The Glade 4.0

Obama considering executive order after SOPA 'failure'

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... der-option

Weren't executive orders one of the big issues democrats had with Bush? Hope they like their 'change'.

Everyone has a problem with everything done when they're not in charge. Would be really nice for some men and women to have the cojones to stand up and say "You know what, we ***** about it when the other guys did it, so we're not going to turn around and do it ourselves. 'Do unto others,' and all that."

Well, I thought it was horseshit when Bush did it. I have to admit that I'm more aggravated by it now, but that's really because this crap ceasing and Gitmo closing were supposed to be my consolation prizes for McCain losing the election.

well Said. I've stated my dislike and aganst over voting for Bush in 04 (no liberterian on the ballot in Texas and I really couldn't See Kerry handling something like 9/11.) AdditionallyI was never overjoyed by McCain, and I voted for him based on realatively few issues(pro life and again national defense.). When Obama got Elected, I thought well there will be a couple good things that come out of this, since he's all post partisan, post racial, and hates the growing power of the executive. It's kind of sad that i've never gotten to be happy about the President I get to vote for, and it seems the tradition will continue in November.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

There is no substantive difference between your political parties. What differences there are, are cosmetic only. As long as the establishment continues to hold power, expect each party to behave the same way while in power.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Except for the substantive differences that actually exist. There is no "establishment". It does not exist, or rather, it exists in the sense that the entire country is the establishment. Every single man, woman, child, business, church, charity, sports team, bar, political action committee, hardware store, Tea Party, auto repair shop, warehouse, roadhouse hen house, out house, and dog house is part of the "establishment". Complaining about the "Establishment" holding power is complaining that the country is not in a state of total anarchy.

If you want to say politicians are not substantively different, there'd be some truth to that, but that's because reality starts to impose itself as soon as you take office. It's really easy to just talk about "close Gitmo!" as if it were some comic book den of evil when you are running for office, or when you have no intention of ever running for office, but once you're actually in office, all those little niggly details that everyone has some "simple" solution to in one-paragraph internet posts suddenly are your problem.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

While any party that is in power is going to act to maintain and increase that power, I wholeheartedly disagree that there are no substantive differences. The priorities that they give certain areas and types of laws they forward can be quite different.

The "differences" are cosmetic, designed to keep you occupied and believe that the system works. It doesn't. It hasn't for a very long time. They both manipulate with appeals to morality and irrelevancies like abortion, gay rights, 'issues' like military spending, social programs, health care (or a thousand other ways to spend your hard earned money), while in the end, they both amass power for the government, while they sell your freedom to their corporate owners. They both have an agenda of making you consuming sheep, under their control.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Name major differences in policy international, domestic, or economic.

An argument over should the tax rate be X or Y where they are within 4% of each other is not substantive. (That was the difference between McCain's proposal and Obama's).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There is no "They" and no "system". It is not "designed" to do anything.

This type of argument is only possible by simply assuming its own truth. It's just a bunch of very vague references to nebulous concepts that are whatever they need to be in order to make it seem like everything is "broken".

You even admit it. All those things you think are cosmetic are the real issues. You're just calling them cosmetic in order to pretend there's some sort of "amassing power for the government" and "selling freedom to corporate owners" going on. There isn't. It's all just a cute way of saying "the change I want to happen isn't happening." The reason it isn't happening is because there's a wide variety of opinion in this country, and both political parties must accomadate a wide variety of viewpoints. The ones that don't are the nutjob "peace and freedom" parties that can't get elected because the vast majority of people understand quite well that the type of "real change" they would bring would mean disaster.

This country is the way it is because the vast majority of people are happy with their lives. The issues are the major issues because those are the issues people vote on. Sitting on the internet and talking about "sheep" and "establishments" and "systems" is just a way of assuring onesself of one's own self-determined superiority. The people as a whole decide what the major issues are. Individuals on the internet don't get to decide that those issues are "cosmetic" except for themselves - and in your case it doesn't even matter because you're a Canadian, and you're only doing it so you can talk down to the Americans. You'r entitled to your kingoism too, but don't try to pretend like you have any special understanding. No one does. There is no establishment, and no system.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And as long as most people think that, then the old-money will continue to control you.

There is an establishment, there is a system. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not some elaborate plot, some coordinated effort, but it's still there, and your owners rely on their slaves not realizing this.

Don't believe me? Look at things like the continued mess of IP "law." Look at Gitmo. Look at Julian Assange. This isn't about America. You think the rest of the world is any different, really? Freedom in this "global village" is a quaint illusion. They're going to keep chipping away at its remnants until there's nothing left, and we finally realize and take them down, and start the cycle anew.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

In other words, it's a conspiracy theory. This is exactly what makes a conspiracy theory; claiming something vague and general exists, and then dismissing the fact that actual evidence of it is practically nonexistant as what "they" want you to think.



Heh, you think that any of those are serious assaults on freedom in any meaningful way? That those are the real issues? That freedom is somehow in jeopardy because of one ******* from Sweden, because of a few terrorists on a tiny naval base in Cuba, and because people are trying to stop you from downloading free ****? First world problems indeed.

The "quaint illusion" is that there's any establishment. That there's a "they". There is no "cycle". That's why you're referring to it in vague terms. It's nothing more than the sum total of things you happen to be personally dissatisfied with.

Your freedom is not under attack. Ok, there might be some IP law you don't like, or that's a bad idea. It attracts quite a bit of attention. Your ability to use a computer how you please is not your freedom. Gitmo has absolutely zero to do with freedom; it's a prison for terrorists that people have allowed to become the boogeyman of all their fears they've gotten from watching too many movies about government conspiracies.

Your freedom and my freedom are not being "chipped away at", nor are there "remnants." You can vote' and as much as people like to pretend it doesn't matter, it does. It just doesn't matter in the way people want it to; they want candidates tailor-made to their personal preferences. You can do as you please. You have access to more and better food, technology, and conveniences than 99.99% of the people that have ever lived could hope for. You can go to church or not as you please. You can, in this country at least, own guns. You can go where you please, snarky jokes about "papers" notwithstanding. You will not, in fact, be stopped by the police at random and questioned unless you are wildly unlucky. You will not, contrary to the masturbatory fantasies of some, be put on a no-fly list or a watch list because of your internet ramblings. You can screech and yell about the establishment and the system and even talk about "taking them down" (as if anyone here was going to get out from in front of their computer to do even the slightest thing to try and actually do so) and no one will come to the door and arrest you.

You are not a slave. Your freedom is not being "chipped away" Neither is mine, or anyone else in any first world country, except in the most trivial ways. Even in the most politically-correct welfare state of them all, the most "freedom being chipped away" that exists is the occasional silly arrest for "hate speech" and a little bit of exploitation of sexual assault and domestic violence laws by a few manipulative people, and maybe a few other frame-ups and individualized abuses of power, money, or the law.

This is a way of being fashionable. People want to feel like they are the good guys, but commies, nazis, and all the other bad men of history have all fallen out of fashion. Now the fashion is for "authority" or "government" or "corporations" to be the bad guy. Everyone needs to be on that victim/slave/oppressed/helpless bandwagon. Even if we're taking cruises, and making steaks on the girl every week, and getting on the internet trying to pretend we're oppressed because in theory someone might come arrest us for pirating a bunch of video games even though no one wastes time on small-time individual-use piracy, it makes us feel like the good guys standing up to the big bad evils of corporations and government to talk about crap like this. First-world problems. We're a bunch of teenagers talking about how our life is oh-vvveerrrr if we aren't allowed to go out on a date this weekend.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You do make some good points DE

However I think a lot of people are upset because they wonder how (usually other peoples) senators and rep with dismal approval ratings keep getting reelected.

I think there also upset about media bias, that a President got elected without being put through the paces because of the color of his ticket.

You might be on to something that people look at the non incumbent candidate too sharply, that they want more out of him/her than is reasonable and therefore go with "the devil they know" or don't vote. I certainly see that in the national discussion.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

they've got three percent unemployment, cheaper gas, and a housing shortage out in the Dakotas because of oil. I think that the Republicans would promote policies to see that kind of work go on nationwide where the Dems would stop it of they could. Substantive enough for you?

Itd be nice if they decided to move their convention out there and make that there central issue, but they are imperfect like the rest of us (see above). Also it'd be hard to get enough hotel rooms with the housing shortage.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

There very much is an establishment. Electoral laws illustrate that clearly. It's incredibly difficult to get elected if you don't tie yourself to one of two parties. Then, cushy assignments once elected are typically based on seniority within the party, and/or how well you follow the party line.

As for serious differences, there are some, but they are not many. There's a ton of small differences.

Substantial differences include things like positions on gun control, universal health care, and views (not necessarily translating to specific legislation) on the role of government.

Most of what we spend our time arguing about is insignificant details like do we provide unemployment benefits for X weeks or Y weeks, how much support to provide to aspiring college students, or how many electrodes we are allowed to connect to a terrorist's testicles (the difference between the two parties on this one is minor, at only 2 electrodes), etc.

Except that isn't the truth. The Republicans would push for it if that push also helped their major fundraisers. So would the Democrats if it helped theirs. Real Politik isn't about action its about perception so as long as you believe that is what the Republicans would do - you're a in-the-bag voter to them and it reinforces that action is immaterial when perception can be influenced by media buys (including buying media as in owning a broadcaster) and grandiose speeches. Paying attention to voting records and reading legislation is hard work (its why they don't do it themselves). Keep the fundraisers happy, circulate public tax money to them so they return a piece of that to you in campaign contributions, bundling, and PACS, and say whatever you need to say to keep your base still thinking your doing whatever they think they want.

DE: It is only a conspiracy of aligned interests because force is used to control the flow of money. Interests align in controlling that flow of money that in the free market would be unavailable. Opposing interests align in opposition so that they control of that flow of money goes into other people's coffers. Nothing more conspiratorial than that. Both sides want more power and more control over that money flow. The only difference is the reasons they use to advertise why they should get more power and why they instead of the opposition should control that flow of money.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You asked for a policy difference. You didn't ask for why it was justified. Please don't move the goalposts.

That said. A lot of people do think that way. I think though people are starting to wise up a portrayed by some of the primaries as of late.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You said "you think they would promote policies..."

That isn't stating actual policies that Romney has that is substantively different from Obama.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You can only get elected if you belong to one of the two major parties because those parties represent what the majority of the people want. The other parties represent nutjobbery, either in the sense that they can't even nominate cohernet adults (witness the Peace and Freedom parties) or they simply can't appeal to the mainstream American.



That's the thing. In your subjective opinion, there are not a lot of major differences, but in the opinion of the public, there are. The differences the public thinks are important are what determines what the major differences are. You are entitled to your opinion, but the problem is not that everyone else does not share your opinion, and them not sharing your opinion does not make them stupid and you smart.



And yet, those things are important because they speak to the major differences. Most people, if faced with a little of what they like versus a little of what they don't like will vote for a little of what they like rather than not vote or vote for the other side to "punish" the party that ostensibly represents their side of the spectrum for not being able to get it all.

That's part of what people don't understand. The way this country is set up, politicians are supposed to have to compromise. They are supposed to be bickering about little details like weeks of unemployment. That is not the establishment keeping anyone down. That's the political "system" working as intended. It is intended to make sure no one ever gains complete political dominance. It is intended so that your politicians cannot do what makes sense to you because for every intelligent person on one side of the debater with airtight arguments, there's one on the other side with equally airtight arguments.

That's also why most of the arguments about "unConstitutional" government actions are so stupid. The Constitution was intended to strengthen the government over the Articles of Confederation, not limit it more, but most importantly, it was intended to protect government from you. Government is very powerful, and very vulnerable to misuse. The politicians don't stick to minor issues because they want to keep anyone "enslaved" or because government "Wants to accumulate power". It doesn't. Government doesn't want to do anything. It has no desires, no nature, and it does not automatically pull power to it any more than it pulls it away. It all depends on how it's set up, and ours is set up so that you cannot dominate the system simply by getting more people or more states on your side. Every founding father feared that the people of some state other than the one he lived in would do something nefarious to his state. They had no "intent" there were many proposals for the document and the end result was a compromise of many viewpoints, no matter how much some people might like to pretend there's one specific meaning they personally just happen to be in possession of.

That's why present arguments seem to all go to the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Political debate in this country is, at this point, dominated by a public that, on both sides of the debate, needs to shut the **** up. The public is the problem. The people have become the problem. The problem is not that government has too much power; it's that it is trying to pander to two sides of an increasingly polarized public. The people have figured out that the only way to force the government to do what they want is to declare the opinions of the other side unConstitutional. Oh, not in terms of expressing them, everyone loves the first amendment, but in terms of implementing them. It happens every time someone whines that a tax, or a government program is unConstitutional, and every time someone *****, screams, or moans that the Constitution demands that someone else foot the bill for their favored program in the name of "equality". Both sides are equally guilty.

The biggest problem in this country is people complaining that the other side of the political spectrum has the gall to exist. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are both equally disgusting, and not because they both have equally silly idea, but because both of them want to demand that the country be run according to their principles and that the other side be relegated to simply shouting and screaming while the preferred side sits back and gets on with the business of doing things the "right" way and proclaims the other side "batshit insane". That's why comparisons to nazis, commies, socialists, and facists are so popular; because there really are fringe ideas out there that are nuts and if you can paint all your opponents that way, so much the better for proclaiming certain opinions out of bounds of the Constitution to actually try to implement.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Let me rephrase.

Romney has said loudly and repeatedly, he unabashedly for and one is his first jobs would be to approve the keystone pipeline and he would work to increase drilling in other places.

Obama has done everything in his power and several things beyond it to stop/prevent/curtail drilling. The only places we've got new drilling is on private lands where he's had not authority or pretense of authority to stop it.

You can choose to believe or disbelieve either's integrity, but those are their stated policy positions.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You'll note that both embrace the notion that the executive branch should have the authority to either permit or prevent drilling (and an unlimited list of other things). The overarching philosophy both adhere to is exactly the same: Federal power is absolute. The only difference is in how they plan to abuse it, and whom they plan to abuse.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Considering it has to do with federal "land" well that should be the government's purview if such is going to exist. Governance over common areas is a pretty basic duty of government officials. Especially when it's a project over state lines such as a highway or pipeline.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Except that it does not follow from "The executive branch can administer oil-drilling regulations" that "Federal power is absolute", your unspecified 'unlimited list of other things' notwithstanding. You have committed a complete non-sequiter, and followed it up by stating your completely subjective idea that "abuse" will occur as if it were fact, based on that non-sequiter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is an unsupported hand-wave. One must simply look at the signature requirements for each state to get on the ballot to quickly realize that independents and minor party candidates have a higher hurdle in many states. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Then there's federal election funding. This goes to major party candidates and is very difficult to get if you're a minor party or independent.



Except that they aren't. I get that you think they are, but I simply do not agree. It's nothing more than two people arguing over whether to turn on a fan or open a window to get relief from the heat generated by their burning house.