The Glade 4.0

Politicians aren't going to be honest when lying about their misdeeds is demonstrably better for them in basically every possible situation. If you did something bad, in the US you get less **** for it by lying about it and then being caught lying than you do by telling the truth the first time around. Lying is a strictly superior choice, you might get away with it, even if you don't you're still better off than telling the truth.

If Clinton had not lied under oath, he would not have been elected. After he was caught lying? His approval rating remained highly positive and he would easily have been elected again if it wasn't for the term limit.

It is not possible in this country to be elected to federal office without being a huge liar and having massive conflicts of interest. If you want a Senate seat, you better have a minimum of $250 million to spend on ads or you might as well not even bother. You think they're not going to pay back the people that ponied up $250 million for them? These groups aren't going to contribute to a politician who won't do so, that's for sure.

In addition, a huge portion of the voting base has a list of "issues" wherein they will absolutely refuse to vote for any politician that does not agree with them on every item on the list. If there are no candidates that don't agree with them on everything, they don't vote. Since pretty much any honest, straightforward platform that can possibly exist steps on the toes of at least one "issue" for almost all of these people, the only way to get their votes is to be a hypocritical two-faced liar and hope they don't notice. Mitt Romney won his governorship by being for government health care and then won his Republican nomination by being against it. This is how it works.

Except unlike you I gave a reason. Its not my denial that makes it so, its the reasons.

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

Diamondeye:

I gave you four undeniable examples of government over-reach and illegal use of power in the United States. You continue to argue as if the last 90 days did not happen. We honestly don't have to recount any of the rest of American history. The last 90 days is all the proof anyone needs to know that US government is hostile to and antagonistic toward it's own citizenry. I don't need to argue any of the other content you've posted in this thread, because you are business willfully ignoring or hand-waving away a government that is WHOLLY complicit in proceeding with the following:

1. Illegal espionage
2. Illegal surveillance
3. 4th Amendment Violations
4. 5th Amendment Violations
5. 9th Amendment Violations
6. 10th Amendment Violations

And contrary to your personal opinion, the Supreme Court does not have to make those determinations; there are no unwritten nuances to the law that exempt our government from being beholden to it. But then, we (as in the entire reading population of the Glade) already know you do not understand the phrase "Rule of Law."

If our government is busy violating its codifying compact, then our government is acting against its citizenry. You seem to think that <current population minus nine>people need to listen to the opinions of 5-9 justices on all these matters without having opinions over their own.

So, please, dismiss another response and hand-wave away the obvious things the rest of this country has witnessed. Keep telling people they're unqualified to have opinions; keep telling people that you're more qualified to discuss history, politics, legalities, and general social trajectory in the United States; in fact, keep trying to prove to the rest of you're Christ reborn. It makes for good entertainment. After all, you keep telling us (as in individual posters at the Glade) our motivations for posting. So here's the real insult (as in a specific ad hominem): who told you that majoring in Psychology would allow you to read minds?

_________________

{emphasis mine}

Speak for yourself...

I beg to differ...

Almost 240 years ago, a bunch of traitors started a war against their king and country. Today they're regarded as heroes. If it were suggested to them that they were treasonous villains, they would argue that they were betrayed first, when their country stopped representing them and protecting their rights. It's not traitorous if you were betrayed first.

And if you don't think each and every American was betrayed first, you weren't paying attention.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

You gave me 4 anecdotal examples, 2 completely uncited, and the other 2 I'll spot you because I already know all about them.



History?



No, I'm not.

First, some of those things may be violated; some certainly have. Yet as I have pointed out there are methods in place to address them, and it is happening.



Except that you're wrong. It is not my personal opinion that the Supreme Court makes those decision; it's facts. That si the way it's been done throughout our history, and despite attemtps to take snippets of decisions that

You do not even begin to understand the rule of law, Khross. Your appeal to everyone else on the glade, as if some popularity contest here actually matters is utterly pathetic in and of itself, especially given your history of whining and crying when you get "lumped in" with everyone else, but now that it's convenient, you want to speak for them

When I say you don't understand the rule of law, that is not merely "no, YOU!". You have a long history of posting things about the law and the Constitution that are based on nothing more than your ideas of how things ought to be, half-remembered snippets of law that don't say what you think they say, and that you utterly refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect about even when it's pointed out in black and white. In despertaion, you retreat into "Sentence structure", "grammer", and the like as if the point of a system of law were grammatical exactness and linguistic precision, secure in the knowledge that there's no other language professor to offer a differing opinion.

You constantly represent yourself as knowledgeable regarding law and history, and yet.. you are not. Don't try to tell me now about your newest credential, and get in all high dudgeon and threaten to disregard my opinion on military matters; I am an expert on those and unlike you I don't try to extend my expertise into every field someone else says something I don't like in. You won't find me contesting DFK!, for example, on administrative medical matters. The simple fact is that you utterly misrepresent both what the Constitution is, and what rule of law is, and while you may be incredibly well-read (as a layman, which regardless of any pretentions you may have, you ARE) your worldview and ideology are so overriding that you lack the capability to approach these in a realistic fashion.

Your' claims that we don't even need to look at history after the last 90 days illustrate this precisely. The actions of the last 90 days (disregarding for now whether all of your complainsts are even legitimate) are not significantly worse than the norm throughout history, and are certainly less disturbing than some now-ended episodes throughout history. If the USRA were formed today we would be hearing screams of outrage from you and others at <inset dramatic phrase here regarding communism or totalitarianism or something>. What's more, they would even be justifed! I'd probably agree with you 100%! The formation of a nationalized railroad system out of the dozens, even hundreds of individual companies that existed in WWI was a blatant power seizure, and would be very alarming. Yet the USRA is gone.. and the railroads are not merely denationalized, but deregulated. The ICC is no more either.

You completely and utterly lack historical perspective and understanding. Our government has been guilty of all sorts of breaches of liberty over the last 240 years, many far more disturbing than anything happening now. But, they fell by the wayside, and liberty is greater, in the aggregate, than it has been in the past. No matter what objection you might mount, we no longer count anyone as 3/5 of a person.. without even giving them 3/5 of a vote. We do not see blacks escorted by the national guard simply to attend class. A fleeing felon can no longer be summarily shot. (hint: those justices you want to whine about imposed that reduction of police power.) I could go on and on, but its irrelevant; it's like trying to point out to a 15 year old girl that her life is not ruined because $500 dollars is far too much for a homecoming dress; the simple lack of perspective is just too much to deal with.



The fact that you think this indicates you are doing nothing but trolling. Despite your totally imaginary idea that the "constitution shouldn't be interpreted" (hint: this is totally impossible, and claiming that it is, is necessarily nothing more than an attempt to claim your own interpretation must be followed. If you plan to appeal to linguistics don't bother; the Constitution does not exist for the purpose of following linguistic rules) the fact is that those justices have the opinions that matter and everyone else can have one but.. it doesn't. That's a good thing. That keeps you ranting on the internet, pretending your outrage at some random guy who has no more authority than you on such matters is somehow a victory. That's where you belong. The framework of government keeps the Constitution safely out of the hands of people like you who would interpret it to effectively ban opposing political views. Oh, you huff and puff "I would never do that!". Yes you would. Your dieas would effectively ban liberals, and you constantly bemoan the ability of people to vote who don't vote the way you like... hilarious, since you then also love to claim it doesn't really affect the government anyhow. You can't even decide what your own opinion is.



That is some truly classic lunacy right there. I can almost feeling your fingers quivering with rage, and your faculties taking leave of you as you type this. I may even sig this. It's doubly amusing becuase you also manage to approach this level of rage when talking about video games. In fact, disagreement with you is pretty much totally impossible without you attempting to talk down to your peers and just being a complete and total schmuck in the process.

Oh, as for all those topics.. I am more qualified to discuss them than you. So is Talya (who is not even American) Rynar, Arathain, DFK!, Kaffis, Rynar, and.. well almost everyone else. There's one or two other exceptions, but they're unimportant. I may disagree with all those people, but unlike you I actually can have a conversation with them. You actually used to be in that category, but like one or two other people, the last two or three years have seen you plunge right off the deep end. Take Arathain for example; we may disagree, but he at least defend his ideas. You don't. You haven't addressed a single point of mine; all we have from you are irrelevant "bare assertions" (yet another thing that you make all the time and complain if anyone else does).



Oh wait, I forgot. It's only ok when YOU tell people their motivations for posting. I guess this must be the paragraph where you finally got all that nerdrage out of your system and calmed down again.

Guess what Khross? You can post over and over and over and come up with as many faux-superior posts as you want and you know what? I can sit back and feel good about where I live and that I'm mostly getting what I want out of my country and my government even if I disagree with specific policies. You can just go right on weeping and gnashing your teeth. I'm winning, Khross. I have a wife and 4 kids that love me and I can provide unimaginable luxury to them compared to the vast majority of history, and even the current world. No matter how much you screech about tyranny, I can still eat steak and go on vacation.. and better yet I can go right on over to the gaming forum and look at you trying to talk down to someone about a video game.

Because we all know in the midst of the death of freedom, its important that no one disagree with you about Skyrim, right? Good that you have your priorities in order there, bubba.

P.S. Now that we've both flamed the **** out of each other, expect a response to that PM you sent a while back. I've been thinking about what to say; I think maybe I've seen enough to respond.

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

There may be some truth in that, but I would say that the late 1700s weren't so much a matter of England no longer protecting rights, as rights going through a developmental phase that had been going on since at least the Magna Carta. The colonies simply decided they wanted to develop differently. Probably a good choice, looking at the UK these days but... it wasn't such a simple matter. When it came down to it, it was also self-interest; being a nation is better than being a colony. Self-interest is ok, but it wasn't unmitigated righteousness.

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

Diamondeye:

I'm not flaming you, actually. I'm expressing rather politely some displeasure at your arguments and posts of late. You see, you keep making the same arguments that only the Supreme Court gets to decide. Your arguments willfully ignore the power that should and does reside with the People. Moreover, revolution need not be violent, but that's likely. And another Civil War is very likely brewing; but it will not the the kind of war you keep imagining. The United States is not by and large stable. They are systemic problems within the very organizational structures of our society's day to day operations. There are problems no one wants to consider. There are new problems created by some rather curious spiral like patterns is industrial and business models.

The Government is an adversary of The People. That's just one of those fundamental dichotomies of the Anglo-Saxon Diaspora, the Modernized World, and the United States in particular. That the relationship should effectually be a perpetual Cold War was perhaps part of the Constitution's intent, insofar as I'd use that word. The People must organize and mobilize to check government, and if they don't ...

Then a government is what a government does.

Those are facts. That's what the history of the United States tells me. Our history, as a nation, is not pretty; but it is ours. And we have to own the fact that we're Americans just like we have to own the fact that our government is not acting with our best interests in mind. It needs to be checked. I have no idea how that will happen, or even if it will happen. But you need to do the following:

1. Stop thinking people are radicals. We aren't.

2. Stop accusing people of being fringe. We aren't.

3. Stop hand-waving away your own biases and the perceptions of other people. You are not uniquely more qualified to discuss any of these topics, by and large, than the rest of us. You are more educated than some of us. You are less educated than some of us. But you are part of this community because of some propinquity factor.

4. Stop taking it personally. We all know you work for the government. You are not the only poster here with a public sector job. If I honestly thought you were jackbooted, perp-beating thug, I wouldn't bother attempting to discuss these things with you.

So, have a nice day.

_________________

Yes yes, I'm sure that line about thinking I'm Christ was nothing but politeness.

You see, you keep making the same arguments that only the Supreme Court gets to decide. Your arguments willfully ignore the power that should and does reside with the People.[/quote]

The people gave that power to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. "All matters of law" fall under the Supreme Court and the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the land". Moreover, you make totally unjustified assumptions as to the will of the people. The will of the people is certainly not to have their system of law dictated for no better reason than linguistic nicities.



I'm not holding my breath.



There's a lot of blowharding and expanding the definition of "civil war" to mean "nebulous instability that I think will happen because my worldview tells me it should". All you're doing here is hinting at vague generalities.. as people always have. The end is always near, according to someone. 8 Years agao, I was hearing the same things.

Someday this nation will meet its end.. but it will not be in the manner you imagine.



Except that.. it isn't. This is the product of blowhard philosophers that forget that the government is made up of people that are citizens, and who, misguided as they sometimes may be, mostly want to do the right thing. It alos assumes a nonexistent unity.. hegemony even.. of opinion among the people.



The people can't mobilize to check the government because the governement is an amalgamation of the competing interests of the people. Your view is simply divorced from reality; at best it relies on telling people you disagree with what their interests really are.. something they, or for that matter the government, can just as easily do to you, your objections to such treatment notwithstanding.



Your first two sentences are fundamentally contradictory.



You're not a radical; you're a fringe libertarian. However.. you're really out there and saying you're not won't fic it. This is a fringe board. It's a major reason for the population decline here. You fundamentally lack the ability to understand where the center is. In that regard you are a disturbing parallel to fringe liberals on other boards that I've already given up on.



You are. Furthermore, you lack privilege to tell me to stop doing anything. You are out of line, and you are speaking to your peer, and you will henceforth speak accordingly. Being on the fringe does not make you less than my peer, but no matter what your formal credentials, you are speaking to someone equally accomplished and knowlegable in their own way. Otherwise, I'll simply start telling you what to do with bullet points, and e can repeat it ad nauseum. I am pretty certain of my capacity for this nonsense based on my posting count.



Stop inventing biases that are a product of your own bias.



I have not said that I am "unique". however, your rejection of education and experience on certain topics - over a decade in two cases - speaks to one of three things - A) a totally imaginary thought process as to how I view myself or B) a simple refusal to accept explanations as to how things ARE because you think they SHOULD BE different or C) both. The second is particularly important; like any other bemoaning of the human condition, any "should be" that relies on human nature being other than what it is fails automatically. By whose standards should people be anything other than what they are?



This is the height of projection and appeal to motive. Aside from your endless need to use my employment as justification for an assumption of bias, the simple fact is that the only thing I take "personally" are comments that center around my personal situation... because they are personal comments, and taking them any other way defies reason. You have not attempted to discuss anytihng with me in a good 2 to 3 years.. and I know because I remember that at one time we DID discuss things. That is not out of the realm of possibility, but it relies on a change in YOUR behavior. Simply put, stop worrying about ME so much, and address the issues. I am sick and tired of the excuse that you won't discuss things because you posted some article at one point and no one addressed it in the way you want. You don't set the tone here; you conform to the aggregate. For the most part, you are talking to peers. There are people that are intellectually on a lower level, but you, I, and the people I mentioned in the previous post are not examples.

For another thing, stop presuming to speak for the Glade in general, especially since you have strenuously objected to "lumping in" with anyone else in the past. Speak for yourself; don't rely on weight of popularity. I know my opinions are not popular hewre; do you think I'm somehow intimidated by that?



I guess that's the polite part? Really, the tryhard is becoming more and more obvious. If you want to bury a hatchet, bury it.

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

Diamondeye:

All that psychobabble to call me a poser?

_________________

Unlike other people here I'm not into one-line responses.

We've gone back and forth and yet I still have not heard an actual reason why people in this country would be measurably bettered by some sort of wholesale replacement of govenment. You didn't even respond to the USRA example.. and yet that's choice history. My interest in railroads is not limited to how cool they are; If one understands the history of railroads in this country, one largely understands the country, (the change in the ability to move heavy objects and bulk cargo being an essential change in society) but.. you don't address it.

I'll get back to you with the PM tomorrow.

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

I keep reading this tread title as "Eddard Snow" and now my crazy mind starts wondering if there's another Ned Stark bastard out there.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I'm going to move away from the "hero" label. I don't think the things he's done make him a hero.

I'm not moving toward traitor either.

I'm moving toward Patriot.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's a good move. I think people were using "hero" as hyperbole for "good guy." But Patriot seems accurate and not overstated.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Would you say this was a patriot's act?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I have to say, as the days go by and Snowden reveals more and more details of perfectly legal but diplomatically embarrassing intelligence gathering against foreign targets (e.g., EU diplomats, Chinese officials, etc.), the less sympathetic I am becoming to his motives and actions. It's one thing to blow the whistle on potentially illegal and largely unchecked government spying on US citizens; it's another thing to trumpet ordinary spying on foreign targets.

Allies. Go go murica.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Because our allies don't do the same exact thing to us, or anything. No no, the problem is America which somehow does naughty things all it's lilly-white allies never do.

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

And by Clearly erroneous I mean where I lied through my teeth...now let's move beyond it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/po ... z2XvEYSeSz

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Most of the intelligence he's been delivering to international parties is of dubious legality, as it tends to violate various espionage agreements we have with this nations.

_________________

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Two wrongs make a right always. If you're gonna defend it use another reason.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

That's actually an interesting idea...

How did English rule work out for Canada? Is there any reason to think it wouldn't have worked out as well for the US? Could be the US broke ground for Canada there, but could be it didn't.

I'm wondering how the Civil War would have played out, were the US still an English territory at the time.

I'm thinking playing the "hero" card for the crew responsible for US independence might be short sighted. Might have been that the war that killed more US citizens than any other wouldn't have happened.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I think she's pointing out that the difference between traitor and "freedom fighter" depends on your perspective.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine