If we let Rick Perry get into the white house we probably all deserve to be firebombed.

aww cmon now. I hate plenty of D's.

Damn, you do scare me more the Newt.

There's absolutely no way for you or anybody else to prove "what might have been". How is that even close to an acceptable reason to assassinate anybody?

After 8 years of Bush you find the idea that Americans would elect someone like Perry absurd?

Actually some of us take this crazy position that our elected officials shouldn't be able to "firebomb us straight to hell" no matter who they are. It's a different perspective on executive power to be sure, give it a think.

And I am saying they are complete fools for facilitation this path down the slippery slope.


Whatever though. WAAF. Maybe some day they'll wake the **** up and become Anarchists.

Hypothetical question.

You are the President of the U.S.

You have just received credible intelligence on the current location of the architect of several mass murders in your country and he has stated his commitment to continue said attacks (deemed likely in the near future). He has also stated his intent to resist arrest. You don't know how long he will be staying in said area. You don't know when his next attack could be. You have recon done on the area and you see that it is heavily defended by dudes with guns and a frontal assault attempting to capture him would result in casualties. Going through the judicial system could take up to a year.


What's your call?


I'm not saying this is what happened. I just want to know what you would do.

I take the position that citizens shouldn't be able to firebomb other citizens to hell. I'm sorry you take THAT position.

lol wut?

Hand the info over to the DoJ and local authorities so they can get a warrant (which takes an hour or two, not a year). Zero chance I send in the military, or use the military to kill, criminals.

Plenty of my friends had self-respect and voted Nader. We got Bush instead. True story.

Good for them and shame on you for not joining. If more of you joined we might actually be getting somewhere by now. I voted Nader too fwiw, and it's not my fault the Democrats had a ****ty candidate or that they lost... why blame people voting for the best candidate???!! Your position is just absurd and ultimately self defeating.

I wouldn't advise that. Anarchists will be among the first against the wall in the FEMA death camps.

But seriously folks, i think all this paranoia is a little extreme. I don't buy the slippery slope argument. If the government ever started using these powers to pick on average american joe, i think there would be some pretty strong opposition at that point. Maybe I'm naive.

A warrant is not a conviction so after you get the warrant then you attempt to capture him I'm assuming?

That is generally what cops try to do with criminals.

You know what's self-defeating? Casting half a vote for GWB because you're butthurt that the democrats do what they have to do to get elected in our right-tilting country. I guess in your world the dems should just keep trotting Dukakis and Carter up there every year and losing to idiots from Texas. Dignity preserved!

For people who agree largely with libertarian values, yes, this is a great opportunity. I, like a lot of people on here who voted for Obama in '08, will likely not be doing so again in '12, but still don't think of myself as a libertarian. I'd consider voting Green Party, but I'd do so cautiously, and not solely based on anger at Obama. There is a balancing test of sorts to run when making this decision, since a vote for the Green Party is currently guaranteed not to be a vote for the winning candidate. The value of doing so must be weighed against the consequential result - raising the probability of victory for the candidate farthest from my views. This isn't always an automatic decision. It isn't axiomatically self-depricating and undignified to not vote third party just for the sake of voting third party. Is it not just as possible to be mindless in dissent as it is to be mindless in support?

Generally the predicted casualty rate is closer to zero. In this hypothetical its not.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a criminal (someone who commits a crime) and a militant (someone who is engaged in warfare) but I'm already tired of this discussion of my rights are being taken because the President could hypothetically shoot me (Even though he could do it anyway).

What does NDAA 2012 do that is new from AUMF 2001? against US citizens.

Lol speak for yourself. I didn't cast any vote for GWB and I wouldn't consider Al Gore winning a victory. A victory would be if more Americans weren't spineless conformists eagerly cheering each other to vote against their morality and prop up known crooks.

If the Dems want to appeal to ME they need to put up a candidate I can support - pretty simple yeah?

Stop being a hostage at the voting booth. It's very unbecoming in a civilized, free society and it's helping no one.

I have a problem with this sort of idealism alone dictating my decisions. It's all relative.

Everybody has a point where they'll say **** it and vote for a candidate with some sort of differing view. For some, it may be voting for a candidate about which they love everything except one issue. Are RP supporters mindless because they vote for the candidate despite his psycho-gathering newsletters? No. In fact, the EXACT argument they usually use in response to this is "yeah, this is deplorable, but he is still WAY better than Obamney". (see Greenwald article)

Everybody has a point where they'll vote for a candidate to prevent another one's election. If Romney guaranteed that he'd spend his first 100 days nuking a new country full of brown people every day, and Obama was the only alternative with a shot at election, would you vote for Obama? I think a lot of people would support him despite their disdain for him.

you need more drugs
butnahhhh

or maybe?

I think perhaps we could still suggest voting Libertarian as best game theory strategy if the goal isn't defined as "electing someone we approve of" (if we admit that is impossible) but instead some other goal such as "working to break up the two party hegemony" or something similar.

I think this is a case where we wouldn't have to worry about Romney getting elected under any circumstance so the "be a hostage" argument should hold even less water. But yeah, if his nuke people every day plan was super popular I guess I could see voting for Pol Pot/Hitler/er um, Obama?

I mean, seriously - Put in those terms we'd have to take any of them over Romney wouldn't we? At what point do we refuse to vote at all?

Let's say there's a giant vote happening, and there's two groups -

One group, The ****ers, wants to **** you

Another group, The Rapists, wants to rape you

You feel like getting raped would be slightly worse, but what's messed up is you'd really like to vote NEITHER. You even see other people around the room looking really nervous... maybe they want to vote neither too! But as soon as you guys raise your hands to object reps of the ****ers and Rapists come rushing over to tell you what a horrible mistake you'll be making handing victory over to the opposition... "voting NEITHER is giving half a vote to the Rapists, don't you see??!"

As I see it moving votes away from the two parties just makes a far greater statement in the long run. After all, if I just swallow my integrity and vote for Obama cuz I'm scared of Romney, my one vote among those many millions will be literally insignificant. However if my vote is part of a growing and visible movement away from the two parties than it's actually making a greater statement in favor of a trend I support and ideals as well.

For me it's really clear what I have to do this election season, assuming I participate at all, and I'm willing to take the chance of getting raped instead of ****ed so there you have it.

Sterlinguini what do you consider Obama's worst foreign policy offense?

IMO it would be the continuation of Gitmo. How would you weight that offense in relevance as an issue compared to the starting of war in Iraq? Iran? For me it would be something like 1 to 100 and 1 to 1000 respectively.

Gitmo is up there for several reasons, but mostly because he campaigned so hard on it. I don't like how Libya was handled, Iraq privatized, Afghanistan continued, drone strikes in half a different dozen countries, the treatment of Israel and the build up toward war in Iran, the expansion of the CIA as a black ops military wing, continuing endorsement of torture, abandonment of our judicial system in handling suspects, assassination of Americans not convicted of a crime... Hrm I think there's more but I'll have to think on it.

I don't believe for a second that Al Gore wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. I quite literally believe that militarily the parties are indistinguishable. Just check out this youtube clip of various Democrats pumping up Iraq war propaganda previous to Bushs election. No reason to think anything would be different.

If Obama is clearly better than Bush in any area it would be in eloquence and salesmanship, not policy.

Maybe you are. Maybe you're too complacent. Maybe you trust the government too much.


If the PATRIOT act is any indication, we'll be seeing the NDAA detainment provisions used mostly for things other than terrorism.



http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anni...y/patriot-act/