Syco21

So because something happens all the time, I should just let it slide? Because Clinton did this or that, it's cool? I was 6 when Clinton was elected, I was 10 when he was reelected, I was 14 when he left office and Bush was elected. I was just barely 18 when Bush was reelected. But this is even worse than just being a piss poor excuse for piss poor behavior. You're stating that you expect your representatives to assault our rights and that it's okay when they do because the courts may or may not overthrow it a decade down the line. Yes, a decade. Because that's how long it takes for things to move through the courts. But then there are other issues as well. The laws must be brought before the courts to begin with, in order to do that, you must have standing. Which means your rights must have been violated. Once you aquire standing, you must then have the funds and ability to take up through the courts. It isn't cheap, it costs millions of dollars to get an issue before the Supreme Court and that's counting the cost you will pay on a personal level. You may not expect your politicians to care, or worse, may not expect them to read legislation before voting on it. But I absolutely do and will not under any circumstance support someone that will not read proposed legislation or take a stand against rights abuses. I will no consent. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are my government, they are representatives of those that vote for them. They are not my representatives. If I were to give up on the government, I would arm myself and fight it or move out to the middle of nowhere and live on a compound. Not continue to vote for who I think is best for the office they run for. This is a strawman argument. I don't want Republicans or Democrats in either the House or Senate and will vote for the candidate most worthy of that position as long as there is a worthy candidate. In the event know one on the ballot is worth voting for, I will not vote. Again, I will not consent to the abuse this country faces. But this is a discussion about the presidency, not Congress or the Senate. The government has already declared me a potential terrorist. They have already marked hundreds of thousands of Americans as terrorists. Or are you forgetting about the no fly list? I'll forgive you for being unaware of the FBI's hilariously insane "You Might Be A Terrorist If" flyers. Not many people know about them because they don't get much news coverage.Things that might make you a terrorist according to the FBI? Paying with cash, interest in remote controlled airplanes, concerned about people not reading your private emails over your shoulder at Starbucks, using multiple cellphones etc etc. I don't worry the government is going to consider me a threat. I'm fairly certain I'm already on a bunch of lists. What did I do? I own a gun, I have MREs, I occasionally buy food for the month, I support rights for gun owners. I support open carry. I have family members involved with local militias. I ain't tellin anyone to prepare for the end of the world. But ya know what? It doesn't hurt. There's always the risk of a disaster or maybe civil unrest that plagues only a few areas. Things like Katrina, or the fire that ravaged my county this time last year, or the LA Riots. You can laugh at those that prepare for times of emergency, but should you ever find yourself in an emergency you're going to wish you hadn't. Except the PARTIOT Act, except HR 347 which was actually an upgrade to a pre-existing law. Except anyone that dies can't get their life back because the court said it was wrong. Except those people who lose years upon years of their life. Except those that find themselves in indefinite detention without lawyers and without due process can't take the matter before the courts nor can anyone else for them because they don't have legal standing or power of attorney. It seems to me your argument is this: Our rights have been violated in the past, so it doesn't matter if they get violated again. The courts will probably overturn unconstitutional laws. Well my rights aren't being violated, so I don't care. Seems to me you are making up excuses to ignore the gravity of the situation. No, it's not the end of the world. But why should it be for us to stand up and say no more? Why should we wait until we're on the precipice of disaster/all out tyranny before we say "ya know what? Maybe it was a bad idea to keep voting for Democrats or Republicans?" There are better candidates running for office, and they are only unelectable as long as people like you refuse to vote for them.

I would have to disagree with this statement. Since Obama has been in office the constitution has not been changed to taking away rights or freedoms from me or anyone else. They don't have to change the constitution to wage war on it. They simply have to ignore it, pass laws that rape the bill of rights and be done with it. There is the example provided by Ghogiel, but then there is also H.R. 347 which attacks the right to freedom of speech. These are just two examples, there are many more. That bill was crafted in secret by Senators John McCain (republican) and Carl Levin (democrate). I have no idea why that bill passed. In a time of war or a huge uprising any Pressident can just declare martial law. I really dont see this lasting long. it will most likely go to the supreme court soon. This peice of legislation might have passed under Obama's watch yet its hardly even a democratic peice of legisation. So you admit that a Democrat co-authored the bill, but deny the Democrat responsibility or Obama's failure to veto? BTW 48 Democrats to 44 Republicans and 1 independent voted for S. 1867. 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Independent voted against S. 1867. Sounds like a Democrat bill to me. But I don't play the blame game. If I were to foolishly blame the Democrats because they had 4 more people vote for S. 1867 I'd be foolishly ignoring the 44 Republican votes it got. Which would accomplish nothing.

Ron Paul stood the best chance of defeating Obama. Ron Paul was favored by Democrat, Republican, independent and third party voters, the last two being most important as their votes are the votes that'll win the election. But the GOP did everything it could to suppress Ron Paul supporters. This is probably because Ron Paul would have done everything within his power to limit theirs. Which is all either party cares about, power. Romney, on the other hand, was one of, if not the, worst candidates because of his abysmal voting record and his knack for repulsing independent voters.Yet the GOP rallied quite heavily behind him. It's funny how hard the GOP is rallying for anti-voter fraud measures, seeing as how the GOP has been guilty of such fraud themselves. I never said that it was my theory, just that the theory exists and that it really does seem like the GOP is doing everything it can to throw this election. Even if they are throwing this election, it could be for any reason honestly. It's more than just throwing their weight behind an unelectable candidate. The GOP really hasn't done much to make Romney a likable person, for the most part they are relying on the hatred of Obama to win. Which is nearsighted, most people don't want Obama in office another four years, even the people voting Obama. It's just that they don't want 4-8 years of Romney and again, the GOP hasn't really worked very hard at changing that mentality. The only reason a third party candidate doesn't have a chance is because the media continues to perpetuate this lie and the majority of people continue to believe it. Third party candidates will never have a chance, so long as people continue to buy into this BS PR campaign designed solely for keeping the big two in power. But you did ask me a question: who would I choose. I would choose neither. Neither candidate is better than the other, both will wage war on the constitution and no matter how much I may dislike one or the other, I absolutely will not consent to the continued degradation of our rights.

Half the Republican hopefuls for the nomination would have been infinitely better than Romney. The issue isn't that Romney was the best Republicans had to offer, it's that... I don't know. Some people believe that the Republicans and Democrats have a secret agreement, whereby they take terms holding the power. Thus the Republicans intentionally threw the elections by choosing Romney over.... Well anyone else. What do I think? I don't know. It really does look like the Republicans are intentionally throwing this election. :mellow:

I voted Nerevarine because, well quite frankly I liked Morrowind just that much more than Skyrim. I also felt that the Nerevarine had more battle experience against tougher foes. Dragons? Pffft, them damn cliffracers man. :ohdear: I didn't add the Hero of Kvatch because f*** that n'wah. Also it'd have been kind of an unfair fight, no? :tongue:

This is the epic death battle of Dovahkiin and Nerevarine. FIGHT!

The was won almost immediately, what was left was a different enemy fighting occupation forces. If an occupation means the war is still going, then WWII didn't end till the 90s. :whistling:

Romney doesn't care about the economy, neither does Obama. All either of them care about is whatever they're being bribed to care about. Don't worry about Romney taking the White House, he wont. Worry about what Obama is going to do when he takes the White House again. I can tell you now, it'll be damned similar to whatever Romney would have done. We have an equal chance of war no matter who is in office. Romney's middle east rhetoric is just Romney saying whatever the Christian and xenophobic Americans wanna here.

A WW wouldn't fix the economy, it would obliterate it.

Interestingly, Carlin made this statement about three years before the Wall Street bailouts. Wonder if he was being figurative or literal. I agree with him for the most part. As long as people keep voting in the same parties, nothing will change. Which is basically what he's saying, if in a more nihilistic manner.

A long time ago, I used to pretend I was psychic. And a lot of people actually believed me. Many of my 'predictions' or whatever were extremely accurate and what have you. Was fun, but easy to convince people you were the real deal.

They can not and will not, which is exactly why you should not vote for them. Rights are not their only weak point, everything is. They are both responsible for the financial crisis that has gripped the US. They are far more concerned with their own power and enriching those that empower them, which is neither you nor I. They will do this at the expense of the people. And while I can empathize with wanting the economy to get better and for there to be better jobs available, I am afterall one of those people, having a good job isn't going to mean anything if the police are able to gun you down in the street or your house or your work with no consequence. Police in New York recently shot 9 or more innocent people. Police somewhere I forget, recently shot and killed a man running for his life from his kidnapper. Police had kicked in doors to the wrong home and shot/killed innocent people and their pets more times than I can count. I'd say that our rights are more important than our economy, because right now, rights wise, things are very bad. But even if you disagree, it wouldn't matter. Because voting for Obama or Romney is just voting for someone that is going to be more concerned with playing politics than fixing our problems.

Whether there is evidence or not Obama was directly involved then, he has directly involved himself now by leading the effort to cover up Fast and Furious. But as i have already said, this really doesn't have much to do with what i originally said, which was a metaphor. Speeches mean nothing, campaigns mean even less. Both parties will continue to appease the rich and destroy our rights. And when i say our rights,i do mean human rights the world over.

No disrespect I understand how you might feel but I think using the word "criminal" is a little extreme pointing to either political party this election. No one who is running this year to my knowledge has ever been a convicted felon. Sure people might strongly believe someone is in the wrong for things they have done, either being fact or fiction, but to characterize and call someone something they are clearly not is really kind of unfair. You can call any politician a liar or a hypocrite but these are mostly subjective lables unless they are actually caught doing something with enough evidence it's beyond any doubt for it to be concidered otherwise. IMO i wish more people in america would atleast try to justify labeling politicians with a good arguement before calling them names and not just saying they read some blog or saw something on youtube or TV. Honestly i sometimes blame myself sometimes doing the same and try to catch myself before making judgement about politicians I would ussualy do research on my own looking at the fact and reading reports from a few point of views on multiple sides of an issue. If people get into the habit of name calling all the time in politics that just leads to hate. i would think everyone can agree no one likes hatred. Hasn't anyone ever taught you not to make assumptions? Didn't they teach you about metaphors in school? The politicians aren't literally bending us over and last i checked, forced penetration is rape and rape is a crime. So the most logical assumption would be that criminal was part of the metaphor. But whatever, doesn't really matter. There's other issues too. Being a criminal is not a matter of being convicted, it's a matter of committing crimes. Being convicted of a crime doesn't make a person a criminal, it only reaffirms the criminal label. Committing a crime makes a person a criminal. Most Americans are. Never the less, many of these politicians are criminals, liars and hypocrites. Romney is both a liar and a hypocrite, that can be easily proven. Obama is also a last, again this can be easily proven, assuming people don't all have short term memory. He made many promises during his first campaign and delivered on almost none of them. In failing to deliver his promises, he conned the American people, I'd say this makes him a criminal. But i guess I'm one of the few that actually want to see our politicians held to their promises and accountable for their lies. Even so, there are other issues as well, Fast and Furious was a criminal operation illegally arming drug cartels in Mexico that has directly lead to the death of thousands of Mexican citizens and several American citizens. This was done without the permission of the Mexican government, they weren't even informed. This was done under Obama, but Bush had a similar operation. Make no mistake, our politicians are criminals,just because they control the judicial system, doesn't absolve them of their crimes.

Voting for one criminal because they promise to use a different kind of lube when they bend you over is still voting to have a criminal violate you. I'll have none of it. I'll vote third party, and even if the person i vote for loses, then at least i didn't consent to being violated.

First, I am currently moving all the crap out of my house into the moving truck and I am just taking a short break right now. So as much as I'd loved to have read Tidus44's post, I was unable due to time constraints. So right now I'm just going to reply to HeyYou's post right before the TLCR. HeyYou, I agree with you for the most part, but disagree that Obama's image as a bad and inept president is mostly or all of the Republican's obstructionist actions. Obama has many sins to answer, though never will. It also wasn't just Republicans that turned everything into partisan politics. Back when my county went up in flames, 50 miles burned in a matter of days, Obama was slow to respond to requests of aid, going as far as to straight up ignore Governor Perry's requests. And when he did do something, it was all politics. 2500 people lost there homes in about a week's time, the fire was a full blown firestorm when it started, with people reporting that the flames were spreading about as fast as they could drive. Put another way, people were literally racing the fire to get away, in their cars. So what did Obama do? Again, ignored our pleas for help and turned it all into a political showboat. Other sins are last year's NDAA, bail outs for big business, craptastic Obamacare, illegal executions of US citizens, Operation Fast & Furious, illegal military attack on a sovereign nation and the list goes on. These are all things Obama is directly responsible for. And yes, I realize that Bush is guilty of many of these crimes as well and that Romney would commit the same crimes. But the point here is that Obama doesn't really need the Republican's help to be a bad president, he just is.

They still had two years of a super majority, two years to execute their own agendas. And what'd they do? Sat on their asses and twiddled their thumbs. That is entirely the fault of the Democratic party. You think it'd have been any different if a Republican was president and the Dems had a super majority? No. Both parties are only out for their own gain and don't give a rats ass about the common citizen. As for the Tea Party cooping the Republican party. lol is all I can say. It's the other way around. The Republicans and their big business backers hijacked the Tea Party. Partisan politics will tear this country apart if something ain't done soon. Too many people blaming "the other party" for the sins both parties committed.

Partisan politics are ruining the nation. Almost no one wants Obama nor Romney to be president. They're just going to vote based on the seriously flawed and foolish notion of 'the lesser of two evils.' People will vote Obama because they don't want Romney, people will vote Romney because they don't want Obama and people will vote straight Democrat or straight Republican because they're blooming idiots. Democrats had a super majority when Obama was elected, but they accomplished nothing. So don't blame Republicans.

I'm in the process of moving and finding a new job. There is also this thread and the way that the mods choose to moderate the section along with the constant threat of "WE'RE GOING TO SHUT THIS PLACE DOWN" has soured me quite a bit.

What is your name, your full name? Your address? Your phone number?

You realize you're advocating for that exactly which you stated you were against, correct? Ugh, these arguments... :wallbash: Pretty sure that, when the founders wrote the 4th amendment, they didn't want blatantly obvious criminal scumbags to use it as get out of jail free card because Officer Jackass couldn't follow the rules. Yet they didn't add "unless they're obviously guilty" to the amendment. Why? Because it would have rendered the amendment meaningless. We have rights, unfortunately that means scummy people can abuse those rights, but that was a risk the founders deemed acceptable. And this is basically just "well, you have the freedom to say what you want unless I don't like what you're saying." The argument that "sure, you can say those things, it is your right. But if we don't like it, you're going to jail" is just plain stupid and utterly destroys the meaning of a right. As many, many people have already pointed out. The most extreme cases of 'trolling' is already illegal. But nearly impossible to enforce. This isn't just an issue of free speech. It's also an issue of privacy and other civil rights that will be violated in the name of "the war on trolls." It's just like the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror." You really want another excuse for the government to track everything you do and say? To monitor your every move? By making laws forbidden a certain type of behavior online, you will create a demand for the ability to enforce those laws. That wiwll just lead to more violations of our rights.

Pretty sure that Angie's List has some sort of tool for a business owner to dispute an allegation. I've never actually used it, so I don't know. I'd think that, if presented with evidence that an allegation is false, and that Angie's List refuses to remove the false allegation, then they would be held liable for the damages. I doubt that most people don't take the damages one can suffer from the internet seriously. If anything, they just don't want to see a bunch of censorship laws crop up. The whole slippery slope problem, it's not just a cliche, and even if it's a logical fallacy, it's still a very real and easily demonstrated.

Alright, there seems to be some confusion so here, let me just ask this. Ginny, are you in favor of new laws regarding this issue?

Ginnyfizz is forgetting a very important middle step here, that's knowing exactly who it is that's targeting you. A lawyer isn't going to spend time and money trying to chase down a ghost that is likely unable to pay the settlement. If you already know who it is and that they can/will pay and there is a good chance of winning, then surely there are lawyers that will work with you on contingency already? I'm not really sure what you want, Ginnyfizz. This is why I posed my question earlier, which was a question, not a quote. I wasn't misrepresenting you. Vagrant0: Piracy is an entirely different matter and most legal cases amount to racketeering. Lawyers take these cases because they can file blanket lawsuits that targets thousands of people and then send them extortion letters, which rakes in a net profit. Now can we stop discussing piracy? Forum rules makes discussion of piracy passed lawsuits a veritable minefield.

Both of you forget that you can file a john doe lawsuit, then have a court order issued for getting the information you need and that you can file without a lawyer. What do you want? The ability to just call up the ISP and demand all the personal information of someone without requiring a court order? Kay, now that stalker that you hate so much can have easy access to all of your personal information. While you're cutting through red tape to have the police/courts do something, they are hiding in your bushes outside your front window.