• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 394 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
um, you voted for the folks who created the surveillance state to start with. Then they create the surveillance state. Then you get outraged. Then they, like Lindsey Graham who's "glad" that the NSA is wiretapping, express their continued support for it. And then what do you do? You vote for them again. I don't think you get it. Prolly never will.
Not just that idiot Lindsey doing the supporting.

Blinded by the party line.

We see those true colors.

Hope and change. LMAO at you for voting for numbnutzz.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
How about Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who today is trying to tamp down the scandal? Maybe it is not just the neocons.
Nope, not just the neocons. That's why I said Congress, too. I see that you decided to ignore that though, eh? Didn't quite fit with your narrative? But still, yeah, mostly the neocons. Like, say, Lindsey Graham.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/lindsey-graham-nsa-tracking-phones-92330.html

Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.”
Turns out the right is a big fan of big government after all, just so long as it's spying on Americans and not, say, providing health care.

Let's face it. You are not a Democrat
Never said I was.

You are a loyalist
To the Democratic Party? Nope. I don't like either party but I generally dislike the Ds, who are still mostly sane, a hell of a lot less than I dislike the Rs, who have for the most part gone completely insane. But I suppose the accusation has to be made for the narrative to work, eh?

who is perfectly happy to see your party do something while being outraged if the opposing party does the same thing.
Sorry, when did I say that I was perfectly happy to see this? I must have missed that part. I do remember being, as far as I know, the only one here who has said that the only real scandal of the past month is the AP story, not Benghazi or IRS. Not sure how or where you're going to squeeze that into your framing, but in any case, try to keep up.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And then circle back to us retards that have a big distrust of big government.

It doesn't matter which side or who is in power. The bigger the government gets the less freedoms you and I will enjoy.

"But the government is the people!" No it's not.
Although when you create a security threat, then government measures inevitably follow to counter-act such a security threat, initially in the “public interest,” for which individual liberty necessarily gets sacrificed. The problem then becomes under which circumstances, and to what degree, does that individual liberty gets checked. At this point it's obvious that those controlling the dialectic assume a power and responsibility that goes beyond measure, how much more so with modern technology?

Though it has been this way with the rise and fall of every empire throughout history. And it is entirely a consequence of the "good times." Nothing lasts forever.

The government has never been "the people," at least that much is clear.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Hope and change. LMAO at you for voting for numbnutzz.
It is not voting for him. It is sticking by him even after it becomes evident that he is a giant fraud and his campaign was a pack of lies crafted to be the exact opposite of how he would rule.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Not just that idiot Lindsey doing the supporting.

Blinded by the party line.

We see those true colors.

Hope and change. LMAO at you for voting for numbnutzz.
And let's-get-tough-on-terrorism John McCain or Mitt Romney or a Republican Congress would've put a stop to it? Or is it that you just expect it from the Republicans but not from Obama?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
And let's-get-tough-on-terrorism John McCain or Mitt Romney or a Republican Congress would've put a stop to it? Or is it that you just expect it from the Republicans but not from Obama?
Did those two run for the presidency with a giant fraud like this?

"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
It is not voting for him. It is sticking by him even after it becomes evident that he is a giant fraud and his campaign was a pack of lies crafted to be the exact opposite of how he would rule.
Like I said above, the alternatives were John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom ran on a get-tough-on-terrorism platform. What do you suppose it would've been like under a McCain or Romney administration? Yep, I'll stick with Obama as the lesser of the evils, thanks.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
Like I said above, the alternatives were John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom ran on a get-tough-on-terrorism platform. What do you suppose it would've been like under a McCain or Romney administration? Yep, I'll stick with Obama as the lesser of the evils, thanks.
It is cute that you think there is any difference.

"Barrack 'Milhouse' Obama, not quite as evil as the alternative." Maybe that should have been his campaign motto instead of, "Change we can believe in."
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
Did those two run for the presidency with a giant fraud like this?

"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."
So again, do you think McCain or Romney would've put a stop to it or do you just expect it from them and Obama's the fraud because you expected more? Which one of us thinks he's the Messiah again?

These are powers granted to the POTUS by stupid, shortsighted acts of Congress after 9/11 in a panic over terrorism. Of course Obama (or any prez) was going to continue them, not my fault that you were gullible enough to think that he (or any incoming prez) wouldn't. The truly disturbing part of this is that it's all legal, and why they are legal is what we should be asking.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
So again, do you think McCain or Romney would've put a stop to it or do you just expect it from them and Obama's the fraud because you expected more? Which one of us thinks he's the Messiah again?

These are powers granted to the POTUS by stupid, shortsighted acts of Congress after 9/11 in a panic over terrorism. Of course Obama (or any prez) was going to continue them, not my fault that you were gullible enough to think that he (or any incoming prez) wouldn't. The truly disturbing part of this is that it's all legal, and why they are legal is what we should be asking.
You are the one supporting this tyrant. You are the one who has steadfastly campaigned against the Bill of Rights because, you know, those amendments, like the second one, are quaint and outdated.
 
VeloCity said:
So again, do you think McCain or Romney would've put a stop to it or do you just expect it from them and Obama's the fraud because you expected more? Which one of us thinks he's the Messiah again?

These are powers granted to the POTUS by stupid, shortsighted acts of Congress after 9/11 in a panic over terrorism. Of course Obama (or any prez) was going to continue them, not my fault that you were gullible enough to think that he (or any incoming prez) wouldn't. The truly disturbing part of this is that it's all legal, and why they are legal is what we should be asking.
Easier to sit around mocking and hating the public face of the new regime than to do anything about it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
It is cute that you think there is any difference.
It's cute that you can't understand what the difference would've been.

"Barrack 'Milhouse' Obama, not quite as evil as the alternative." Maybe that should have been his campaign motto instead of, "Change we can believe in."
Surely after "compassionate conservatism" you'd have become a bit more cynical about campaign slogans? Apparently not.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
It's cute that you can't understand what the difference would've been.
Maybe you should explain it to us because I am having a hard time seeing how they could have been any worse.

Was McCain or Romney going to collect your underwear size on top of your phone and internet history?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
You are the one supporting this tyrant. You are the one who has steadfastly campaigned against the Bill of Rights because, you know, those amendments, like the second one, are quaint and outdated.
Sure. You just go with that.
 
BroDeal said:
Maybe you should explain it to us because I am having a hard time seeing how they could have been any worse.

Was McCain or Romney going to collect your underwear size on top of your phone and internet history?
Who cares if the government collects your phone and internet history?
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
BroDeal said:
With public funding there will be more loons and the non-loons or less loony will have a harder time distancing themselves from the more loony because they won't have a financial advantage.

The only reason Romney was able to get the nomination was by outspending his Republican rivals by three and four to one. Without that advantage there could have been a coin toss's chance of a religious nut like Santorum, or one of the other dregs that ran for the Republican nomination, being put in the presidency.

As it is, it is only a matter of time before we get the equivalent of a Bachman or a Palin elected. There has been a marked decline in the quality of candidates. Public funding would make it even worse.
That isn't the case. Germany and France have elections primarily funded with public funds, and the less Looney are the ones that get elected. Period.. Your position is not backed with facts.

Again, look at the quality of candidates from states like SC and tell me there is some measurable difference. Those countries also do not allow funding from corporations that receive government subsidies or benefit. There is a middle ground between our positions, but your arguments against public funding are not based on facts.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
Maybe you should explain it to us because I am having a hard time seeing how they could have been any worse
Sure. Read up on McCain's proposed cybersecurity bill, all in the name of fighting terrorism. Keep in mind that's what he wanted as a Senator, ie with comparatively limited power. Imagine what he would've be capable of with the powers of the prez. Sky's the limit.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
BroDeal said:
You are the one supporting this tyrant. You are the one who has steadfastly campaigned against the Bill of Rights because, you know, those amendments, like the second one, are quaint and outdated.
Dude, people living under ACTUAL tyranny would be laughing at you if their governments allowed free access to the intertubes.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
um, you voted for the folks who created the surveillance state to start with. Then they create the surveillance state. Then you get outraged. Then they, like Lindsey Graham who's "glad" that the NSA is wiretapping, express their continued support for it. And then what do you do? You vote for them again. I don't think you get it. Prolly never will.
Never voted for Lindsay Graham. Or Diane Feinstein for that matter.

The surveillance state was created in a total republican vacuum. Yeah, I remember that.:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Like I said above, the alternatives were John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom ran on a get-tough-on-terrorism platform. What do you suppose it would've been like under a McCain or Romney administration? Yep, I'll stick with Obama as the lesser of the evils, thanks.
Change a few names and you get why I voted for Bush twice.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
That isn't the case. Germany and France have elections primarily funded with public funds, and the less Looney are the ones that get elected. Period.. Your position is not backed with facts.
France is not the U.S., and you are not cynical enough if you think giving free money to whoever can gather a collection of followers won't result in more whackos getting elected. They are already being elected at lower levels when they have to convince their fellow citizens to reach into their wallets.

Listen to Rush, Beck, or Hannity and tell me loons won't be able to get enough support to qualify for public financing.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Dude, people living under ACTUAL tyranny would be laughing at you if their governments allowed free access to the intertubes.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
BroDeal said:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
When have we ever been truly free? -- ChewbaccaD

Referring to Obama as a "tyrant" is so hyperbolic, I don't know that we can have a rational discussion anymore.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
BroDeal said:
France is not the U.S., and you are not cynical enough if you think giving free money to whoever can gather a collection of followers won't result in more whackos getting elected. They are already being elected at lower levels when they have to convince their fellow citizens to reach into their wallets.

Listen to Rush, Beck, or Hannity and tell me loons won't be able to get enough support to qualify for public financing.
They are already getting elected...and under this system they are also beholden to the people who financed their campaigns. All I am suggesting is that the latter part of that equation become the citizenry in total and not the special interests that they are today.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS