What's so bad about the NDAA?

So, a long time ago I got into a debate with another user here named Fiery Penguin of Doom. He said that Obama was a bad president for signing the NDAA. From what I recall, the argument was that the NDAA allows for indefinite detention of american citizens.

This is a commonly misunderstood thing. At the time I had never read the act, but since then I have. It's a fairly long bill, but let me just point out the highlights.

Here's the whole thing for everyone's reference: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Firstly, the most important part. Does the NDAA allow for indefinite detention of american citizens? No.

The relevant sections for indefinite detention are sections 1021 and 1022.

To summarize, the Act doesn't in fact grant the government any new powers. It merely affirms powers that the federal government has had since its founding, that is, the ability to capture and detain enemy combatants, or substantial supporters of enemy combatants. By substantial supporters, what's being referred to here is the Geneva Convention's legal statements as to what counts as a substantial supporter, that is, people who shield them, harbor them, feed them, and a number of other things that american citizens, and even foreign citizens who are merely activists and journalists and protesters have absolutely no fear of being arrested for.

This is not new. As I said this has been around for awhile, this particular formulation of the federal government's power to detain indefinitely(which isn't applicable anymore to the NDAA, and I'll get to that in a minute) since at least 2001. And it's been around far, far longer than that, and I can cite a precedent dating almost a century back, known as the Espionage Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

As well as the Sedition Act of 1918. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Bear in mind that the Sedition Act was repealed by congress in 1920, but the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1919. Yes, near the end of the article it states that another unreleated Supreme Court decision makes it unlikely that such a law would pass today, but it's uncited, and the case cited has nothing to do with what's being referred to in these acts and the NDAA.

So where does the current formulation of detainment that the NDAA talks about come from? The AUMF of 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Let it be made clear once more that just because you're an activist, or you're anti america, or a protester, or a journalist going into enemy territory, none of these make you in danger for being detained under the NDAA. If you're an american citizen, you'll be fine...unless you join Al Qaeda for some reason. Apart from that, neither the NDAA or the AUMF grant the government the ability to just arrest you whenever they want for 'national security reasons'.

As a matter of fact, the NDAA introduces something that's actually kind of a good thing. In Section 1021 I believe it is, paragraph 4, it goes over a way in which the president must go through certain obligations in order to release a detainee. In paragraph 1 of that section, however, there's a waiver clause that allows the president to issue an executive order to supercede all that, and just let someone go.

HOWEVER, here's where we get to the BAD part about the NDAA that I never see anyone mention. Sections 1026 and 1027. This part of the act essentially makes it impossible to close Guantanamo Bay. Why? Because closing Gitmo requires that we send our detainees currently being held there back to their homeland. And we're not allowed to do that now, because the homelands of the detainees that haven't been found guilty, like the country of Yemen, who have a policy that all repatriated criminals are to be tortured and interrogated. Under the NDAA sections 1026 and 1027, we cannot send detainees back to countries that will torture them. This creates a stalemate. Close Gitmo, and let the detainees be tortured by their home countries? Or leave it open, a place that's well known for unscrupulous activity, and would be best for the United States' image at the very least to close. Well, thanks to the NDAA that decision has been made for everybody.

On a good note, however, the NDAA doesn't allow for indefinite detention of anyone. Not even terrorists. At least not anymore. What it allows for is detention until the ceasing of hostilities on the part of the United States, which at the current moment has an end date of 2014. So in essence, as of 2014, we have to let all of our detainees go, or try them through due process, or, if they're found innocent, both.

As if to make things as crystal clear as possible, Congress is submitting at the current moment the proposed wording of the NDAA for 2013. In it, sections 1032 and 1033 are kind of important to this subject. Link here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text



Before I go, one more thing. There appears to have been quite the hullabaloo in recent months concerning the NDAA with the court decision made in favor of a Mr. Chris Hedges.

Essentially, the case was Hedges, and two other people, neither from the United States, suing the government for the fact that the NDAA existed, because they felt threatened that it would take away their due process if they were for some odd reason found to be from Al Qaeda. The court ruled in their favor. However, there have been developments because of this that you can read on lawfareblog.com.

Here is the second court of appeals and the order made to them to stay this decision: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hedges-stay-order.pdf

This is the government opening to the second court of appeals, and, if it goes that far, the Supreme Court. http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hedges-Opening-Brief.FINAL_.FILED_.pdf

Essentially, paraphrased, it goes like this. "Proper reading and legal interpretation of the NDAA of 2012 demonstrates that absolutely none of the plaintiffs in this case are in any danger when reviewing their stated goals of being detained under the Act. The ruling was made rashly, without precedent, and ignored many legal preceedings."

Now, if you doubt that 'proper interpretation' is anything more than smoke and mirrors, Harvard Law Senior Fellow Benjamin Wittes has this to say about the supposed 'vagueness' of the NDAA.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/is-the-ndaa-vague-or-overbroad/

And now! For the TL;DR version.

Yes, the NDAA 2012 has flaws, but the flaws are not in any way that american citizens are going to be detained under some conspiracy nutter idea of a police state. If you doubt that, read the legal decisions, read the precedents, read the act, just..just read a LITTLE BIT, instead of whatever website or blog fed that line to you under false pretenses.

Upon reading the relevant sections, BigLundi is right. The bill very specifically states its limitations to scope only Al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups and it even includes a provision specifically outlining the security of the American Citizen.

The fear was, and may continue to be that if terrorism is not defined(which it was here), then any act deemed to be 'hostile to the government', could constitute indefinite detenion. And 'Government' can be very vague(IE: It could mean political support for the President and the political party to which he's affiliated.)

Nevertheless, Biglundi I do have concerns: If this law only states what previous legislations allow, and what the Geneva Convention allows. Then why the passage of, or even the creation of this bill? My guess, is somewhere hidden within this large bill, is the usual pork barrel spending, wasted projects, etc.

[color=#2e1a6b]There are 2 major problems with the 2012 NDAA, neither of which you addressed:

1. There isn't any precise definition of "terrorist".

You stated that


[color=#2e1a6b]But you didn't provide a source for this claim. Without a clear definition of a terrorist, the definition can be made to include people like me. This isn't just me being paranoid; it's actually really easy to be put on the suspected terrorists list. I wouldn't be surprised of the NDAA extended to suspected terrorists.

2. The lack of a fair trial.

This was the most significant part of the bill that sounded all the alarms. A trial is a safeguard against unreasonable sentences by the government. If the NDAA allowed for indefinite detention of citizens with a fair trial, I'd be ok with that, and most people would be too. The combination of a vague definition of "terrorist" to allow for unreasonable sentences, and the lack of a trial to protect us from unreasonable sentences, makes this a very dangerous bill.

Some people have said that it's ok since it's the government won't use this power (or at least not on me). But we wouldn't know if the government was using this power or not, and even if they didn't, there's no good reason for letting them have this power.

As you might notice, the bill is quite fairly long. The NDAA for 2012 was essentially just talking about the year of 2012's national defense policies and budget. A nice summation of the plans for the year, nothing more.

On the bright side, even if it DID apply to american citizens AND removed Habeus Corpus, it'd immediately be struck down in the Supreme Court court. Which is hasn't been. So there's really nothing to worry about.

I referenced the bill itself, and the relevant sections for you to look at. LustfulAngel read it, and understood, I'm wondering if you did the same.



Which is given, they name the exact organizations they're targeting in the bill.



Well it hasn't been, so no worries there.



Well, if you can cite the passage in the NDAA that says it applies to american citizens who are merely 'suspected terrorists' then you might be able to form an argument. Thus far, this is all if's and maybe's.



I'll go ahead and say this again. There are no new powers given to the government in this bill. So to call it dangerous is absurd.

As far as the government not offering immediate trials to those captured, that would be because those people captured would not be those subject to constitutional law, I.E. not american citizens, or traitors, and being a traitor is a very specific not very vague term. It's a simple act of performing actions that aid the enemies of the united state,s like what Bradley Manning did, violating his oath to the american service and leaking thousands of papers he never read to the public.

Edit: I should be clear, Bradley Manning wasn't arrested under the NDAA, nor was his detainment indefinite, he has been charged for over 2 years now and he has a court date.

I don't think of Bradley Manning as a traitor though. To be a traitor of the country, is to undermine the country's security, its chances of prosperity, etc. In my opinion, Washington through various political means has long undermined this countrys prosperity and ironically enough its own security(The TSA being one example where many Republicans and Democrats agree)

We simply cannot allow ourselves to devolve into a state where we say "Its the Government, so its okay", this is the biggest philosophical difference that I have with you Biglundi, as we discussed it.

Rather than the NDAA, Obamacare("The affordable health care act") is Unconstitutional, for it violates free market principles: Both on the account of free choice.(Living is NOT a requirement, and that's essentially what the corrupt Supreme Court ruled.) And it has created a Monopoly for Health Insurance companies.

Whether these companies compete against each other is irrelevant, because the Act has given the Industry itself a pool of buyers whom are now required to actually purchase their service.

This Act, as well as U.S. VS Citizens United(where in the Supreme Court allowed for foreign entities to violate our American political processes, and we saw this with Netanyahu openly campaigning for Romney), has been the final line in the sand drawn by this board, formerly made of the Founders good intention, now its far from a regulator of the Law of the Land, but the Law of Politics.

Whic his exactly what he did. So yeah.



Not at all. The government, specifically the Obama administration is why we're not in a depression right now, and they crack down on our enemies that wish to kill us(killing Bin Laden). So they seem to be doing the exact opposite of what you accuse them.



I don't think things are ok 'because the government did it'. I think it's ok because of the positive effects.



The Supreme Court didn't rule that living is a requirement. Just that it's not unconstitutional to afford a tax to people who don't buy health insurance.

If you think that's unconstitutional, cite me the passage in the constitution that directly restricts things like the Affordable Care Act.(Btw, it's funny, because the only people who it matters as far as constitutionality goes is the Supreme Court. Sorry if you don't like that but that's the fact of the matter.)



Yup, and those services are still a choice. So they still need to compete.



...You mean...Netenyahu...supporting one of his close colleagues for over 30 years?

I have to ask...the fuck is wrong with that?

All that court case said was that independent corporations and unions are allowed to do what they want in political campaigns, and restricting that violates the first amendment.

So...it was the court saying, "Unions and corporations within the united states can spend money to say whatever non-slander non-libel things they want about whatever political candidate they want."

So...what's wrong with that? Netenyahu is in no way connected to that court case.

A philosophical statement: "If what you're doing is right, you have nothing to hide." If Washington persecutes people(whistleblowers) for letting out corrupt information, then perhaps Washington shouldn't be a corrupt hell hole.

But, that's just fine by you because you perceive positive effects, whereas I see none.





This argument is so laughably flawed, even for you. Unemployment is around 8%, give or take. Economic Sector Growth been incredibly slow, and Obama's solution post-election is to hold taxpayers at gun point.

And I must say, as a former Liberal I find it incredibly distasteful that we give the government credit for our military carrying out it's assigned missions. So, had Bin Laden died under Bush's watch, Bush and the Republicans could claim they've kept us safe from terrorism, while there's a border in Mexico to which the Departmen of Homeland Security doesn't want to invest 800 measly million dollars(in comparison to it's gross overpay?)

How to properly judge the President on foreign policy? Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan. He disengaged from Iraq to engage in Yemen, in Libya, in Somalia and others; sorry if I believe his Nobel Bell Peace prize is a joke.




Which are? Let's take Obamacare, what good is Medical Insurance for anyway?

Easy and affordable access to medical care and various medicines? That surely sounds like a good product. However, let's evaluate the product more closely: The product takes income away from the middle class family even more. And the more health problems, the more you age, the more the cost goes up.

In terms of economics(which I'm majoring in), I'd have to be honest with you: It's an absolutely craptastic product. The majority of Middle Class families could save their money, purchase their own insurance(if they wanted to, which I sincerely doubt) or invest in the economy, or do a bunch of other things that would lead to their health, prosperity and living longer.

Taking a look at other countries where this is tried, Britain's health care is notoriously hated for its long lines and non-effectiveness. Britain's sister state Canada suffers the same fate

Universal Health care works in Japan...except it has 1/3rd of our total population!

Europe generally speaking has much smaller population numbers as us as well, which is why they're able to pull it off. To accomplish a true Universal Health Care system in America, universal prosperity is necessary.

IE: I endorse the Republican Plan. Individual Insurance programs, let the middle class decide if they actually wanna waste their money like that. But if we were to lower the costs of high quality foods(such as Organic), make health technologies such as Stem Cell Therapy available to all classes of America.

There were many ways Obama could've went, instead, he pandered to the insurance lobbyists who wrote the bill. Obamacare has killed the free market. To be fair, it's not the first time(the second bailouts and the consolidation of corporations and banks)





The Boston Tea Party of 1773. The American People didn't put the President into office, just so he could tax them at gunpoint and demand he buy a service(a service, which I outlined is an absolutely AWFUL service. It's only useful if you expect to get sick. And even then, wouldn't you rather the cash to go towards maintaining a healthy lifestyle?)

I view the purchase of Health Care as a tax in of itself on your income. For, otherwise, you'd use it elsewhere. But it's not just the 'penalty'(tax) that's unconstitutional. You seem to be ignoring where I state the President has forced the American Populace to buy a product whether they like it or not.

That's a violation of the commerce clause. Hell, it's a violation on the first amendment, as well as the fourth amendment. Being free in your own person, also means having the right to purchase or not purchase whatever you desire.

But you see, none of this matters anymore because the Supreme Court isn't even a Court anymore. It's a political board, with political opinions that's now masquerading as the 'law of the land.'

It's the law of politics, and it's the law our Fathers fought against. And it's the law that in tradition with our Founders, I also will lawfully protest and debate against.




So, at least you openly admit the competition is little more then a masquerade. What the Act ensures, is that every insurance company will have more customers than they did previously. The President himself brags: "Everyone'll be insured."

That's a monopoly in the traditional sense, the Founders rejected it. It goes against a free-flowing economy. It thereby is against American interests.Can I call treason yet?






Oh boy, where to start. First off, there's the Sedition Act that you cited that started this thread. The reason that Act was made, is that the Founding Fathers knew that British Agents infilitrated the country and sabotaged it from within(Alexander Hamilton was one of these Agents. Without him, there wouldn't be a Federal Reserve today). In anticipation of these developments, is the reason that only a Natural Born Citizen(I don't care about the Obama case, before you go there.)can be a commander in chief of the United States.

They didn't want a conflict of interest, least of all a takeover of the country's political processes. And when Netanyahu, a foreign leader of another nation comes to prostrate before our congress, then campaigns for a political leader that would best serve his own interests, that undermines American Nationalism.

Many of your fellow Liberals, Big Lundi were livid in fact. You should've seen some comments on the Vine(an MSNBC message board). Secondly, I'd like to see this 'connection' for over 30 years, as I would cite the sedition act.

Romney's loyalties as a governor of an American State are simply put if he wants to remain in that capacity: To the American State, not to any other allegiance or person.


Secondly, I'd like to quote Senator McCain: You're very eloquent with your words Lundi. But you miss the point: http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/jan/20/explainer-can-foreign-companies-make-political-donations/


Even your own President spoke against the ruling, noting that it would reverse a history of law. The Supreme Court has betrayed this continent one too many times, the Patriot Act should've been struck down as unconstitutional, Bush's power grabs were unacceptable regardless of party affiliation.

If you believe I cannot abolish the abomination that is the so-called Supreme Court, then I demand a populist resolution: Have all sitting justices be non-political in nature. I'll take 5 honest men, over 5 corrupted, political thinkers. Give me men and women who studied to be honest, ethical judges and have the people vote them in. Screw Congress.

Congress's power over the judicial comes to an end. It's against the country's interest.

1. What corrupt information? He didn't even read most of the papers he released.
2. Yes. There is a positive effect to deterring people from betraying oaths they swear to the country in order to get access to top secret information that could very well put the united states at risk.



Do you know what would have happened without Obama's stimulus package? And how is he holding taxpayers at gunpoint?



Yup, and I would have given them credit for it.



What are you even talking about?



Ooookie dokie. Can you cite for me exactly where Obama sent in troops all willy in Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, to start little wars there too? And the reasons for it?

Also, it's just the Nobel Peace Prize. No Bell.



Specifically, the Affordable Care Act makes healthcare more affordable. Can't argue with numbers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/health_reform_for_small_businesses.pdf



No it doesn't. The tax we pay is exactly the same as it was before, and will remain the same, which for 51% of americans is nothing, after we get our tax refunds. And if you don't have enough money to buy healthcare, like, your budget doesn't allow for it...they subsidize you the money themselves.



So the same problem with literally any and all healthcare systems? Meaning it's not an argument against obamacare at all?



I don't think you've read the Affordable Health Care Act.

They can still purchase their own insurance. Not sure why you don't think they want to buy health insurance, since the vast majority of americans do own health insurance, excluding a large portion of LOWER class america. So clearly the middle class lieks having health care. And the tax is not increasing for them...so the same money they spend on the economy or 'a bunch of other things' is not changing in the least.



So is ours. Every doctor I've ever visited in my life has almost half a day wait times. The only way you'll see anyone automatically in america is if you're rushed to the emergency room. That's it.

And let me tell you, non-effectiveness is not a valid critique. It's highly effective.

And please don't give me the whole, "Why do all the rich people form the world come to the U.S.?" line that Glenne Beck likes to give. Because it's a limited sample size. Oh, wow, rich people can get the best health care? Go figure. The reason the United States' health care is as good as it is for rich people is because it is(and under Obamacare, wil lremain) capitalistic. that is, the more money put into it, the more effective it becomes, because we get good machines, good education, better facilities...and the rich people who donate the money to get these things get seen first and foremost.



Not an argument. It also has a 20th our country size. The whole country is smaller than California. What does that mean? Oh yes. It means they have less room for medical institutions. So they can only support a smaller population than ours. We have more room, way more room, and can make way more institutions.



Universal prosperity is an empty term to me. It just feels like rhetoric.



Problem with that is that they already do. And they don't consider it a waste of money. And the Affordable Health Care Act still allows you to pick and choose insurance programs.



And if we had magic wands we could summon rainbow farting unicorns. Hypothetical "If we did this" statements when the "If" is impractical and cannot be done don't mean anything.



If you think Obamacare has killed the free market, you don't know what it is.



So nothing constitutional then? I guess you can't say it's unconstitutional then. The rest of your paragraph didn't reference the constitution at all, which is what I asked for, so I'm skipping it.



You mean the same clause used to make marijuana illegal? You are aware al that clause says is that congress controls taxes right?



Is not in either amendment.



Rendering this statement not true and irrelevant.



Well that's just your opinion not substantiated by any facts.



Our Founders are irrelevant to current law. The constitution is a living document, their original intent is irrelevant to interpreting the constitution. The constitution is not interpreted through original intent by anyone who can even be remotely taken seriously. Sometimes current law is in line with what they wanted, but not BECAUSE it's what they wanted, such as a secular state.



I'm really not understanding you here. You say that they don't need to compete anymore. I say they do. And you say that I'm admitting they really don't.

What?

Also, monopolies weren't made illegal until our Founders were long dead. So how do you know "It's not what they wanted"?

Free market economies are only good with some levels of regulation. This is a fact. If any regulation put into play in the free market is treasonous, you need to call our Founding Fathers treasonous. Since...you know...it was them that began the federal bank in the first place, which regulates money in the economy.



...What the fuck are you talking about? The Sedition Act was made in the early 1900's. The Founding Fathers had sod all to do with it. And Alexander Hamilton was a british spy? Are you high? I'm gonna need evidence dude.

The Sedition Act that I referenced was from the early 1900's. Are you talking about the ones passed by the 5th Congress?

How do you know it was about Alexander Hamilton being a british agent?

Those Sedition Acts were about FRANCE...not Britain.



...Then how come that was put in the constitution years PRIOR to the Sedition and Alien Acts? If the Sedition Acts of 1798 were about making sure only a natural born citizen can be president, why was that already constitutional law prior?



No it doesn't. It just shows a foreign national likes Mitt Romney. If that's against the constitution our presidents should never be friends with any foreign nationals. And if that's the case, are you against alliances? And if so, how in the hell are you planning to regulate international trade without treaty agreements?



MSNBC and everybody who gets their news from them are retarded. They're the Fox News of Liberals. I don't care that other liberals were livid about it...they're retarded. Just like your average Fox News viewer. See, I don't judge all liberals as good or all republicans as bad. There are smart and dumb in both parties.



Ok, can you give me a quote from him that says if he was president, he would reward
Netenyahu or something for his support? Or...is it just that Netenyahu went, "I like Mitt Romney." and you're up in arms because foreign nationals aren't alllowed to voice support for candidates? Because the latter is retarded.



Ummm...So? Foreign companies still can't. Netenyahu didn't financially support the Romney Campaign...he just voiced his support, and independently financed his support. That's still totally legal.




Well...do you know why it wasn't? Or are you just doing the whole, "I don't like it! That makes it unconstitutional!" thing?



I mean, this is childish. "I don't like how the Supreme Court is ruling on things. Therefore we should get rid of them!"

It doesn't matter if you don't like their rulings. Unless you can challenge them on valid legal grounds, cite lawyers and past precedents, among many other things needed to be done in law in order for your cases to have even the slightest bit of merit, your opinion means nothing.

Also, your "populist resolution" would just end up with 5 more politically interested judges.

But let's be clear here, by 'political' judges, we're talking about their personal opinions as to what is just, and they disagree with each other. You seem to think the supreme Court is in unison on their decisions. You are aware that there are detractors in each ruling, as well as detracting statements, right? So when a court ruling passes 5-4, and you don't like the ruling, why don't you like and support the 4 who agree with you? And if you do, are you seriously saying, "Keep getting rid of the ones that disagree with me until all of them agree with me"? Do you not see how ridiculously asinine, vapid, and silly that is? How you have literally no leg to stand on both legally and politically by saying something like that?

I didn't read the whole thing nor the comments because it's a boring subject, i just have a question that always been in my mind abouth this subject :

Why does it matter if it allow or not your governement to do it ? If they want to do it , they will do it , it's not like something was stoping them from doign it . No ? So why does it even matter ?

Actually they can't, even if they wanted to. Believe it or not the us government doesn't have absolute power. Not over its citizens, nor the rest of the world. Once, abou 7 years ago, george w bush tried to file an executive order to prevent guantanamo bay prisoners from the writ of habeus corpus. The U.N. shot it down, as did the supreme court, because it violated international law. Then of course there's the constitution, which our government is also bound to in accordance to the supreme court's interpretation. So if the NDAA really allowed for americans to just be classified as terror suspects and detained indefinitely, the supreme court would deny it in a heartbeat persuant to due process of law.

I, for one am thankful for the videos such as the mass shootings in one particular Iraq event, where our soldiers are taking aim at women and children. In direct violation of the same Geneva Convention you cited. This 'top secret information' didn't put the U.S. at risk, by golly, the civilians already know of their situation and of hostilities.

Sure, our soldiers can proclaim 'terrorism', and that these terrorists hide within neighborhoods, but this isn't the tiny Gaza strip, with limited range of weaponry. This is the most powerful military in the world. There could have been more than enough preparations to effectively target the enemy, while not engaging in mass shootings.

That event, including the known rape and torture cases in Iraq, put a serious dent in the American Public's belief both in the validity of the war, and the ethics of our forces on the ground. THAT is what is meant by 'endangering our security', more like endangering the stagnating support that remained.

Oh, with the exception of you yourself. You've already made it clear that support for a country, means supporting a regime. You couldn't be more wrong. Should this Government betray its oath and pledge, I will sooner stand by you as an American regardless of how much I disagree with you, then I would a regime that betrayed its oath.

The regime is irrelevant, the regime is not America. Its dictatorships that always align the 'nation' with the 'government', the nation is 300 million Americans we are willing to stand with and die for, for the greater good of the community.





Let's discuss what will happen as a result of the Stimulus Package. By all accounts, the reasoning for the package was to stimulate the economy right?

As we discussed, growth of the private sector has been slow, public sector jobs are irrelevant insofar as most of them are temporary and don't add much long-term value to the economy. And so, as an aspiring economist let me simplify it for us all to understand:

Stimulus Package=Spending + Slow growth= Our spending has outgrown our growth, IE: an Increase of debt.(And this is proven, bipartisan groups have already said our deficit is 15 trillion.)

The Markets will eventually reflect this, as well as QE Unlimited. Our government has moved in the exact opposite direction that it needed to. Its moved in the exact direction which caused the calamity in the first place and the claim of many kenyan economists is the drunken shout: "If only we spend more"(because 15 trillion isn't enough for them)

What we need to do, is we need to increase Revenue. And the only way to increase revenue is to put emphasis once again on the American Worker and the American Middle Class. To do this, we have to put an end to the class warfare perpetuated by both parties in Washington.

There's no reason for Wall Street to get special legislation, that allows them to get advance notice on stocks. There's no reason for CEO'S to get 500 X the amount of the average American Worker.

As a matter of fact, there's no reason for these stocks to be worth thousands of dollars more than the American Worker and his duty to the nation. Reducing the amount that can be made from stocks would shorten their value, and would place value back to the worker as the only way the wealthy can make money.


Further more, we must solve the problem that is: That it's virtually impossible for the Worker to become wealthy. A worker is always enslaved to be a worker. A worker's hard work must be rewarded with the eventual realization that his efforts and governance of his own life will lead to riches of his own.

And one way we can do this, is contrary to the debate between Democrats and Republicans: It's not which class of Americans should be taxed(whereas Democrats proclaim they're going after the wealthy who supposedly don't pay taxes).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361165/are-the-wealthy-paying-too-much-in-taxes/

http://constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com/myth-the-rich-dont-pay-their-fair-share/

It's not a matter of the wealthy paying more in taxes, it's a matter of misappropriated funds, as I've outlined above. More taxes on the rich won't bring about an economic resolution, and the rich themselves know that. What will bring a resolution is the reduction of ill-gained monies, opening up hiring of nationals here at home.

In continuing to place a value on Human Capital, a future economic program must be created to see to it, that jobs either aren't lost or if they are lost then we will create new jobs.

This means, lowering, if not utterly eliminating taxes across the board. For taxes do nothing but eliminate the purchasing power, of all races and creeds of the American People. It therefore does nothing but lower Human Capital.


As QE has demonstrated to the American People, the Fed can print out endless streams of money. What does this mean if this government was truly as benevolent as you believe? If this government was benevolent, or at worst, were it any competent it would recognize that this power allows us to eliminate taxes.

More precisely: There's no point to taxes, since we can just print out that which we need in the first place. We not only print out money, devaluing the dollar, but we massively tax all ranks of the American People, putting their value lower.

I hope I've educated you sufficiently on what I believe is our economic plight and the solution that's in front of us:

Humans, which rule our economic system and will until another form of life one day
influences our social stratosphere is of the most economic importance.

However, those financial classes which I assure you neither Democrats or Republicans are targeting(instead, the debate is between the Upper and Lower Middle
classes of America. Neither of whom, would save our massive deficit problems
via some wealth redistribution.) Do not desire an American Economy.

The top 1% are those who've violated the oaths to the People, they've put their organizations overseas, they've forced their American compatriots and workers to either be laid off, or to go overseas. They are the ones who need to reform.

And we reform not via political force, but instead through political will. To convince them that as Americans, their economic future lies in the American Homeland.

Oh, and you asked me where Obama is holding Middle America at Gunpoint? I'll let the President himself tell you of his own agenda.

http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/1868097/Obama-Unless-The-GOP-Acts-Your-Taxes-Will-Go-Up.html

Yes, this is our commander in chief. Holding the entirety of Middle America, and even Upper America at gunpoint just for a political resolution favorable to his own ideas.

Its ironic that this is the same man that ridiculed Romney's 47% comment. The pot calling the kettle black.

The future of America, is a future where all Americans of all classes are treated as One Equal People.





Do you realize how stupid this is? You spoke later in the post about how I lost political standing. No, in this statement my friend you lost all political standing.

Let's say I have a 5-year son named "Mike", I would tell Mike that Bin Laden is a bad guy who killed a bunch of innocent people.

"So Mike, what should we do to him?"

"Kill him"(Most likely, the response)

I mean, seriously. Giving the President, or even that entire defense team 'credit' for giving an order that they should've been impeached for if they DIDN'T give it. Giving it was expected, there's no credit to be given for not being a dumbass.

If political hyperbole about who killed who, or who has the better 'plan' for national security truly matters, then wasn't Mitt Romney technically stronger on foreign policy, as his hyperbole was 'I'd get everyone, not just one man.'?

Strength in foreign policy is about how many conflicts you can avoid, and alliances you can create and strengthen. Not creating more conflicts, and creating more enemies.

Past U.S. Policy has done exactly this, and in Washington's own hubris proclaims itself to be righteous. Obama has been little more than an extension on Bush policies.







Please, excuse me, I mean this:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17fence.html?_r=0

The same government you proclaimed as being benevolent had proclaimed that building this fence, might potentially be a 'waste of taxpayer money', In spite of the fact that our defense spending outdoes every other country in the world, in spite of the fact that we have soldiers in 40+ countries.

But apparently, according to Ms.Napolitano we cannot secure our women and children from being able to go to school and work in fear of the mexican drug lords.

Yeah, excuse me while I vomit.





Gladly:

First, the Libyan case:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/us-military-intervention-in-libya-cost-at-least-896-million/


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12835-intervention-in-libya-led-to-attack-on-us-consulate-ex-cia-chief-says

And keep in mind the following:

-Libya did not constitute a threat to American National Security. Libya neither declared war against the U.S. or Allies, nor to my knowledge did they have any warships or fighter planes in advancing on Western Territories.

-Also, in violation of the War Powers Act, the intervention in Libya was neither a necessity and it was commenced without permission from Congress.

The claim was a terrorist attack(the Lockerbie incident), which was neither proven in INTL. Court, or otherwise with evidence pertaining to Qaddafi, and even if it were. Why the resolution in the present era? And what links of a national government to an act of terrorism?

The Libyan war was a power play, that installed true terrorists, a puppet regime that, contrary to the President's propaganda clearly is not a friend of the U.S.

Then, let's take a look at our Somalia Problem:

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0713-Somalia.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/pers-a06.shtml

Libya 2.0, we've propped up a pro-government that terrorizes just as much as the opposing government we propose to oppose. We've crafted the violence in the region, wasting American taxpayer dollars.

Then, lastly Yemen which has a very similar tone to the other inventions, propping up foreign fighters who once combated American Troops and the insane idea that they can be a pro-American regime.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/yeme-j04.shtml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwvqdxxt5nM

The Obama Administration has begun these efforts, either directly or through proxy. And I'm supposed to believe he's some kind of teddy bear for peace Mr. Lundi?

Oh, and I've yet to even mention Egypt which he gave his support for, and the U.S./Nato would've intervened militarily there as well, if not for the border along side partnering Israel, as well as the oil pipelines.


So, what's become of Egypt since? This is brilliant.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle-east/2012/11/30/protests-erupt-after-new-egypt-constitution-passed/INjGi9fJD5A33U81WGJ0ZM/story.html

Only the President and allies would think that giving the Muslim Brotherhood Power was a good idea. And Morsi, who has been groomed through our U.S. Schooling understands enough about Western policy to daft any serious resistance against him.

Hence, being the meditator of the Israeli/Palestinian talks, a clever play on his part.


So it's worse than being as much of a warmonger than Bush, Obama is far more incompetent compared to his peers as well.

Feel free to read these articles, see the chaos in Africa. See the millions of troops on the ground and the wasted billions, partially paid by both you and me.

And for our youth in general, with a struggling economy.









Reading that little propaganda piece, tax credits read to me like an IOU or Food stamps. It doesn't really lower the cost of health care. In fact, paying through an insurance program isn't lowering the cost of health care.

It's treating health care as though it were a company and you were making an economic investment. Unfortunately, Biglundi, while I believe in being healthy, health doesn't necessarily translate to making money.

So Middle America and Middle businesses are losing money hand on foot, and no amount of 'tax credits' is going to change a horrible program.

Even more hilarious, was the following statement:

"Women's preniums go up on merely the account of being women", and not a single source or anything to cite this. Nor a solution, apparently the Affordable Health Care Act is the solution to this supposed problem?

Oh, and we know what the President means when he says a woman's health care? Free access to birth control.

Yes, because that'll make our women healthier, that'll make our society healthier as well! And their only claim that it'll work out that way, was a small study of a few thousand.

It can go just the other way, abortion rates could be unaffected or perhaps increase(if the so-called control fails), and even if it worked out that way. Am I really the only person on planet earth that realized a correlation between the Baby Boomers and the Booming U.S. Economy?

Is it not a coincidence that with less births, come less of a need for production and hence less need for workers here at home?

To me, there's no such thing as an unintended pregnancy, all life has fundamental value. The life that we bring on the earth, propels us to work to sustain it. The life that's grown up, does the same and in this cycle comes perpetual prosperity.

When we Americans once again embrace Nature's greatest gifts and laws, we'll find ourselves on the road to recovery.

And guess what? Should the economy be stronger, there won't be any "unintended pregnancies". That is to say, most women would want to take care of a child, feel like a mother and develop themselves. At least, I'd like to think that.

The only thing unintended is the excessive cost. But the government nor the medical industry addresses that, why? It simply isn't as politically convenient nor
as profitable.

Sick bastards who pull the wool over the guillble's eyes.






Deceptive, our refunds doesn't restore our economic status to the way it was if we weren't taxed. It just gives us additional money in the timespan of the refunds.
And for many Middle class Americans, the few thousand dollars in refunds pales in comparison. I mean, again, let's compare what the government spends on itself.

Still wanna call it benevolent? Taxes, all form of taxes steals revenue, giving it back doesn't make it equal.






*Sigh*, Your reading comprehension needs work. Obamacare forces this problem onto every American whether the citizen is willing or not. The 'problem' also happens to mitigate, if not outright eliminate any positives in the product.

There are many Americans who, when health insurance was in the free market, they rejected the notion. They simply didn't want to buy it. The state grants me insurance, so I'll gladly take it.

But if I had to pay for it Lundi? Not a chance. It's called bang for my buck.
I don't know how many times I, a student of economics and business, have to tell you this is one of America's least valuable products.

It's a product that, under a thriving economic condition would see less sales(Because the people could more easily afford their own care, without having to spend money unnecessarily)

Here, let me dumb it down for you even further:

Choice A: Spend my money unnecessarily, with the only payback bein if I actually get sick(This is the Health Care choice).

Choice B: Actually keep my money, spend/invest it elsewhere and become wealthier as a result.

Health care is a tax, the entire insurance scam is a hoax. American Citizens are giving away money hand on foot. Americans could save hundreds if they didn't have to pay for this worthless piece of garbage of a product.





Of course they 'can still purchase their own insurance', it's now MANDATORY. It's not something to hang your hat on. I never once denied that they could or couldn't, just that it would be better if they could decide on their own when or if they want to get insurance at all. Also, purchasing health care= liking health care?

Correlation does not equal causation my friend. More like many people were concerned about their sicknesses/illnesses, and rather than outrageous medical bills, at least investing a chunk of their income(or I'd call it wasteful spending. What kind of investment is it?) was seen as the better of two hell hole options.

Far from an innovative product that attracts people's desire to buy it.

State Taxes will probably go up, since the State insures many millions of people.
'Health Care' is sadly, not free or anything close to it. To achieve a true universal health care system, we'll need a universal economic system.

What Obama did, again, is pander to the insurance industry and gave them all a monopoly. A pool of consumers they otherwise didn't have access to. Who are now forced to make a decision.

Please, explain to me why forcing millions of Americans to waste their money, regulating themselves as though they were cars is somehow acceptable?

It's an awful product, I don't want to buy it. Obama says I have no choice.

Where's the free market in that?






**Sigh**

Here:
http://www.civitasreview.com/healthcare/father-of-canadian-health-care-admits-its-a-failure/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262943694897016.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Can I criticize it yet? We have 300 MILLION American Citizens. What couldn't even work in Britain, Europe and only work in relatively small countries is NOT going to work here.

Incidentally, the second article points out that physicians couldn't really get paid in Britain's system and hence forced them into private work(IE: For the more wealthier Britons). Yeah, costs are gonna be lowered all right**rolls eyes**

Oh, and I want to quote this because this is brilliant. It's from the second article but in the case that you don't read it:

" The important thing is to reduce the insurance element, which encourages a pay-as-you-go system, a kind of Madoff scheme ensnaring the whole country.

If we are to have health-care systems that don't bankrupt us, people will have to accept paying more bills out of pocket and perhaps lowering their standard of living. Tiresome as the advice might be, we had better start saving a good deal more."

As I outlined in my economic thesis, I slightly disagree with the last part. Americans will be able to, and indeed citizens in the world would be able to pay more and do more, if the amount of their income(resources), exceeded the debt they had to pay.

What we need to do is raise our revenue, and we raise revenue through spending cuts, tax cuts. Putting money back into the hands of the people, instead of bloated governments, corporations, etc. By empathsizing American Jobs, Workers and People. And by punishing those who think they themselves are above the country, their fellow man and their brothers.





What does this have to do with anything? You seem to miss the point where I said it worked in the country. It worked because of the relativeness to it's small size. If the country were larger, if there were a need for an overly large buerocracy it would be subject to failure.

The Japanese were always known for their efficiency, as well as their social beliefs in equality. Oh, and they do a pretty good job of managing costs:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309

If anything, we should reduplicate Japan's efforts, not Britain's. But that would be closer to Universalism, and telling the insurance industry to fuck off.






Yeah, to you, it would.






We'll never get anywhere, will we? Of course it 'allows you to pick and choose insurance programs', it outright forces you to choose them! Look, once upon a time in this great country we believed in something called Self-Determinism.

What it basically meant was, I don't know what you believe in and I really don't care. But as long as you don't hurt others, what the hell? Giving people Vouchers tto save money on their choices, and letting them make those choices on their own free will, will be much better than a failed, centralized and overpriced buerocracy.

I don't admire Britain, the days of admiring the British were done after 1954 and the Bretton Woods convergence.

But, I do believe in Self-Determinism. So I respect your right to believe that devolving this country into a second-world health care system is the best way to go.

If we want this model to really work, we should follow the Japanese model, which would be more pro-citizen, or not at all.






It's impractical to lower the costs to higher quality foods, to higher quality technologies and treatments? It can't be done? But we can pander to Insurance lobbyists? We can concentrate the American Public into one big, unhappy consumer bloc for the industry?

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/surprise-the-people-who-wrote-the-obamacare-bill-have-exempted-themselves-from-its-provisions/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/romneycare-individual-mandate-jonathan-gruber-mitt-romney-barack-obama_n_1637882.html

Gee, thanks, but no thanks. We can receive quality health care without giving the butchers our moneys worth.









No, YOU don't know what it is. Giving an industry a fixed number of unlimited quantities of consumers is a monopoly. The Health Insurance Industry will make millions on this law, Middle America will spend hundreds not by choice but by necessity(not even by necessity but by LAW which is worse)

I've explained it to you: Again, and again and again. But somehow you don't seem to understand the concept.





I think the Revolution, which preceded the Constitution espouses the idea of what a free market should be, why there was a Revolution in the first place and what's acceptable and what's not.

The fact that you 'skipped it', means at the very least that you understand that what the Founders intended, what the American Patriots intended and what Liberals intend with the country today are the polar opposites.

Ask yourself: How well do you think it would've gone over with Americans in the past century or so, if you told them they had to pay into a program without insofar as their consent?

My guess, you'd learn what a pitchfork is like.




http://www.calldrmatt.com/Health_Care_Law_Unconstitutional.htm

You're right, that and to regulate businesses. However, that would be businesses/corporations and NOT individual business and participation. Such centralization is seen in former Soviet Russia.

We fought a war against Soviet proxies in an attempt to prevent Sovietism from expanding Westward. But, the Soviets were correct. Through idealism and Leftism, they eventually found their way through the cracks of the former Constiutional Republic.

If the Republicans have gone far-right, then Democrats have gone far-left, and
neither extreme is reasonable for government.










I left my quote that he responded to in this particular segment to say: Are you MAD? Since you asked the people to read the NDAA bill, can you at least read the Fourth Amendment? Which is against illegal searches and seizures.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

I simply will extend this to economics, people have the right to be secure in their persons, relative to what they buy, sell, etc. This is the only way a free market will actually function. And you state I don't know what one is.









Except, I'm sure Mr. Hudson would agree with my interpretation of the Constitutional reasoning for appealing this abomination of a 'law' that forces persons of the United States to engage in commerce they may or may not otherwise be willin.





If the lower, non-politically biased courts are any indication, the corrupt political 'judges' of Washington absolutely absolve the powers and the philosophies of the former Constitutional Republic.

Political Thought is extremely dangerous to be ruled by, The real threat by Democrats and Republicans is that neither establishes a 'Pro-American Regime', it establishes a pro-democratic or pro-republican regime. Country be damned.


And I could say the same about your opinions, they aren't substantiated by any facts at all. As numerous links I've pointed to, indicates.





Yeah, and it's a god damn shame. You haven't made the correlation of 60 years of political failure yet, or do we need to see four more years of administrative incompetence? Our Founders were some of the smartest people of their time. Their accomplishments remain unrivaled in history. The only thing we had to do was babysit over their creation and we can see the EPIC FAILURE in doing even that.

No, through arrogance, hubris and conceitedness, you think you can do a better job.
I'd like to beseech you, the President and other political powers of our day:

Faced against the world super power(Britain), with a few colonies, massive debt and little in the way of an army. Let's see you(them) rally the English Colonists to their cause, and to fight for independence.

Considering they can't even govern this, highly advanced modern state in your own words Lundi, I highly doubt your fellow thinkers, in their hubris could even manage to govern in their time.

So if you want the Constitution to be a 'living document', if you want your hubris, your ideas to be victorious, then my suggestion would be to govern like you're capable of it.

And the Liberal Democratic Party has four years to do it, and according to MSN and others, you even have the miracle of the incompetent American Citizen: In the case of failing the fiscal cliff, they will blame the opposition that they themselves weakened.

Democrats may never see responsibility until 16. There's no Bush anymore. Time's yours.







The Federal Reserve does not regulate money in the economy(it hyperinflates it. It's privately owned by several foreign banks and it's not even accountable to the government). It's a blatantly anti-American institution. The only positive to it(and it's not even a positive to the Federal Reserve. But rather the currency's status as the world's reserve) is what makes me say: We need to gain control over this aristocracy ruling over America.

Control it, and we'll make America prosperous again(I outlined several economic steps earlier, as to what we could do with the power of the purse under our control. NO TAXES PERIOD...I could make Bush I's promise a real, reality.)

To understand how illegal this cartel is, Presidents Jackson, Lincoln and Kennedy lost their lives(disputably, but I don't dispute. The Mafia's strong) to this syndicate that operates legally in the U.S.






http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/alexander-hamilton/the-foreign-policy-of-finance.php

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/alexander-hamilton/the-whiskey-rebellion---august-1794.php

Hamilton was not a popular figure among John Quincy Adams, Madison or Washington. Its clear through his foreign policy, and through his aggressiveness that the man wasn't pro-American, or rather, wanted his own version of America with British-style policy.

Most of all, his support for the Federal Bank, which I outlined before you earlier was a enigma in which the Founders opposed. The Founders did not believe in
centralization, and strongly believed in the power of the purse.



Incorrect, as the above articles point out. There was strong U.S-France relations(Napoleon sold Louisiana to the Union, the Statue of Liberty. The Battle of Virginia. I mean, HELLO? France has always been a great ally of America)

Those Acts referred to Insurrection, I'll reference to the war of 1812, Jefferson wanted to strip us free from the burden of paying the British Empire, due to high interest rates of the previous revolutionary/civil war. This continues today via Wall Street and the City. I'm glad I get to inform you about monetary political corruption)

Bitterness towards Britain existed well until after WW2, when the British Empire's military and economic decline was evident. Today, there is no British Empire. And if we shook off the shackles of their remaining financial visages, we would complete that which the Founders intended in 1775.







My apologies, I didn't make things clear enough. The Founders were well aware that infilitration was possible, that British ideas could be interjected(and as I've pointed out again and again, look what we have here in America today?) Hence, the naturalism laws. I wasn't saying that the Sedition Acts were about making sure only a natural born citizen could be President.

The sedition laws, in their own way were meant to combat the threat of foreignism though.





And the 'alliance' with Israel has become an entangling
alliance(I can't even call it an alliance in good faith. What, exactly has Israel done either domestically or in foreign policy for this nation? All it's done is waste taxpayer money and engulf us in their religious war, which they are partly responsible for and don't want to take responsibility)

Friendship is one thing, but when that friendship constitutes campaigning for an American Official as a foreign national, that breachs lines that simply shouldn't be crossed. Morsi understood as such, when he acknowledged that in face of the election season, Egyptian policy would have to wait.

Morsi, of course, had to be diplomatic to build relations with the U.S. after they've been stormy with Obama, stemming from the fallout of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi as well as internal criticism inside of Egypt for the Muslim Brotherhood's powergrab.

But, why couldn't Netanyahu exercise the same diplomacy? It was clear Netanyahu wanted Romney, because he knew Romney would be much more aggressive towards Iran, and much more aggressive towards the Palestinian Problem, likely with a Romney Presidency, we would have seen logistic and militaristic support for a ground invasion inside Gaza.

Then there's AIPAC, etc and so on and forth. To get it out of the way: I hold no resentment towards any nationality or ethic groups of people. But does any nationality hold as much(if any) sway over the American Political process as the Jewish do?

Let's put it in context: Japan, arguably our second greatest ally after France. With the exception of the 6-year war(WWII), an alliance that's spanned nearly a century, leading to Japan's own renaissance. The Japanese-American Concentration camps gave the Japanese-Americans plenty of political ammunition, much more so than any the Jewish People can claim to have here in America.

And yet, our relations are just perfect. One can only look out west to see their culture mesh perfectly with our own. The admiration and respect goes both way, as you can see in certain parts(such as PA for example, my home state) adorns the cherry blossom trees.(Though, they don't look as good here as they do in native Japan)

One can claim they have the right to ask us to resolve the Okinawa Problem, wherein our forces use it as pretty much a military base(to protect Japan as the Treaty of San Francisco regulates). Or, they could ask us to be more aggressive towards the North Korean Problem and the abduction of Japanese Citizens.

But nope, no such political pressure. To the contrary, Washington has looked the other way, Japan shrugs its shoulders and goes about it's own business.

This self-respect and our long historic alliance is what makes me politically fond of Japan, and if it were me, I'd be more politically willing to resolve the Okinawa Problem, and the North Korean problem should be an international problem on level with the Palestinian Crisis.








It takes one to know one, you want proof of the transgressions and obvious pandering by an American Official to a foreign power? Don't take it from me, take it from the Benedict Arnold himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NceBVGD-dwM

Oh god, hearing his fawning, over a democracy that doesn't exist(It's theocratic practices are on par with Saudi Arabia), and his politically controversial stance that Jerusalem was purely an Israeli capital, clearly ignored the Eastern side of the city.

Yeah, about that entangling alliance thing again. A century ago, a move like this would've ended Romney's campaign before it even started.







I wasn't even referencing to(or had any knowledge of) if Netanyahu financially supported Romney's campaign or not. Though, I've no doubt AIPAC and other corporations probably did so. Then...there's this:

http://www.rjchq.org/

I remember seeing one of their ads on TV here, and it pisses me off. Again, does another country, or racial group here in America have this kind of lobbying influence?

I mean, the African-Americans have more of a stake, more of a claim to reparations unpaid in the Slavery/Segregation era and the NACCP(National Advancement of Colored Peoples) still doesn't come anywhere close.

And as much as I believe the African-Americans would do well to strive for their independence, and growth as an ethnic group(and I believe they would succeed in closing the gap. Obama is a sign of such hope and aspiration for them), they have the right to make that claim.

Where, does the Jewish national get the claim? It's no less of a foreign power usurping the nation, and I'm through with tolerating it.

Even more frustrating, is again it's nothing against them as people. But whether you're an African-American, Jewish-American, German-American, etc all Americans are born equal under the law, and all interests should be held the same.

Yet, support for 'Israel' holds to quite a different standard. And it shows when the other immigrant nationals in the homeland haven't asked for similar intervention, aid, or otherwise political usurpation.

My problem is with no national ethic group. My problem is my love for the country. We're getting ass-raped in this particular 'alliance', you can at least concur to that.

And I ask you: For who? For what? For nothing. I'd like to see a neutrality with Israel, I think that'd move peace talks very swiftly in a positive direction.









Let's see, wiretapping, searches without a warrant, indefinite detention, Guat. Bay, etc AL? I believe Liberals complained about it strongly, as did freedom right activist groups. Do you not hold these same problems, or is the Patriot Act just fine with you, because you're not a terrorist?

At first, they came for the terrorists and it was okay
Then they came for the protesters and rebels and it was okay
Then they came for me, and there was no one.





Obama made the same decision when he allowed Fagan to precede over the Obamacare case, when she should have recused herself due to the obvious conflict of interest.
If it's permissible by Obama, you should grant me the same intellectual authority.

Of course, instead of upholding an unconstitutional law that you'd like, I intend to create a system where politicization doesn't exist. The Founders didn't want a politically opinionated court.(That screams of the British Courts, subject to rule by the King). If you wish to uphold their political opinions, then I'd say that we're all people and unless you can prove me to be not a person. Then my political opinions are just as valid.

If not more so, since I actually intend to follow that document that you believe is worthless to the letter.(The Constitution) The 'Detracting statements' are irrelevant. You would have to hope to put into place new Justices, who would agree to the detracting statements to overturn the decision. And that doesn't solve the problem of the board being politicized.

I don't think so, there are many Justices(Judges) who became so, purely interested in the Law of the Land. And their style of interpretation may differ. But at the lower levels especially(as I linked to much earlier in the post), you'll see that they hold themselves much closer to the Constitution.

Much like anything else State Versus Federal. State and district judges will rule more closely to the Law, then Federal.

I would appoint State-level justices to the Supreme Court. I'd also revoke the 'Justices for Life' provision. I will not allow politicization and stagnation in the most important board in America.

The politicization of the courts, is a huge part of our problems today.

Oh shit I was excited to do this all day during work. I woke up, saw LA left me a message here, and then I went, "Yay!" Now it's time to play..."How wrong is LustfulAngel?!"(spoiler: he's very wrong.)



Oh, so they weren't secret documents? It was already common knowledge? Kind of makes you wonder what Manning was charged for huh?

Not really, considering the fact that he released far...far...far more than what you referenced, and I don't think either you or I know exactly what ALL was leaked to the internet(you know, where our enemies can get it?) So considering they were secret military files, considering that what you just said was false too, I'm guessing you probably heard about these so called videos of troops 'targeting women and children' from a second hand source and have never seen them for yourself. Probably Wikileaks. The videos released showed no such thing, they showed civilians dieing as a result of collateral damage from a helicoptor strike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Loss_of_rank_and_recommended_discharge



Did Lustful Angel just call a stretch of land 41 kilometers long and 6-12 kilometers wide tiny? Yes he did!

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



Without any sources as to how he knows this, Lustful Angel declares the U.S. military could easily be targeting SOLEY terrorists and avoiding ALL civilian collateral damage. One wonders how he is such a genius as to know the inner workings of the U.S. military to this degree.



Which were found illegal by who? Those goddamned Supreme Court bastards. Why do we still have them again? All the way back in 1999 this shit was declared illegal. Yes, I fully agree that Bush did some heinous things and that he's a war criminal, what of it? What's this have to do with Obama? Especially since the law is not on his side in any way, which does not in any way demonstrate that current law is such the boogeyman you seem to think it is Lustful.



So you know, Manning is totally allowed to break his oath and provide information to terrorists as to U.S. troop activity and locations and a great number of other thigns that might even incite more foreign nationals to join or support terrorist groups, rendering the war on terror possibly even longer than we ever even dreamed it would last, totally cool.

I'm sorry, but whether or not you liked what Manning did? It was illegal. He will be tried, he will be punished. That's that. And it's totally just. He knew it was illegal, he knew what he was doing. But hey, who cares that we're putting troops in unnecessary danger? They joined the military to die anyway, let them be killed unnecessarily! That's what they're there for, RIGHT Lustful? And if that's not right, then you should be every bit against what Manning did as I am.



Since the Government didn't, then I'm unsure what you're bitching about.

You wanna complain about Bush fine, I complain about Bush too, but Bush was not the government. Also, for everyone else's reference, the word 'regime' refers to nothing more than the code of laws set forth by a government. That's it. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain LA doesn't understand what it means, because technically, the 'regime' of the United States is...the constitution. Which he loves so much he wants to roll it up and make love to it.

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



So the constitution is irrelevant. Gotcha.



Speak for yourself, the vast majority of americans fucking hate each other. One needs only look at literally ANY comment section on ANY news story to see the vitriole we all feel for each other. "Fucking democrat liberal douchebag!" "Republican neocon!" "Two party voting sheeple! Wake up you ignorant fucks!"

Paraphrasing of course, but you get the gist. Just go find a political article, guarantee you it'll be there.



Yup, and it worked.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/02/president-obamas-stimulus-bill-report.html



So I'm not in any way educated on economics. Luckily for me I have a wide range of experts on my Skype List I can always reference. And here's what the economics expert said.

"Firstly, no, our deficit is not 15 trillion dollars. That's not even our debt, that's up to almost 17 trillion. And no they aren't the same thing. If he's referring to TARP, he really needs to look up the crumbling state of our infrastructure and the massive damage it's doing to the transport industry, along with rising gas prices, which isn't the president's or the stimulus' fault. We're making the investment now so if consumer spending starts kicking back up we have the ability to get the product to store, plus, that wasn't even a fraction of where the debt comes from. Plus, if you bolster construction work, which is in the public sector, that in fact IS one hell of a job creator, both skilled and unskilled."

As of October, the 2012 deficit was projected to be about 1.1 trillion dollars.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57526960/u.s-2012-deficit-at-$1.1t-estimate-says/

http://www.davemanuel.com/us-national-debt-clock.php

^ current United States Debt.

By the by, if you think debt is a bad thing, you must be against capitalism. Because we need a debt, or we have no capitalism.

http://betonmarkets.info/news/debt_is_the_necessary_devil_that_keeps_capitalism_going

Also this:

. Second, as
Weber emphasized, the calculation of costs of production and
net profi ts in the enterprise requires a monetary standard of
value (money of account). Third, money-capital for both
production and fi nancial speculation is created with loans
(debt), produced by a network of banking enterprises
which realize a profi t from interest. Following Schumpeter, it
could be argued that the fi nancing of production with moneycapital in the form newly created bank money uniquely speci-
fi es capitalism as a form of economic system. Enterprises,
wage labour and market exchange existed to some small
degree, at least, in many previous economic systems, but, as
we shall see, their expansion into the dominant mode of
production was made possible by the entirely novel institution of a money-producing banking system. Capital is
†˜that sum of means of payment which is available at any
moment for transference to entrepreneurs’ (Schumpeter (1961
[1911])).

This is from: http://politybooks.com/keyconcepts/samples/Chapter_3_Capitalism.pdf




John Madden: "See, what we need to do, is we need to make money."*draws circles and arrows everywhere*"Boom!"



You mean what the Stimulus Package did?



So yeah, you're against capitalism. Gotcha. Nobody should be making lots of money. We should all have to make the same amount. My bad, I didn't know you were a communist.

Also, wtf are you ttalking about 'advanced notice of stocks'? That's specifically illegal. It's called "insider trading". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading



See, what you just said is that we increase Revenue, by reducing money.

I mean, I can't make this shit up, it's lulzworthy. You do know that companies(the things in the private sector that employ people) would get no startup capital, if it didn't come back to the investors at some point? You know, make the investors more money than they put into it? "The stock will never go up. So...what's the point of investing in it?"

Lustful, do you pay attention in class? Or have you guys just not covered this yet?



You literally not a few paragraphs ago just said people SHOULDN'T be wealthy, and that we shouldn't make things worth lots of money. So what's your problem?



I don't know where you live, but here, the average worker starts off at the low end of a company, and hard, dedicated work is rewarded through raises and promotions. I'm fairly certain that's how most businesses work. Am I right here or do companies not do that anymore and mine is just a crazy place full of LustfulAngel's dream bosses?

I just got one question. How do we reward workers with money, when you're essentialyl saying the CEO's and stocks shouldn't make anywhere near as much as they do now? With WHAT money are we going to reward hard workers, when you're taking all this money AWAY from the people who do the rewarding? Come on Lustful, start thinking.



Here, we observe as Lustful doesn't understand that there's a difference between income taxes, and corporate taxes. Yes, the rich do end up paying a fairly large amount in income taxes.

But not corporate taxes.

And those are what we're trying to raise.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/05/25/to-fix-the-budget-defcit-raise-corporate-taxes

Fuck, even FOX agrees.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/28/dont-need-to-cut-corporate-taxes-need-to-raise-them/

Ben Stein pointed out that taxes on the rich needed to be raised. Giraldo Rivera pointed out taxes on the rich need to be raised, this is a pretty well agreed upon point. What you don't know is that it's not income tax we're talking about. It's corporate tax.




...

...

...

Did...did LustfulAngel just advocate getting rid of all taxes?

Just...just...I'm not even going to respond, I'll let others do it for me.

http://www.sctax.org/dor_help/Why+Do+We+Pay+Taxes.htm

http://www.finweb.com/taxes/why-do-we-have-taxes.html

What you just advocated is, "The government shouldn't get any money anymore."

Great, then let the poor people starve in the streets, let our federal roads crumble to dust, render us without any army, or any technology whatsoever.

Just...no.




...What do you think would happen if the Fed just printed out millions of dollars to give to every american?

I'll tell you what would happen, our money would be reduced to being worth literally nothing.

We would be in the same position Germany was in during the aftermath of WWI where wheelbarrows full of money was necessary merely to buy a loaf of bread.

Fuck, let's not even mention the world economy and how ruined that would be, since the world's money is based on the value of the U.S. dollar. The worth of the dollar is based on how precious it is, not that it merely exists.



And we don't print a lot, what we do print mainly is to pay for deficit spending and to replace old bills that we burn.

See this is the dumbest part of your economics section of your post so far Lustful, because you KNOW that printing more money devalues the dollar, yet you think we should just print out as much as we want and just give it all away to the american people and the government in place of preserving the value through taxes.



You've educated me as to how uneducated you still are. Go back to class. I'm ignoring the next gigantic part of your post because I just don't care to respond to each and every little thing you say. Else this post will be fucking novel-large.



No, that's him saying what the case is. "Look, if Congress doesn't act, taxes will be raised for everyone. And nobody wants that."

That's not gunpoint, that's pleading with people to get politically involved and not let this shit happen. You ARE aware Obama doesn't have power over our taxes right? The most he can do is submit ideas as to what to do with them to Congress. Congress are the ones who decide what happens to our taxes, not the president. So even if this were a threat from him, the gun has blanks in it.

Also, I take issue with you using the phrasing 'holding at gunpoint'. Taxes aren't gunpoint. Taxes are necessary, and always will be. And your little solution of just printing more money when we don't have enough would financially ruin us, so don't bother coming back with that.



Not really. Obama said it himself in the page YOU just linked:

"One says, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, then everybody's taxes automatically go up - including the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year. Our economy can't afford that right now. You can't afford that right now. And nobody wants that to happen."

He's trying to get done what's best for everyone.



Which is what he's trying to do, and you're berating him for it. And I'M the one that needs reading comprehension skills?



Yes there is. Because they did it. And because they did it, they deserve credit for it. I don't care if you think 'well duh, they SHOULD have done it, therefore what they did deserves no credit' is self refuting. If they didn't do it, you'd be pissed, and since they did, you're saying, "I'm still not satisfied with you."

There's just no winning with LustfulAngel, the government doing what he wants still isn't enough.



Considering he didn't HAVE a foreign policy, then no. It's fine and dandy to say, "I'll be awesome!" But if you can't explain how exactly you'll do it, you're kind of up there with anyone who self proclaims themselves king of england.



Alliances huh? Aren't you the one later in the post that says we should avoid alliances? Quoting Washington to back it up? We'll get to that bit of hypocrisy later, but essentially, I have to just point out that not all conflicts CAN be avoided. Disagree with me if you'd like, but I'm afraid you're just battling reality if you do. Foreign Policy has to do with a wide array of things. Dealing with conflicts efficiently when they arise, avoiding conflicts where possible, helping other nations as an investment, and and dealing with international trade being key among them.



Some of them, sure. But he campaigned on being different than Bush. Bush didn't listen to his generals. Obama did. So, score one for Obama. Bush didn't set an end date to any conflict whatsoever, Obama did. Bush tortured people, Obama didn't. Obama's so much better than bush on foreign policy it's breathtaking.



Please, excuse me, I mean this:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17fence.html?_r=0

The same government you proclaimed as being benevolent had proclaimed that building this fence, might potentially be a 'waste of taxpayer money', In spite of the fact that our defense spending outdoes every other country in the world, in spite of the fact that we have soldiers in 40+ countries.[/quote]

Our defense spending, and deciding not to spend money on a fence that would do nothing beneficial are not in any way connected. You're grasping at straws. I'm against building the fence too.



Really? According to her shit's A OK.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-25/news/29363229_1_mexican-drug-drug-violence-border-agents

Also, What the hell do you think the fence is gonna do? Do you know how much it would cost over time to maintain it? Do you think because there's a fence there the drug cartel will go, "Well, we can't do anything over there now. Look. It's a fence."

You can't be THAT naive.

Gladly:

First, the Libyan case:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/us-military-intervention-in-libya-cost-at-least-896-million/


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12835-intervention-in-libya-led-to-attack-on-us-consulate-ex-cia-chief-says[/quote]

...K...that's not an invasion. That was Great Britain and France trying to help and going, "Shti we don't really have troops or resources. United States! Please? They DO support your enemies after all." And the United States did little else other than essentially sanction the place and enforce it. That's not a war. So your accusation is wrong, and irrelevant.



You have no idea what the war powers act is. And the first one is irrelevant, as this isn't a war. The War Powers Act didn't at all effect the intervention on Libya because this was a NATO operation, not a U.S. operation. And yes, it was the U.S.'s allies that wanted us to do this, made the plans, and gave the orders.



1. There was no war. It was a military intervention. IF you wanna say they're one in the same go ahead, but you're wrong.

2. Specifically, miltiary personnel were used not to fight at all, merely to protect civilians from Gaddafi.

3. As far as the current leader not being a friend to the United States at all, there's nothing I'll be able to show YOU that will change your mind since you literally just declared it all 'propoganda' but from the guy's own mouth, for everyone else's viewing pleasure: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/198110.htm

And yes, he is helping on the investigation as promised.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57513048/libyan-president-determined-to-catch-attackers/



Yo uare aware that we've been doing that since 1992 right? Protecting civilians, providing aid. That's all that happened, that's all that they did.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/saving-somalia-the-next-steps-for-the-obama-administration

The best thing about mentioning Somalia btw, is that it really helps my case that government in general is a good thing. Better a bad government(if you think it is) than no government at all. Otherwise...you end up like Somalia.

In any case, you're kind of right, it is Libya 2.0. In that no war was made, no fighting was ordered, and the pure purpose there was to help civilians.

Fucking Obama, how dare he care about people.



Well he's fighting terrorists, which I see as a god thing.

He's not fighting Yemen. Let's be clear here, he's not at war with Yemen, and Yemen and Obama are on fairly good terms. In fact...what did the Yemen president say about the drones...

Oh right, he fucking LOVES them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/middleeast/yemens-leader-president-hadi-praises-us-drone-strikes.html?_r=0

You think Yemen wants terrorists in their borders? Hell no. So if you really think Obama's just going after a bunch of countries just because he's some sort of war mongering neo con...why don't you ask THEM what they think he's doing? Cause they seem to be pretty happy about what he's doing...only people pissed off are the people who aren't there, and of course, terrorists that we're at war with ANYWAY persuant to the AUMF of 2001. Weird, isn't it?



The constitution still didn't even pass. It's just been drafted, it hasn't even been voted on yet. So what power are you talking about? And what connection do you mean between Obama and believing that he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to have power?

Also, before you get into some crazy shit, make sure your reasoning doesn't fall along the lines of any of these:

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

And finally...do you think Obama's a closet muslim? I really need to know that.



Well, so far in this post you've declared so many false things I can't even list it. You've failed on economics, you've declared Obama is a war monger without succeeding to point out a single war he's started(and yes, I read the articles) and you seem to think the president is a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood for no really declared reason.

And that's just to name a few.

So I've been spending a couple hours now reading your post, reading your links, and finding counterfactual information to your claims, while listening to a friend who knows economics try to explain concepts to me that inform YOU that you're wrong.

I'm going to take a break. I'll debunk the other half of your post tomorrow morning. Sound good?

Our 'enemies' as it were, are a ragtag group of terrorists. They've no access to government, they don't have a vast internet connection. I mean, seriously look how poor Iran is for example, and other countries. Maybe a few thousand civilians have access to the internet in the M.E.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201104070049.html?page=2 Here's one unrelated issue in the Ivory Coast, which explains what constitutes as propaganda warfare in the Middle East.

It states very specifically that journalists, radio and the TV were targeted but there was no mention of an internet outlet in this conflict.

In addition to this, remember the State Propaganda that the rage across the Muslim World was due to some obscene video that no one knew about for 4-5 months after its initial release?

Except it wasn't, I doubt without U.S. Media coverage and political talking points from the pentagon, they wouldn't have known a thing about that obsecure video. It was plainly a terrorist attack, why our government waited two weeks and pronounced some false story to the rest of the world, is again something I don't know.

I unfortunately cannot find the article(I'm not sure if it was from People or CNN), but there was an article outlining how crucial radio technology had become in Afghanistan and elsewhere to counter the propaganda of the terrorists.

We're not facing a developed nation here, with developed means of technology, weaponry or propaganda outlets. Its what should be frustrating the hell out of you, if you put two and two together. From the beginning of our war on terror in 2001 up until now in 2012, we've been in conflict for 11 years.

It's the longest conflict in U.S. History, longer than Vietnam, longer than the world's most deadliest war, climaxing with the first and only use of nuclear weapons.


And our 'enemy' as it were, pails in comparison(though you've been talking them up)
The war should've ended at least 5 years ago. We should make a push to end it here and now, for our enemies do NOT have the strength, numbers or the technology to hold up against our army.






It's about as large as maybe a metropolitan city

http://www.spiegel.de/international/one-big-prison-a-glimpse-at-daily-misery-in-the-gaza-strip-a-455254.html

Some have even said that Israel is as large as Rhode Island. Yeah, call me crazy but I think it's a very small continent.







You should really read your own sources, because they provide the answers to your questions. According to one Daniel Ellsberg:

"
It would be interesting to have someone speculate or tell us exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see on the screen. As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you’re murdering before the troops arrive. That’s a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context."

They could've immobilized and captured the enemy, they could have used gun fire to lure the enemy away from innocent children and bystanders. But no, they used excessive force.




Biglundi has a tendency to use hyperbole with my statements, distort them to mean something that they don't actually mean. In this case, he charges that I believe that current law is a boogeyman. I never actually said that, what I said and I hate repeating myself is that Federal Judges have become corrupt, they don't follow the law of the letter to it's intent, only to their own(and you've stated that you're just fine with this.)

But if Law isn't followed to the letter of it's intent, it's not law anymore. It's called the Law of Politics. The politicization of the Supreme Court, is roughly what occurred in Soviet Russia, where Stalin became judge, jury and executioner.

Politics and the Justice System must remain forever separated. We're not there yet, but I can imagine we'll get there the more 'live' the document becomes.





I believe in the security of our Armed Forces, like you. And I believe that our government shouldn't be compromised. But our Government compromises itself by keeping information secret. What applies to the life of individuals, applies no less to governments(who are only ran by, yes, individual human beings)

If Manning released information that endangers our troops, innocents, etc. Then yes, he is guilty of high treason. Some of the information released, however is information I believe the people have the right to know. If they're sending their taxpayer dollars(and more importantly, their brothers and sons and fathers and mothers) to war, then they have the right to know their army is actually conducting procedures properly.

See, I'm all for whistle blowers because as long as they exist, maybe, just maybe, our government will pay heed to blowback and will respect INTL and NATL law with some degree of respect. And of course, the American Citizen.





Actually, you're wrong on two accounts. First: If 'Regime' refers to nothing more than the code of laws, then I'm not the only one who uses that term incorrectly. Madam Clinton has also used the term, in the same manner as I did, referring to the men in government as a 'regime'.

And the second point you're wrong on: I don't love the constitution to the point of making love to it. Actually, I believe earlier I argued for a fascist form of government. The reason a centralized government will be necessary, is that the Republic fell to the wayside. Why? Because people themselves(including you) have had disrespect for the Republic, for it's meaning and why it was instituted in the first place.

The Founders made the mistake of entrusting the power of government to a vast majority of people, they didn't consider the relative stupidity in the power of numbers. Also, a compartmentalized operation is much more efficient than a vast number of representatives. Democrats and Republicans are too busy with their own agenda, and have replaced that agenda with the 'American Agenda'.

My dream is an American Party, for one united vision and quest to make this country the best it can possibly be.

You may very well argue that what would constitute as American Values differs among Americans. However, we've had 60 years. At least 58 of which where I wasn't around or capable of voting. In my mind, the American Public had this much time to choose a new direction. The Government had that amount of time to create a more perfect union.

And by your own accounts, they've failed. I'm an intellectual, just like you. And as an intellectual, you should know: That failure is the same as a felony. Who would take the advice of someone who couldn't accomplish anything in one's own field of work?

I wouldn't. And so the ideas of the old, are just that: Ideas that have no validity in reality, no practical application leading to success. And success, is the only thing that matters. Not pretty ideals, only success.





Never said that, but if you want me to nitpick precisely about the Constitution. I believe the 'freedom of religion' is quite possibly the Founders biggest mistake.
If not for that, we wouldn't be tied down in the Middle East right now. If not for that, we could have developed a metropolitan society even out in the Southern/North-Western states.

Simply put, from the Christian Crusades to the Church's recent abuse of children, religion has always been at the front of war, crime and disease. All the meanwhile begging hand on foot for money, proclaiming it goes to the 'Will of God'.

Yeah, that's something we'd be better off without. From a more national point of view, I believe the constitution and this country period is too weak. I mean, maybe to the Founders and the English of their time the Flag had some national value, but among adults, and the youth among us: Who cares?

The flag itself is so plain, it makes virtually no attempt at all to connect to the people, or to the country's legacy. The same can be said for the Statue of Liberty.

America's like a car that was a brand spanking model all those years ago, but now is simply ordinary. To appeal to Class Unity, and to the will of the Nation, we need to actually appeal to the people.

If America is the 'greatest country on earth', we need to show that through technology, through economic prosperity. Not have buildings as old as the Constitution itself.





By design! Let's gather people of all kinds of different backgrounds, different interests and have absolutely nothing in common. Let's furthermore prevent their coming together by promoting 'tolerance' and 'respect'(these words are synonyms for "I hate your guts, but since we're all stuck together....")

It amazes me how people preach 'tolerance' and 'respect', without evenso much as recognizing how not unifying those words are. Seriously, try saying the following sentences to yourself:

"I like you"

"I respect you"

Respect can be used in an admiring fashion, but more often, respect is neutral and not in an endearing fashion.

I've come to several political cognitions, since being disaffected by the Democratic Party, during the heated debate when Obamacare was first being passed through congress. Those, who like me were disaffected by the spending and wanted to see more done in regards to Wall Street and the economy were called 'racists'.

This hurt me, given my own history and my utter rejection of the mistakes of the past. The belief that all People were equal. I felt as though I personally were attacked for disagreeing on a policy stance. Seeing MSNBC promote this hateful divide, made me leave Liberalism for the attack machine that it is, all the meanwhile saying 'talk about the issues'

Yet, today I am thankful to Chris Matthews. It's because of him, I was able to separate myself from the political machine. Because I knew that there was no way in hell I would ever become a Republican.

What I was able to recognize, is that if we want all people to be equal, then they cannot be equal under 'the law'. The law regulates, it tries to establish a system or a way of life. But the people cannot be forced into the whim of one, or a few, or even a few hundred.

The only way we can all be equal, is under the self-governing principle of self-determinism. For example, there are many 'White' Americans and 'Black' Americans who recognize a value between themselves and connect. But there are also many others who do not.

Rather than have these two social groups for example(and there are others, Latinos, etc.) who are fundamentally different try to hit their head against the proverbial wall. We allow these individuals to connect to each other, willingly of their own accord.

Understanding that equality cannot be forced, and that not all see themselves as equal is what will lead to a resolution. True Universalism is the expression of the will of every Individual.

In other words, I see a prosperous Africa, I see a prosperous Asia, Europe, etc. There's nothing wrong with Individualism, it is only through the Individual we can become United.

America once stood for Individualism, now we stand for the Collective. Collectivism robs the people of Individualism, and therefore of Understanding.

The country I envision, is a country where we all stand as Individuals, united by our will, our determination and our interests. To many American Citizens, they are neither united nor do they have shared interests.

It's time to press the 'restart' button, this country was a European Country upon it's founding. That means self-respect, individualism and a sense of duty to oneself and his family, his friends and community was at the highest point of priority.

'English' will be the homeland's main language. This is not disrespecting those minorities inside the Homeland, this is respecting the millions of Americans who were born here, raised here and speak the national language.

The symbolism of proclaiming English as a national language, is something that's so far away from the present government, whose only interest is governing a divided people, supposedly equal under the collectivist mindset.








Your friend's argument is amusing: "He's wrong, our deficit is actually worse!"(As if it somehow discredits me that I was off on the exact amount) Nevertheless, the deficit exists, it's that major and it's something we have to address.



http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/debt-free-united-states-notes-were-once-issued-under-jfk-and-the-u-s-government-still-has-the-power-to-issue-debt-free-money

We were once free from debt as late as the bottom half of the 1800's. Debt, as a system, can only exist off of inflation, as your friend and your links noted. But there can never be a prosperous nation that's ran on debt.

The system itself isn't bad, the way we're using it(or rather, the way we(the people) aren't allowed to use it, is what holds us back). It's entirely possible to create a country without debt, entirely possible to create a country without taxes.

All we have to do, is reject the Bankers and their corrupt game. You in? I mean, you benefit the most: Assuming you're a middle class guy like me, no taxes means more money to spend on life necessities and including luxuries that we want(Such as Fakku Mangas :D)










Not sure how sarcastically agreeing with me is debating me? If it's to say "duh", then I'm glad it's so easily agreeable. Let's get to work on it, instead of targeting either upper or lower middle classes. Taxing either of those groups isn't going to generate anywhere close to the big deficit we face.







We already went over this, but at 8% unemployment, gas at around $4.00 it's safe to say not much has been stimulated(your own graph from that source suggests as such in comparison to the massive losses).

So you say: "Four more years", well, you should be quite happy to know the American People(or perhaps more accurately, the Electoral College) gave you and others your wish.

Just know this though: After these four years, there would have been 8 years of an Obama Administration. You also gained several House seats as well, and all reports indicate if there's no Fiscal Cliff resolution, then Republicans will lose more seats in the mid-term.

In other words, Lundi: It's the Liberals bed now, they have no more excuses, no more real boogeymen of their own(in comparison to my legitimate complaint about the politicization of our processes).

If, after these next few years nothing has changed, what will be the argument for Liberal Governance at that point? I'll be curious to see it.







Stocks and derivatives are a lot like a gamble on a company, a function, etc. It's a gamble on people's jobs and livelihood. Quite contrary to any real capitalist system, it's crony capitalism.


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



(See: When Clinton and Gramm collaborated to repeal Glass-Stegall.)

Rewarding the public sector their just deserts, and punishing those who'd rather cheat the system, or make money through means that don't produce any labor is a huge part of our economic problem.

Being fair to the President, last year he attempted to address this challenge. But like all else, corporate lobbyists interfered.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57409314-503544/obama-signs-stock-act-to-ban-congressional-insider-trading/

We've got to do ban lobbyists from Washington, without remorse, or recourse or any exceptions to which they could take advantage of.




Oh believe me, a professor in one of my business classes covered how businesses make profits through having their product, company, etc represented on the stock market.

However, at the end of the day there are inventors who invent the products they sell, these inventors are inevitably human. A stock is a piece of paper worth "X Value". There are Secretaries that take the calls for the CEO, ETC and onward.

What I'm suggesting, is the stocks are a feast and famine system, if you're well connected or if you make the right guesses, you're golden. If not? Losses to potentially hundreds of dollars. Or did the market tank of '08 not happen?


In eliminating that which robs away the wealth of the individual worker, the collective American market and even the productivity from businesses, I'm far more pro-wealth than you could imagine.





I already debunked you earlier, but this system is fragile, no? The fact is, is that these banks will not be able to keep their debt-oriented system operating forever. Making money without putting in the forementioned hard work cannot be sustained.

The 'minority' economists are already well aware of this. The Debt-oriented system is at a head, and only reform that puts emphasis on Human Capital will restore the economy, only CEO'S and Corporations willing to invest in America will bring jobs back to America.

My problem is that the Worker and the Businessman is screwed by the Banker, the Citizen is utterly unaware of his being screwed, and when he's told he's screwed, he cries out 'Conspiracy Theory'.

The greatest danger to the world is ignorance, when more stupid people than smart people are at the helm then we'll know that 12/21/12 is truly at hand lol.






I'll respond with a question and a statement. First, the question: Do you agree with the President's statement of raising taxes on those who make 250,000+(Most of those who make that money are not quote unquote "millionaires" but are among the top-50% percentile. These Americans, of the upper middle class do in fact pay a lot in taxes.)? If you do, then the one wanting to take away money from the resources of those who reward the working class would be the Liberals and the Democrats.

Oh, how I love to burst the bubble of the Liberals who claim they're the "Working People's" party, when they tax the affluent and punish workers.

Now, a statement: CEO's topped out at 500 times the average worker, it is now 'only' 380 times after reform:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm

Back during the Great Depression, they probably only made 40 times the average worker. This isn't redistributing wealth, this is outright THEFT of Middle/Upper class America by the 1% percentile.

And yet, you say you're against my populist policy of redirecting that money back into the hands of workers, infrastructure, etc? Why?








The first source you cite, ironically states that neither Democrats nor Republicans have proposed the kind of plan necessary for tax reform. And I'd concur, it's one thing to talk about raising corporate taxes, it's another thing for the very vague
"250,000". I think we need to be careful about defining what true wealth is, and not making being wealthy a crime.

The true crime is hoarding wealth, and acquiring wealth through ill-gained means. The same source also points out, that it's actually through the various loopholes, outsourcing, etc that makes the corporate tax artificially low.

Which means the Liberal argument is still flawed, we don't need to raise taxes. We need to enforce existing tax laws The same solution as outlined in the Gun Problem.









As I outlined below, and I'll put it very simply: We're no longer in the era of the Continental Dollar, where the government was bankrupt. We both concur it's printing out billions, trillions of debt-issued dollars.

Once upon a time, when we weren't the World's reserve currency, this was an issue. It's no longer one.

I'll let others make my argument for me as well.

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/top-economists-told-obama-that-economic-recovery-required-a-reduction-in-private-debt.html

We need money in the hands of the people who'll actually stimulate the economy, jobs and who make a living. Not the bankers who are currently sipping juice at your expense and mine. This system is theirs, not ours.






Actually, this gets us to the point of the German Economic Miracle. Most of the Economic policies I'm calling for, are the same policies that Hitler enacted upon coming into power. One of the main, centralizing factors was a two-prong approach:

-Eliminating, if not reducing ill-gained monies such as stocks, and redirecting that back into the public market.

-Two, returning the currency to a state-owned currency, whereas it's currently owned by the bankers and their fiat-debt based currency.

My approach takes a far more radical approach, as I state that in a future economy, a government must be so self-efficient as to reduce taxes, if not utterly eliminate them as an unnecessary burden on the public, which is what a country is anyway.

The country is little more than the populace, a prosperous populace is more important than a government's overhead.



Then that would explain why the world economy is *already* in pretty bad shape, as the dollar has lost 99% of its value, and now Russia/China and others are searching for dollar alternatives:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/06/26/china-busy-signing-currency-deals/

Either we're going to move in a new direction, or the economy will. This is a race to prosper in the 21st century and we're falling behind due to a combination of 19th century economic western policies, and corruption inside the banking cartel.





Taxes do not preserve the value of the dollar, they kill the value of the consumer to whom we need in a debt-ridden system, such as the one we currently employ. And to say we don't print a lot(without any sources) is grossly misleading. You don't lose a currency's value through nothing.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

Keep in mind, this was last updated in 2007 Yeah, I have to think that at least a trillion dollars is in circulation now.

Of course, as highlighted above numerous times, our currency is debt-ridden. All we have to do my friend, is say fuck you to the banks and have a state-oriented currency.

The Constitution beseeches us to do so.(Chapter 8) Or, is that a part of the living document that you want to change? And for what reason, exactly?

You and I aren't enemies, even if our thoughts are differing on what exactly the crisis is and how to respond to it, I can think you'd agree that these bankers aren't exactly welcome, nor their system of usury.









Let's not make the President out to be entirely powerless, especially in light of reports that the GOP will lose in public opinion if a resolution isn't reached. If there's a bill that Obama doesn't like, he can veto it, send it back to Congress and Congress'll have to try even harder for the votes to get the bill passed.

Veto power is extremely powerful when used right, the president however has not used that power when it has come to major legislation. He said he'd do so with the Banker bill, passed it. NDAA, passed it. I think if the president doesn't want to be completely powerless to Congress, he'll cockblock a major legislation and force them to come closer to his terms.

Then there's the form of political messaging. "Your taxes will go up, unless the GOP acts." This reflects blame, all the meanwhile painting a negative picture so as to illict a response(you, yourself concurred in this very segment I'm quoting)

How is that anything but political? But telling the masses "Hey, do this my way or the highway?" When someone tells me something negative is gonna happen unless I do X, I personally take that as a power play.





He's stating the obvious, no one wants their taxes to increase. Here's an idea: End all hostilities, bring our troops home, strengthen our border and save millions of dollars.

Oh wait, that's too simple? The President can do all of this, without having to go through congress(after all, as I pointed out he declared Libya/Syria involvement without congress).




When our President and Republicans are debating between Upper/Lower Middle Class America, I'm sorry to say but I don't see this magical unicorn unity that we're striving for.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/where-do-you-fall-on-the-income-curve/

The ones who we really should be targeting, as this chart notes, is at the top of the freaking food chain. The current talks won't impact those political power brokers.










Very equally, Biglundi either puts words in my mouth, or misconstrues my statements. Or, perhaps, I should take the higher road in respect to you as a gentleman and simply say you don't understand:

It's not that I'm not satisfied, I'm glad our government is at least capable enough to say "These are people who've killed, who are going to kill again so let's put a stop to them."

I'm satisfied, but I'm not going to pat them on the back for doing something that *should've* been done. When a baby first talks, we applaud them. But after a while of learning the English language, its something we come to expect out of them.

The same applies here.





I'll concur, I disagreed with Mitt Romney on policy(of course, I stated I was a former Liberal and I still have many Liberal leanings. I don't even think they're "Liberal" leanings, I think it's common sense to want to make your country better than it was before.)

But to me, claiming "I got Bin laden"(as if he did anything) is the same as "I'll be awesome." To me, the President's argument for re-election was/and is the economy.

His small gains, at least they're gains. And according to most media predictions, the Democrats won't face a major shift in the polls until '16. So the president and the democratic party have all the leverage in the world.

If the Democrats really are the party of economics, this is their time to prove it.






Entangling alliances, there's a fundamental difference. What George Washington was saying, in effect to put it in 21st century terminology is that we shouldn't be joint at the hip with Israel. Our entanglement with Israel's foreign affairs has us caught in the Horn of Africa, it has us devoting our troops, money and citizens for the past 11 years. This is the type of Entangling Alliance the Founders wanted to avoid.

By comparison, we held relations with France and other european countries. The cost wasn't excessive, nor endangering to national interests. As I noted in the previous post, our alliance with Japan is not entangling.

Our alliance with Saudi Arabia is another example of an entangling alliance, and these entangling alliances can hardly be called an alliance, considering both nations would economically press us if we were to nationalize and break free from their grip.






Actually, Bush set the deadline for the Iraq war, Obama merely followed it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835

Whether Bush would've actually followed through on it, is another story. Considering he pushed the deadline up and actually wanted permanent bases there, but the Iraqis would have none of it.

But, setting the record straight, former President Bush had at least an outline of when hostilities would end.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/03/20/moveon-morning-joe-obama-listened-generals-too-much

I'd concur to this, listening to our generals is important and listening to people with the facts is important. But at the end of the day, one hopes that President Obama remembers he's the commander in chief of the armed forces.

Because I can see that line of reasoning, that generals would just ask for X number of troops, irregardless of the civilian and geopolitical circumstances.









Why not, barricades are heavily effective in dispelling riot crowds. How could they be any less effective dealing with a few thousand illegal immigrants?





No, it was just the use of our fighter jets, our pilots and our ammunition. We weren't a part of this coalition going to war....I must've been imagining things!

If Bush did this, you'd clamor for his impeachment. But because it's President Obaama, are Liberals numb about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15j-g2pigg8

This video does confirm your statement though 'gave the orders', I didn't know the country that once defied the world's mightiest empire now took orders.

God help us all.


I'm a bit tired too, and our long-winded arguments while productive do take up a lot of time. I'm going to hit the hay now.

You know what Lustful? We're not even talking about the NDAA, and we haven't been since like, your second post to me. I also don't feel like going through and pointing out how you get shit wrong again and again, as it's a never ending thing with you. I'm just going to say a few things, and let other things be said by other people. Firstly, here's a nice simple explanation of why Bradley Manning is going to be punished, and deserves it.

There were two types of Federalists at the time of the Founding Fathers, the pro british and the pro french, Hamilton was nowhere near alone in being pro british economics. As a matter of fact, you cited Washington himself as being against Hamilton, odd, because Washington was the one that appointed him secretary of treasury. Fucking weird thing for him to do if he didn't trust Hamilton's economic policies. And if Hamilton WAS the only one who wanted a federal banking system, then how the hell did he accomplish it? Because last I checked, one man who isn't even president can't do that. It kind of takes...support. You don't see the government just adopting new things all willy nilly because one of the people in it got a wild hair up their ass and said, "Let's have this!" Especially not with everyone else going, "Well we don't want it, but you said we should so we have to do it."

Let's see, what else...meh, you got the idea that we're in three more wars since Obama got in office wrong, you got the economics wrong on many things, even cited your professor with a dissenting opinion to yours, and essentially wrote off much of my rebuttals and sources as "Obama's propaganda". I just don't know how anyone has arguments with you. Are you like this in real life? Really that's my only question. And then I'm done. Seriously. At least in this topic.

Oh good god, this was a notoriously annoying video to watch through. "I'll give a presentation while swearing and discrediting any point I make." I never once said that Manning was some innocent angel, however the hope is that Whistleblowers continue to blow the whistle on Washington's corruption.

Because as long as Washington is in power, the American Citizenry won't look over it. The past 60 years(FDR administration-onward) is proof of that. Billions of dollars since accumulated, vast social programs, wars, etc. But no where close to a regime change.

In fact, if I were a foreigner I would say no people is more apathetic than the American People.





I would reference you to Abraham Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" to get an understanding of political thinking at the time. True bipartisanship existed back then, where the parties were irrelevant, but the security and sake of the nation was supreme over all else. Also, being the treasury secretary is a pretty powerful position. Other than President Washington, who would he have to go through?

I'm sure there are quite a few obscure names in the senate who agreed(sadly) with Hamilton. But it doesn't change the fact that from Washington, to John Quincy Adams, to Jackson and even all the way to Lincoln himself wanted to do away with the Bank. Even Jefferson and Madison.

It's not a coincidence that many of America's greatest leaders were staunchly opposed to the idea. My bet is, the American Public was indifferent to it mostly, because the public then(and now, hell, especially now) couldn't understand the value of one's currency, as opposed to something as simple and straightforward as taxes.





ROFL, were the rebels fighting against a delusion? Were the NATO forces just palling around Tripoli? Did we not establish a 'No-Fly' Zone over Libya?

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-allies-stage-airstrikes-near-tripoli-gadhafi-threatens-long-war-118325634/157713.html

It's a war! When we supply logistics and weapons to a side, we're engaging in warfare. Let me give you a hint: Even before the Japanese declaration of war after the Kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor, we technically were already in a state of war since we were supplying Great Britain against Nazi Germany.

There, did it sink through your thick skull yet? My Professor didn't have so much as a dissenting opinion to mine, as much as the subject covered various means a business is built and how capital is gained.

And I acknowledged as such that stocks is one way businesses gain capital, unfortunately however in an economic model where stocks can drive hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses, what value is there in the Worker's Class?

And I don't know how I got the economics wrong when I supplied you with economic theory, facts and links to back up my progressive approach. Nor did I dismiss your links as "Obama Propaganda"(though it is slanted), I simply suggested the small minimal gains mean nothing in comparison to the vast spending and temporary jobs that support it.


But, carry on, thinking I've addressed none of your rebuttals when in fact I've addressed every one of them.

Yeah...no, the Japanese don't believe in equality. Maybe equality for Japanese people, but not equality in general. They're also not as efficient as you think. Just read this.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20118_5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-living-in-japan.html

Also...




Yeah, yeah you did call it propaganda. Not gonna lie Lustful, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about half the time.

Your arrogance is excessive, 623. Firstly, yes it's known that there's a discrimination problem in Japan, but frankly it's only natural especially given the fact that they don't have that much land either, when talking about small continents.

And I called it propaganda, because that's precisely what it is. Tax credits aren't a deductible. Tell me, do you think you got the money you gave the government back via tax returns? No, you didn't. You would've had more money in your pocket, without the deductibles.

It's putting lipstick on a pig, think about it: If the government gave the money back what was the purpose of the tax in the first place? Wealth redistribution never works. It didn't work in Soviet, it didn't work in Europe and it sure as heck isn't working here.

But go on, continue to brag in your arrogance that I don't know much. What do you know?

Well, if you knew that there's a discrimination problem in Japan, why did you say they were also known for their equality? Those two statements don't really work together. Also Japan isn't a continent.



Going to stop you right here. I don't care how you try and justify it, you just ADMITTED that you called it propaganda when...


That right there is an example of contradiction. When you do it, it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, or, in this case, like you're trying to take back something you did because it reflects badly on you.



I'll admit it--I DON'T know much. But at least I'm not claiming I do. You, however, are just spouting out information that is just plain wrong (i.e. see Japan example above). I'm going to stop now though because this is and has been totally irrelevant to the NDAA for a long time.

Poor word choices on my part, what I should have said is that their culture is rooted on a fundamental belief in respect. There always has been a sense of nationalism inside of Japan, but I think that's actually a rather good thing for the most part. They don't have the inner strife of the U.S. trying to put everyone together in one neat little box that simply doesn't work.





Actually, I take nothing back. If anything, I happen to rush through things and sometimes I don't make things clear enough. At any rate, this is simply one Obama link, congratulations.... You may not care why I justified it, but I justified it with intellectual thought, whereas Biglundi(and you yourself) in intellectual fallacy tried to make it sound like I was saying: "I don't believe you!"(insert whiny face)

When that was never the case. I also intellectually addressed every other link that Biglundi provided. Whether you agree with the statements or not is irrelevant, but I made those statements with a philosophy behind them.





It's the flaw behind categorizing intellectual conversation under one topic. The topic gets old, and beaten to death very quickly(or in this case, Biglundi undisputably proved that we have nothing to worry about when it comes to the NDAA. Or at least reasonable probability to believe secure measures are in place to avoid the abuse of power.)

The discussion evolved into one of whether or not you believe in the Law of Politics(Biglundi does) or whether you believe in the Law of the Land(I do, to a very good extent. Noting America's political decline being one of the reasons for major political reform. I do not trust the American citizenry the same way the Founders trusted it upon creating the Constitution, I know the citizenry now to be hapless, powerless and quite satisfied being that way.)