" and "runs legacy software" and "can't afford to upgrade" computers will be upgraded to a 4 star compliant software in no time at all.


Partial solution
By Ringold on 7/20/2012 9:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Take a note from Admiral Adama. Anything vital shouldn't have a physical connection of any sort that'd allow it access to the internet. Period. Why does a water treatment plant need access to the internets porn, anyway? For things that absolutely need to be networked, create a private one. More expensive, but worth it, and any other solution is inherently flawed.

As for companies, here's a quick solution: Every credit card number lost is, say, a $100 fine? Every SSN, $1000? Every fraudulent charge gets charged back 2x to the company?

No police-state abomination needed, just incentives for good behavior. But thats assuming security is in fact his goal; obviously its a smoke screen, but whatever.




RE: Partial solution
By Lerianis on 7/21/2012 1:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
The reason that those things are on the internet is so that information can be aggregated to make sure that the plants are working correctly and for our 'real-time switching' electricity and water distribution systems.


RE: Partial solution
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've been in a couple water-works facilities. Maybe the infrastructure around here is older then normal, but pretty sure the computers were mostly used for porn, not interfacing with half-century old equipment. :P

But again, private networks. Not as cheap, but requires physical intrusion.


Sort of an "FDA" for American cyber security.
By BigEdMan on 7/20/2012 6:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
How about we form a new cyber security Corp and Offer the best and brightest full ride scholarships to the best schools in the country in exchange for a 10 or 12 year service contract. I'm sure we could find some logical way to have these public security auditors help add in fixing our vital infrastructure. Sort of like an "USDA" for American cyber security. It would augment NOT replace private security companies. But it could help fill some cracks. Then in 10 or 15 years we will have plenty of highly trained security personnel in the private sector and this program could be scaled back.




By BigEdMan on 7/20/2012 6:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
That post didn't seem to translate very well for my head to the screen. But still who doesn't want to know that their servers are USDA select prime.


A reminder
By Regected on 7/21/2012 2:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just as a reminder, Sen. Ron Paul is still in the running for a presidential nomination. He has the support of 30-40 percent of the republican party and about the same from the democratic party. Lets get some REAL change in the white house this time rather than another fish just flip flopping as his strings get pulled.




RE: A reminder
By twhittet on 7/22/2012 7:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just wondering - how many bills has Ron Paul sponsored that have become law? Oh yeah, 1. Of over 600, maybe 700 by now.

That's REAL change for you - a man who can't get anything done!


Paul Conservative?
By toyotabedzrock on 7/21/2012 3:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is funny how Republicans trot out Paul to claim he is one of them when it is convenient, when he shares the same opinions as liberals, but shove him back in the closet on most issues.




RE: Paul Conservative?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 9:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when he shares the same opinions as liberals


You mean liberals want to take a nuke to the federal budget? Completely eliminate whole departments? Slash to pieces the welfare state? Please link me to those proposals on Obama's campaign websites, or the DNC's, I must've missed the part where they endorsed the gold standard and eliminating the Department of Education.

I've long wondered how polls reveal a huge chunk of Ron Paul primary voters planned to vote for Obama. All I can figure is that he is so far to the opposite side of the spectrum it confuses the crap out of them, and he takes shots at pretty much everybody, and he's 'hip' with the in-crowd. 'Cause on policy issues, asides from being a little socially liberal and isolationist internationally, he couldn't be any different.


wOW
By room200 on 7/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: wOW
By tecknurd on 7/20/2012 9:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
You mean on this site although I can not tell the difference between a left chicken wing and a right chicken wing. Really my stomach can not tell the difference. All it can tell is when it gets nausea when there are too much chicken wings. There is one thing that my stomach and I have something in common is we like our chicken wings thoroughly cooked/done.


Had enough yet?
By Beenthere on 7/21/2012 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
How's that Dope and Chains workin out for ya? Have you learned your lesson yet or do you need some more pain?




By kenyee on 7/21/2012 5:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
They grew ridiculously fast...and Obama wants to keep feeding them? :-P

He's got a point, but I'm not sure nationalizing it is a good idea...or maybe I should just give in, get a govt job, work 9-4, take lots of vacations, and gripe when we can't get enough taxes like Greece? :-)




Not That It Matters
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not That It Matters
By KCjoker on 7/20/2012 6:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry I'm sure the majority of the media will call him out on this...wait maybe not.


RE: Not That It Matters
By EricMartello on 7/20/2012 7:20:10 PM , Rating: 1
Typical Obama crap. He cites a real problem, then uses it as the mask to cover his true intentions. America really is poorly guarded against "cyber threats", but this bill is not about protection it's about expanding governmental power to places it should never be.

I maintain that the final decision for laws like this (as well as changes to existing laws) should be put to a referendum vote. In fact we do need to stop letting a small group of people who put themselves ahead of the country make our policies and laws.


RE: Not That It Matters
By Ringold on 7/20/2012 9:36:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I maintain that the final decision for laws like this (as well as changes to existing laws) should be put to a referendum vote.


It was pretty obvious this guy was going to be like this back in 2008, he was still elected. A slim majority might elect him again. California has referendums on tons of things, still bones itself. A more philosophical problem then: is the problem democracy?

I don't think it is, I think it's government-controlled education and teachers unions, as this phenomenon seems pretty recent, but it's still not encouraging..


RE: Not That It Matters
By Lerianis on 7/21/2012 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 1
It's going to be more than a 'slim majority'. A lot of Republicans are pissed with their party right now and have said that they are going to "Go Obama!" come this election.

The radical Rethuglicans need to realize that most of the problems in our country today are coming from their overarching 'faith' in capitalism and their refusal to put the proper regulation on companies in America, to make sure that they are not harming Americans.


RE: Not That It Matters
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 4:29:27 PM , Rating: 1
Hahaha, who are these Republicans and who'd they vote for last time?

I think I got you pegged. As described in a documentary on the Occupy movement, there's greens, yellows, and reds. The green types are the majority, useful idiots. There's yellows, that were willing to break law to protest. Then there's the 'red' sort, the organized, agitators, propaganda spinsters. That's you. Trying to create a sense of defeat among your opponents, build morale for your useful idiots.

Unfortunately for you, I can look at polling data, compare it to historical polling data and election outcomes, and see the obvious fact that Obama manages a re-election victory it'll be a once-in-a-century underdog victory.

quote:
realize that most of the problems in our country today are coming from their overarching 'faith' in capitalism


Of course, comrade!


RE: Not That It Matters
By EricMartello on 7/21/2012 6:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was pretty obvious this guy was going to be like this back in 2008, he was still elected. A slim majority might elect him again. California has referendums on tons of things, still bones itself. A more philosophical problem then: is the problem democracy?


I could tell Obama was full of sh!t from the moment I heard him talking in debates and from the comments he makes during interviews. He's a typical salesman type of guy who makes big promises that are inversely proportional to what he has the ability to deliver. He also loves circular logic and speaking for long periods of time without actually saying anything at all.

The fatal flaw of democracy is that despite people having the "freedom" to elect their leaders it's really not much different than a dynastic regime where only the royal family and "nobles" have a chance to lead.

Think about it: you don't get to choose who you really want as a president - the same people running the show in the government ensure that the only choices you have to vote for are the right or left hand...but the hands are part of the same body. The choice is an illusion...you can have any flavor you want as long as its vanilla.

Who has a real chance to become president? They say anyone can, but if you're not "well connected" you can forget about it for the most part. That's why most candidates are out of some ivy-league college like harvard or yale. Sure, anyone can run for president but if you don't have those unwritten qualifications there is no real possibility to become elected.

The final major issue is a dumbed-down voting populace who are unable to think critically and objectively. Look at the average American - they can't figure out that most of their problems are their own fault and not caused by some external force and they're quick to resort to stupidity rather than self-improvement. For example, instead of spending the weekends getting sh1tfaced, using drugs or whatever it is the average moron does...why not use that time to learn a marketable skill or develop a talent? They don't do that because it's easier to blame and complain.

I would not want my kids attending any school that receives federal funding...and to that end, any school that feels the need to use the educational system as a propaganda platform - that is the vast majority. Objectivity is all but lost in this society and that's a problem in itself.


RE: Not That It Matters
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 9:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, instead of spending the weekends getting sh1tfaced, using drugs or whatever it is the average moron does...why not use that time to learn a marketable skill or develop a talent?


Yes, absolutely. If people spent the amount of time the average American spent watching TV every week working on something like that, we might even be able to keep China from catching us in GDP. Fat chance of that, though.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki