Patriot Act Up For Renewal, Nobody Notices 463
Ponca City, We Love You writes "When the Patriot Act was first signed in 2001, it was billed as a temporary measure required because of the extreme circumstances created by the terrorist threat. The fear from its opponents was that executive power, once given, is seldom relinquished. Now the Examiner reports that on January 5th, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced a bill to add yet another year to the soon-to-be-expiring Patriot Act, extending it until February, 2012, with passage likely to happen after little debate or contention. If passed, this would be the second time the Obama administration has punted on campaign promises to roll back excessive surveillance measures allowed under the act. Last year's extension passed under the heading of the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. 'Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current deadline, and the fact that the bill's Republican sponsor is only seeking another year, I think it's safe to read this as signaling an agreement across the aisle to put the issue off yet again,' writes Julian Sanchez."
He could always... (Score:5, Interesting)
Veto it.
But he... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But he... (Score:5, Interesting)
"President Obama,
I understand a bill extending the Patriot Act is currently being voted on in Congress. The Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary measure introduced to increase the security of America. If this bill passes, please veto it on behalf of the American citizenry. It is time to end this nonsense. Don't make excuses.
Thank You,
[name signed here]"
Would anyone even notice? Would he comment on it? Here's the mailing address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re:But he... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama voted to renew the USA PATRIOT Act while he was still a Senator. It was one of the few things he even took a side on.
All this means is people who voted for Obama were ignorant rubes who couldn't do something as simple as checking a voting record — even one as short as Obama's!
Re:voted (Score:5, Funny)
No, we decided that if we were going to be oppressed, we could at least bask in the small luxury of complete sentences.
Re:voted (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that Obama has left much to be desired, comparing a common speech problem with a bumbling idiot is flamebait at best and ignorant at worst.
I mean, come on...seriously? Making fun of a guy who pseudo-stutters? What is this, fucking kindergarten?
Re:voted (Score:4, Informative)
If W was really an idiot, would it be his fault? Guess what: he's Ivy-league educated, and not an idiot.
"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened." --George W. Bush
"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis." --George W. Bush
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush
"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." --George W. Bush
"First of all, I don't see America having problems." --George W. Bush
"I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that -- in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House." --George W. Bush
The man is a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
McCain's undoing was the Palin crap and not running as he did before. Had he ran as McCain in 2000 he could have been elected, instead he did as his party told him and lost for it.
Oblig. Wesley Snipes (Score:2)
Would anyone even notice? Would he comment on it? Here's the mailing address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
A mailing address that changes all the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing really happens until the people are in the streets revolting and destroying property.
Re: (Score:3)
The White House also has a convenient Web contact form [whitehouse.gov]. How about this?
You really want to know? (Score:5, Informative)
When Obama was elected, he had a website, basically "hey citizens, tell us what you want!" The most popular thing on that site, bar none, by huge margins, was the legalization of marijuana. You know what Obama did? He laughed it off. He mentioned it, but specifically said the only reason he was mentioning it was because he wanted us to know it wasn't going to happen.
That's what happens when the public makes its will clearly known.
This is not a democracy. This is a corporatist republic. Once you fully understand that, you'll stop wasting your time writing letters.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the polls and gauge national opinion on the subject, the extension of the PATRIOT act is very much in accord with the wishes of the common man.
Because the common man is a coward.
Re: (Score:3)
If Obama were to veto the Patriot act, he would be eviscerated by scare-mongering issue ads for the next election, and they would work - and that's even IF the US doesn't happen to suffer another terrorist attack by then.
The problem is, Obama hasn't the smaller steps that are necessary to de-escalate the level of public hysteria in preparation for repealing Patriot. For example, closi
Writing your Congresswhore (Score:3)
Oh, no. They read it, all right. They scanned every word to see if there was a political contribution in there, or a way to eke one out of you. You know, money. Once they were done with that, then they threw it away. I assure you, they read every letter carefully.
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Insightful)
True story, bro. President Obama will not veto the Patriot Act. One thing both parties agree on, the Patriot act is a great tool for maintaining the status quo of the current power elites.
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think moreso than anything else, the Patriot Act can be held up as a shining example of both parties caring about nothing more than maintaining power. The Patriot Act goes against almost everything the Democratic party supposedly stands for; quietly continuing its usage and doing nothing to try to kill it should be proof to all but the most hardcore lefties that their beloved politicos are no better than the right-wingers they despise.
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here: I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" -Bill Hicks
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you haven't ever noticed, there is no left wing in the US. There are two rights.
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say Obama, I said the Democratic party. You do realize Obama isn't the only person with a (D) after their name, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Well excuse me then. I actually still like a few democrats. They are not all right of center sellouts like Obama. I was objecting to your characterization of "the most hardcore lefties" being the holdouts supporting this travesty. The most hardcore lefties were the first ones who realized it was happening. We aren't like the republicans, we do not circle our wagons, coordinate our talking points, and defend "our team" to the death.
Who can you expect to survive the system? (Score:5, Interesting)
The system will not allow somebody get elected who is threatens to disrupt those in power today. The best you can do is end up in a few party primaries like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich and quickly be marginalized by the party elite, the press, the tv media, and even big donors. You think its bad for 3rd parties? Well, the people within the parties get calmly screwed and setup in more covert ways-- With Nader, all you get is some transparency because they have no incentive to be as nice.... That is, if you pay attention to the 3rd party at all because the press sure does not tell you about the dirty tricks.
Obama could be great; however, it does not matter about him personally or what he tries to accomplish - he is a pragmatist and totally willing to compromise over ideals, ethics, etc. THAT is why he was allowed to proceed despite being an untested outsider -- Hillary would have won if Obama couldn't be managed. (The party elite were largely in her camp at the beginning- but they are just 1 of the weaker factions.)
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn straight he is. The center in this country wants a public health care option, an end to the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act repealed, Gitmo closed, and their kids home from getting shot at in the desert. That's the center. The Obama administration is firmly to the right of it. It's not hard to understand.
Re: (Score:3)
let me help you with this:
http://politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I'll tell you why I think libertarians are divorced from reality. Because they believe in simplistic solutions to complex problems. Because they do not think through the implications of their policies. Because they refuse to look at the lessons of history. Because they are funded by ultra-wealthy elites like the Koch brothers. Because they live in an echo chamber of their own devising. Is that enough, or would you like some more?
Re: (Score:3)
No. It doesn't. The fair tax taxes consumption above the poverty level; the poor aren't taxed at all.
I'm going to lay some numbers down to show you how it works. I'm picking them because they're easy to follow, not because they're specific suggestions. What the actual numbers should be would vary, but if you actually understand the following, your concerns about the poor will be resolved. There are only two numbers:
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarians want FREEDOM. They want the Constitution. They want sound money. They want friendly relations and trade with other countries without wars and without being the military dictatorship of the world.
They want the right to speak and the right to be left alone.
They want the government to be scared of the people and not the people to be scared of the government.
tea (Score:5, Funny)
The Greens? The Tea party?
Yes, some green tea would be lovely. No sugar please.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't you been listening to the source of all "truth", Fox News? Obama is so far left that's he's completely off the map, looney Communist nutjob?
I thought he was a fundamentalist Kenyan Muslim who wants to institute Sharia law in the United States. It's so hard to keep up with the sheer, unadulterated evil that is Obama.
Re:Hope and... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/lind_five_worldviews [salon.com]
The Democrats and the Republicans, when they govern, all generally govern as neoliberal globalists. Some Democrats campaign as social democratic liberals; somewhat more Republicans, lately, campaign as nationalist populists. Nonetheless, the consensus of power itself is pretty stable, and has been since the mid-90s.
Neoliberal globalism is essentially "center-right" ideology. It's very close to core neoconservatism, with the difference being that neo-conservatives give a bit more authority to the idea of the nation-state in carrying out its policing function.
Re: (Score:3)
The truly wealthy, already control the government and the money supply. Why do they need his changes? Why do they want a reduction in government when they already own it and use it as their power tool?
Why do they want a reduction in mil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back when Bush enacted this monstrosity, I remember warning conservatives that it wouldn't just go away, that someday, an evil DEMONCRAT would have that power. They just scoffed. Vindication sucks sometimes.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama would never do such a thing. If any even mild terrorist action occurred, it would be shouted from the rafters. It would sound something like this: "Hussein did not keep us safe. Or show us his birth certificate. In fact, the reason why he vetoed PATRIOT Act is because he is a secret Muslim terrorist who will bring down the United States and all Christians with his terrorist fist bump." Or something like that.
Obama clearly doesn't have the political courage to repeal PATRIOT, but neither would McCain, Palin, Biden, or really anyone aside from the Pauls. Which is unfortunate because PATRIOT is an awful piece of legislation that does nothing to keep us safe, but rather does the opposite by eroding our liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist vs. a 1-1 certainty of being spied upon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist vs. a 1-1 certainty of being spied upon.
1 in a billion, methinks you don't understand statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a good argument that, say, for a typical US resident P(killed by a terrorist) << 1e-9?
Two possibilities: (Score:3)
2) He's engaging in the ancient and time-honored art of hyperbole [lmgtfy.com], in which case his point STILL stands.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Insightful)
No disagreement from me. But the political reality is that Obama, Bush, Palin, McCain, and pretty much everyone else in Washington doesn't give a fig newton for your civil liberties if compromising them gets the politician elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist
So 7 people died from terrorism this year?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting theory... except for the fact that Obama's birth certificat has been produced, a copy is available on-line, and its validity has been repeatedly verified by the state of Hawaii.
It's more accurate to say that those right-wing nutters (and racists) will not be persuaded from their tin-hat conspiracy theories by anything as pesky as facts. They cling to it tenatiously, regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also his birth announcement from a Honolulu newspaper. This is not an 'official' document, but it's a hell of a lot harder to forge, since you have no idea how many copies of that paper are floating around in libraries or people's basements.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the announcement referred to some other newborn. "Barack Hussein Obama" is a pretty common name.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you produced a long form, they'd just move the goal posts again. Their real issue isn't his citizenship status. Their real issue is that they want some excuse to invalidate the fact that he is their legtimitaely elected leader, because they have a knee-jerk, but very viscereal hatered of the man.
Re: (Score:3)
And you honestly think the same people pushing this complete non-issue would care nearly as much if the President were a White Republican conservative? Honestly?
He was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If he weren't qualified for office, I doubt that would have happened. Nobody in Congress tried to block his swearing-in on these grounds either. They have the last word.
Whining about it now is an exercise in crying over spilt milk, even if what you say IS true, and most legal scholars wo
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating. That makes a lot of sense.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those things and more will be shouted from the rafters no matter what he does. He could single handedly create a lasting utopia for all on earth and there will still be some wingnut screaming that he's not really an American and it's all a trick.
Re:He could always... (Score:4, Informative)
I can think of other politicians who would have that kind of courage: Russ Feingold (who had the courage to vote against it to begin with), Bernie Sanders (listen to him talk, you'll see exactly why), Dennis Kucinich (who's also been against it all along, and has taken tougher stands before), and Ralph Nader.
The thing is, those guys are all seen as dangerous by the Democratic and Republican Party leadership, so their chance of getting elected president is basically nil.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were just a matter of the political elite that was stirring this up there would be a revolution. The problem is that a lot of people seem to like to have the high power distance structures which have marked American society for generations, and they are scared to actually have full access to the things tha
Re:He could always... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure you knew that, but it certainly bears mention as he was the only senator to vote against Patriot in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if 2/3 of the congress votes for it. But that's not the issue as he clearly does not want to veto it anyway.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there something that makes you think the will of the Democratic party is much different from that of the Republican party?
Re:He could always... (Score:4, Insightful)
it is very different, but just as corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the Republicans are in the majority in the House now, right?
Re: (Score:2)
That is only one house among three.
Re: (Score:2)
But not the Senate or White House.
Re: (Score:3)
You assume that Obama actually WANTS to get rid of the Patriot Act, a big assumption. He is part of the current power elite and the patriot act is a wonderful tool for maintaining their control over this country.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
None of those folks are progressive. Those folks were right of center the whole time. Name one very left person in the congress, by that I mean one who would support a real health care bill, one with at least a public option. Not the one they passed that was practically written by newt gingrich. That thing is a give away to insurance companies and ought to be ever republican corporate america cocksuckers wet dream.
Re:He could always... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean, like Nancy Pelosi, who swore she wouldn't allow such a bill without one? Like her?
Re: (Score:3)
Note that it was no accident it failed without debate.
Re: (Score:2)
And Bush was a Democrat in drag.
What Presidents, prey tell, were for preserving and not evicerating the Constitution?
Here's one for you: partisans are rubes in drag
Re:He could always... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, voting for this is not a Republican/Democrat debate. It is a debate about power.
Neither side want to give it up because both side see the day where they are in power.
I was against the Patriot Act from the start for the same reason I am against giving the government control over my health care. Sure the current guy might have the best intentions, but can you say the same about the next guy?
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Far left?
The fucker leans so far to the right he practically falls over.
He passed the health care bill the republicans proposed under gingrinch, he kept gitmo, what more do you want him to blow Rush?
Here is a hint, left would include consumer protection, public option at least if not single payer, downsizing of the military, closing gitmo, etc.
Re:He could always... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope not near left enough.
An actual consumer protection law would have been nice, the current one was written by the CC companies. Cap and Trade would have been nice though, it might have actually worked. It worked for Sulfer Dioxide, but I don't expect your kind to use facts or stuff like that. We do not need lower oil prices, we need higher ones. Only higher oil prices will create a market incentive to alternative fuels. Any oil buying is the same as buying it from foreign producers as oil is fungible. As far as the ban on deep water drilling that should stay in place until they can actually close wells in a timely manner.
He still registers about the same point in the spectrum as Reagan.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you aren't very familiar with US politics.
Obama is right-of-center. His policies align very, very closely with those of Reagan.
Bullshit. (Score:2)
I noticed yesterday when it was published in another news source.
All of Slashdot noticed today obviously.
Quit acting like nobody noticed or the politicians might start to think they can get away with nobody noticing.
obligatory Who quote (Score:2)
That deaf-dumb-blind kid, sure could play a mean pinball.
Ha, bet you thought I was gonna say "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", didn't you?
unconstitutional (Score:2)
More unconstitutional drivel from our elected body. I guess reading the constitution isn't doing them a bit of good.
Re: (Score:2)
They could make it all constitutional by adding a constitutional amendment. I propose they call it the "1984 Amendment."
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the legal way to do it. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done it yet. I guess no PAC has decided to push the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the legal way to do it. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done it yet.
The day Congress decides to pass an Amendment is the day they collectively realize they're bound by what the Constitution says. So, yeah, it won't ever happen.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is anyone surprised that Patriot act has bipartisan support? At the time it was passed all Democrat senators voted for it except for one (Feingold) and he is not in senate anymore. Democrats always supported the act, just like the Republicans did. Obama has renewed it regularly since so its a safe bet that he would have voted for it had he been in senate at the time.
About Obama's campaign promises. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget his promise to shut down Guantanamo and to end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, he campagined on expanding the war in Afghanistan.
He said something about getting out of Iraq though. And he does seem to be working towards drawing down the huge expense and committment there, but in spite of "combat operations having ended", there are still lots and lots of troops there.
What Does It mean (Score:2, Interesting)
When Obama and the Democrats didn't repeal it when they had all the power, and now, when they seemingly won't object to its renewal, does that mean they are hypocrites? Does it also mean that they actually tacitly approve of it?
For all the noise and whining that's been made about it by their constituents , the Dems sure have been quiet about it.
When the people you hate (republicans) and the people you love (Democrats) seem to be of like mind on something like this, is it time to consider that you are on the
Re:What Does It mean (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is time to face the fact that D and R are on the same fucking team and you are not.
And you go berserk and mod us down when (Score:4, Insightful)
and when we call on americans, some of you come up saying that not all americans are the same, some of you actually see what's going on, and aware of how things really are. ok. well. nice.
however, you have to do that, BEFORE being called out. if, you dont speak, and instead let the most loud voice that speaks be of irrationality and make-believe, it means that you are basically leaving the arena to such minded people.
when the wise dont speak, fools have the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not see news of protests? What in the world makes you think some people aren't mindful already? The problem is our system was accidentally designed to support the will of those with the most money to fund campaigns and fill pockets rather than the people.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem at all to be an accident that a system designed by the rich would benefit the rich!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the intention of the founding fathers was to build a system where political action committees funded by corporations (mostly) had all of the say in politics. So to answer your question, it does seem to be.
Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the protests weren't covered, or were downplayed.
I've seen protests with 20,000 or more be completely ignored by the media, while a few hundred Tea Party morons gathering in one spot with their misspelled signs gets wall to wall coverage for an entire weekend.
Yeah, no media bias here (and I'm not just talking about FOX News, by any stretch of the imagination).
Re: (Score:2)
In defense of that, the Tea Party protests were 1) huge, 2) sensationalist, 3) current topics.
FOX covered them to promote the cause, all the others covered them to poke fun and defang them.
Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no. Even on MSNBC they criticize Democrats heavily.
And CNN has more conservatives on air than liberals, significantly.
Republican talking points get a lot more unquestioning play than any liberal or Democratic ones... even on Networks.
And DON'T think that Republican/Conservatives/FOX News are anti-big government... they're NOT. Republicans and FOX News are very, very pro-big-government. They just believe in big government for the wealthy, the corporations, and the militarty industrial complex. In fact, 80% of the national debt was run up under Republican Presidents. The biggest increases in government spending happened under Bush, when he had all three branches of government in Republican control. The notion that Republicans (and by extension, FOX News) is in any way "small-government" or "fiscally responsible" is just a big, blatent lie.
BOTH parties are "big-government". The only difference is who benefits the most.
How Long until (Score:5, Insightful)
They've done it on other things. It's a scam where they can refuse to vote, it automatically passes, and they can claim they didn't vote for it.
It's going to take a lot of people to metaphorically kick them in the balls repeatedly until they get the idea that maybe that nazi act needs to be retired before they'll do it.
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA can help with this.
Subscribe to the Patriot club! We will keep sending you yearly issues until you cancel!
Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the way US laws are given these cheesy, sometimes forced, acronyms.
I think you guys are doing yourself a disservice as they seem to dumb down the often complex debates and arguments covered by these acts, and force folk into simplistic positions based on the naming of the acts. It must be hard to argue against a PATRIOT act: most people don't want to appear 'unpatriotic'.
I am guessing there are civil servants paid to make up some of these acronyms, some of them must have taken some thinking! ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" - impressive!).
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's all in the name. It's the PATRIOT Act. You want to be a PATRIOT don't you??
Same thing with the ridiculous "Job-Killing Healthcare Law Repeal Act" or whatever they're calling it. You don't want to KILL JOBS do you???
It's in the name, so it must be true, right?
Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fucking hilarious really.
What Congress really needs .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would require them showing up for work and working, all year long. Are you nuts?
Re: (Score:2)
is a mandatory sunset date on every bill that they sign into law. A year wouldn't be bad. A year would give legal scholars and the public (and maybe even congress itself ,... nah wait for it...... hahahahaha) a chance to review it to see if it actually works.
Even two years would be tolerable. That way, you could vote out the congress if you didn't like the laws, and the new gang coming in would have to decide if their political careers were worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the Feds give up the power? (Score:5, Interesting)
The PATRIOT Act is here to stay. There is NO WAY the Federal Government is going to willingly give up all the powers it granted them.
Of all the stupid things that happened during the Bush years, that is by far the most damaging. And it's going to take a Congress and a President with a hell of a lot more spine to repeal it. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
step by step (Score:5, Insightful)
"What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people. The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. But the one great shocking occasion... never comes. That's the difficulty." - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45
Americans seem to fall into these categories:
The rich - they don't care about justice or injustice, just money
The poor - they may care but they have no power
The oblivious - they're busy watching American Idol and eating pizza
The middle class - they're just trying to maintain or looking for work
"What keeps most Americans from being shocked by the shredding of the Bill of Rights is that they have yet to feel the consequences, either personally or through someone close to them. It would appear, however, that they only have to wait." - William Blum
It is not so bad (Score:2, Interesting)
democracy is grand, ain't it? (Score:3)
What economy has been growing at an astronomical speed? The one that is able to make quick and intelligent decisions (China) without worrying about the people it harms. There's a happy medium between the two things...and that happy medium was what we originally had; a system where only the educated could vote. Was it perfect? Hell know, but at least it wasn't farking stupid like the crap we have now. I've never understood why people so readily accept the brainwashing that democracy is the only right way...think about how horrible medical science would be if we let the "common man" make decisions about how to do treatments, what procedures would be most respected, etc. Think about how successful medicine would be if any actor, random dude on the street, or whatnot could suddenly declare themselves a surgeon.
There is a certain skillset and personality to being a real, honest politician. One that has little to do with reading polls daily. We'll never get that back here - ever. C'est la vie, I guess.
Mr President (Score:4, Interesting)