As an interesting aside, this may be the first time I sit out of an election. While I'm very happy about the forward momentum on gay rights under President Obama, like Tranthas I'm about 10,000x unhappier about the NDAA being signed by him with the provision for detaining American citizens indefinitely.

Many people have argued I would never NOT vote for a democratic president, so I thought it would be worth throwing out here that here's a situation where I won't. I'm horrified that after campaigning on the trail on the rights of non-citizens to have a speedy trial, he turned around and signed his name to something that has the potential to strip our constitutional rights away.

And given the pack of fucking dunderheads the GOP is running....yeah. Casting a vote for one of them would pretty much just be admitting that the America I believe in is dead. So I stay home, I guess. Right now, I'm not real fucking happy with Obama. Some people have argued that the vagueness of the bill is somehow a defense. When we have had White Houses that have turned to their staff and said: "Find me a way to make torture legal"? Not real happy about having a "vague law" to detain citizens indefinitely out there.

_________________

Yeah, I don't see a clear way to vote at all in the next election either. The GOP clearly can't field anyone fit for the office, but I can't vote for Obama at this point either.

While I don't agree with the decision to codify the indefinite detention of Americans (or even to allow it at all), it's not like this stance is new to this administration. The fact that it is now placed into law changes little, other than putting it more into people's faces.

There are two good things that came out of this though. It prompted two bills that would explicity prohibit indefinite detention of American citizens, and it prompted the administration to issue a signing statement indicating that it would not use the power to indefinitely detain a citizen.

I personally don't see any way to support anyone aside from Obama for President. Those who may win the Republican nomination hold similiar stances regarding citizen detention, and have far worse fiscal and social stances. I'm comfortable voting the "lesser evil" if that is all that is available.

Both of which are completely invalidated by the Lieberman bill that would grant them the ability to strip a US citizen of their citizenship without a trial.

Our government is reaching for a lot of power right now. Since the Patriot Act, the number of things we're giving the government the ability to do in fear of "terrorism" should alarm anyone. Republican, Democrat, RonPaulicon...it doesn't matter. This is a very basic and fundemental right that the government is now chipping away at. Their hands should be smacked hard and told to keep out of the cookie jar.

They justify it by wording it like "against anyone who tries to harm America", but that gives them a nice big brush to paint with. I may not agree with (or particularly like) Anonymous, but I can certainly see how they could be painted with that brush. Think what you may of them, I don't think they deserve to be "detained" for years without trial.

Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that the conservative movement was trying to paint OWS as a terrorist act.

Loss of due process is *huge*.

_________________

I completely agree with everything you've said. I'm not ok with stripping citizens of their basic rights regardless of what they are accused of. I'm simply voicing my opinion that while I vehemently disagree with his decision to sign the indefinite confinement of citizens without trial into law, that cannot justify sitting out and risking the possibility of the eventual Republican nominee becoming President. This possibility is not far-fetched. Everyone has lost a lot of the drive that they had when putting Obama in office in the first place (understandably).

I likely wouldn't feel that way if it were a moderate Republican that stood a chance of winning the nomination. As it stands now though, no moderate is going to get that chance. It's going to be someone with as harsh or harsher views regarding our basic rights, along with social and economic stances that most people who voted for Obama in 2008 would find reprehensible.

This is going to be a real "lesser of two evils" election. In the previous election I liked McCain but immediately slammed on the brakes when he picked up that lunatic media whore Palin...I think a LOT of folks voted for Obama because of that decision.

Now we've got another election coming up with both parties more polarized than I've ever seen them.We've President who has really lost a lot of support even from the folks that were rabid for him 4 years ago yet no one running for the GOP seems worthy/qualified for the job...Gingrich perhaps with his long political career..but even he's kind of random.

Also...whatever happened to the separation of church and state? This entire election has been nothing but religious bullshit from top to bottom. I want a guy who can lead the country. I don't give a crap about his choice if religion...yet we're basing almost everything involving the candidates on their religious leanings. We as Americans mock these countries like Iran with their heavy handed religious leaders...yet you'd think we're ruled by a Theocratic council or something.

Whatever happened to the whole melting pot culture society this country had? The racism, homophobia, xenophobia and whatnot seems off the charts in the last few years.

It's like "Welcome to America, white man. Enjoy your right to practice Christianity"

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Well, note that the run up to the RNC primary is not "the election". Republican candidates have always had a quick God-Off in the primary stages, and why not? The religious vote worked very well for Bush Jr., and it didn't mistreat McCain. And honestly, what politician doesn't love that part of the constituency that takes up a 200-word book, is told it's a guidebook on how to live your whole life, and hands it to someone else to interpret for them?

should read "2000-page book". I was tired.

I'm still quietly hoping for a miracle in New Hampshire tomorrow. Nothing that has occurred since I first posted that I support Huntsman has changed my mind, in fact it has solidified my position; and I don't know what I will do if he's not the nominee. I may have to sit this election out (something I have never done).

The only problems I have with Huntsman are his stances on abortion and gay marriage, really.

That being said... those are two of my top five issues, so I doubt I'll be able to vote for him if he's actually nominated.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I know so little about huntsman as he seems to get so little news coverage.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

I think we've discussed this before. But, anyway, his position on gay marriage is identical to Obama's: for civil unions (which he has supported for by far longer than Obama) but opposed to gay marriage. The only candidate from either party whose views would in any way support gay marriage is Ron Paul because of his true believer stance about equal protection under the law and I would guess that, if asked he would oppose government recognition of any and all marriages as they are a state's rights issue.

Civil unions but not gay marriages is "separate but equal", I can't stand for that.
I would be more inclined to vote for a candidate who said "no marriages for anyone. civil unions for all. if you want to 'get married', talk to your religious official of choice"

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I agree with this

So do I, but it'll never fly while any Republican draws breath. That "sanctity of marriage" blowhard rhetoric is so flexible. It supports any iteration of "I fear change".

If Romney would drop the whole getting rid of the Estate tax and just support pinning it at 5 million like it is now I could almost get behind him, almost. Maybe if he would add supporting dropping the lifetime plus part of the copyright law and just leave it at 70 years and... no, there is just too many problems with him. As it is now it looks like another election with no good choice.

Yeah, as I watch our protection from our own government crumble law by law, I'm really tortured by the thought that my art won't be copyrighted for as long after I'm dead. We should stick with the issues that are really important.

I'm not an american so coming at this with limited knowledge but I've read a lot about the NDAA recently so decided to look it up. Despite seeing rants and raves about the indefinite detention of US citizens I couldn't find anything in the bill that actually gave the authority to do this. Obviously I didn't read the entire thing but the table of contents is sufficient enough to locate the authorizations and I couldn't find where it gave this power to anyone.

Can someone point me to the relevant sections of the act?

Section 1021, Subsection C :

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Subsection E :
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Section 1022 states that the military shall be the one doing the detaining.

The parts about not applying to citizens was added in later, but it's rather trivial for the government to revoke citizenship.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

How does the government revoke citizenship?

It's worth noting that the dangerous language in the NDAA is positioned in such a way that a search through the table of contents won't find it. You have to read the whole thing to understand what it'll do, and it's not an accident.

As for revoking citizenship, Congress is still working on the details of a bill that will allow the government to revoke your citizenship if you are suspected of terrorism. Not convicted, mind you, or even accused -- suspected.

Back on topic: I think Romney's "Income inequality complaints are about envy" comment probably holed his campaign below the waterline.

This sounds like bullshit to me. The specific sections that grant authority do not provide for what is claimed. Making statements that "its in there somewhere" aren't valid. Show me where.

The State Department can already revoke your citizenship for a number of thing, including "volunteering for a foreign army" -- that sounds strangely like "enemy combatant" to me :p

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I would be inclined to go with the latter policy long before the idea of endorsing marriages for all, these days. Despite the fact that marriage has, in contemporary times, been much more secular, it still has very strong historical roots in spirituality(and religion) and retains those qualities. Given the connections it has, it makes more sense from a separation of church and state standpoint to use an institution that has zero connection to religion(civil unions) for everyone.

Frankly, it's not just Republicans. There are plenty of religious Democrats too that would be against this.



Can't blame him for speaking his mind, at least. Similar outrage was present when he talked about "loving to fire people" or some such, and I believe he said something about the OWS people as well.

He's got the mind of a businessman and is a believer in capitalism. I can't fault someone for that. For all the faults of capitalism, the sheer number of whiners out there that claim that they've tried to succeed(when they did nothing, in reality) and decried that "the system wouldn't let me!" do very little to establish a base for its denigration.

Even though I disagree with much of Mitt's politics, he seems like a guy that genuinely put effort into getting where he got to in life. I can't say the same for the zombies I see on a day to day basis with no passion in life.

I agree with you that it probably hurt his campaign.

All the proof I needed was in the presidential signing statement.



He would never have had to make that signing statement (full text here http://www.infowars.com/president-obama ... ut-i-wont/ ) if that bill didn't actually grant what we have been saying it granted. He wants to clarify that he can, but he won't. And even more so, he binds it to "My Administration" (good luck with the next guy!)

I feel better, don't you?

_________________

I would completely agree to vote for a candidate who said "no marriages for anyone. civil unions for all. if you want to 'get married', talk to your religious official of choice. This makes sense, as being Gay the sole reason me and Christopher traveled to Washington, DC to marry was for legal reason not the religion reason.

I wish our House / Senate would get their head out of their ass and go this route. But that will never happen.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Agreed.

The zombies you see on a day to day basis are not running for President. Being rich does not make you a qualified leader. Being a "believer in capitalism" is not a rare quality; perhaps if we keep looking, we can find someone who believes in capitalism and is also qualified to lead other people.

It seems to be a common theme in the way that (much of) the Right thinks right now.

If you have money, you must be special, smart, great, good at everything, etc.

If you're "poor" (Poor in this context just meaning middle class, or generally just "Someone with less than me" from any given persons' perspective.), you must be a leech, an idiot, a zombie, lazy, etc.

I beg to differ...

You may not think that, but you're not a politician, nor are you in the "one percent"

And I think you may be more left than you really think, Krby. :p

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

See if this describes you.



Because I totally say that all the time. It gets confusing when people get their social stuff all up in my economics, and vice versa.

Back on topic again...

Huntsman dropped out and endorsed Romney. What do you guys think?

It probably means a Romney/Huntsman ticket if Rombot gets the nom.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Ugh. It looks a lot like Romney will wind up with the nomination, but is it responsible to vote for a guy you think is going to hurt the country, just because the alternative is voting for a guy who already did? I have a problem with abdicating my responsibility just because the decision is hard -- I'm going to vote, I've decided -- but Jesus, this isn't going to be easy.

You can always write in your own choice, most states that I know of allow write in votes afaik

Reason I want to vote for Romney... former gov of a blue state... strong economics and executive background... and when the crazies drop out (like Perry) and endorse the OTHER guy?

Sign me up.

I am completely baffled by the Romney supporters. He has proven that he cannot create jobs while in the public sector; and his job creation in the public sector, if you believe his numbers, was low-paying jobs versus the higher-paying jobs he destroyed. He has flip-flopped on any number of issues, wants to start a trade war with China, and has by far the most timid of economic plans which does nothing to simplify the tax code. In addition he keeps giving the White House ammunition to use against him in the fall: $10,000 bet, $374,000 in speaking fees being 'very little', a grandfather who fled to Mexico to practice polygamy, corporations are people too, and those are just the ones that spring immediately to mind. I just don't get it.

oops, I meant "and his job creation in the PRIVATE sector, if you believe his numbers"

Aaaaand, Rick Perry is out. This surprises no one, really, but they're dropping out faster now. That leaves Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Santorum will drop after SC. His campaign is broke.

Newt will possibly drop after SC now that his "scandals" are hitting the air.

That leaves the crazy old man (Paul) and he isn't campaigning in Florida.

Fox News Brainwashing and folks determined to torpedo their own ship to get Obama out of office at any and all costs.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, but I do found it quite hilarious how people bash them so hard, when the

Clinton News Network has done the exact same thing and for a much longer period of time.

The fact that you still call it that this many years past Clinton's term says otherwise lol. Out of all the left and right wing ultra-biased news networks, CNN is the most objective.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

objective reporting along with 90% of human beings common sense left planet earth somewhere in the mid 20th century IMO.

It seems ludicrous to me to try to portray CNN in the same light as Fox News.

let me clarify my position on news networks

they all are slanted in some fashion left or right imo, some more than others and yes Fox news is among the worst of the more than others.

news media is no longer and again imo has not been for some quite some time objective in its reporting, fair, unbiased, unslanted news went the way of the dodo.

I'm not quite that cynical.

I believe that it is impossible to completely eliminate bias, but that it is a worthy goal when news organizations attempt to do so anyway.

I believe that when the news organizations simply report the news, they generally do a pretty good job. However, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all try to get more watchers by doing a lot of other stuff as well-- and those specific attempts and the corresponding shows tend to have a lot more bias. And finally, I believe that FOX news is by far the worst offender in this area.

As an aside, I tire also of the related topic, where many conservatives try to equate NPR news programming with Rush Limbaugh and other similar drivel. They are so far removed from each other that it is insulting to even pretend that NPR has the same bullshit on its airwaves as Rush Limbaugh's lambasting of liberal thinking.

Part of the point in context of what you were saying is that he doesn't endorse such a zombie-like life concept, not entirely whether or not his being rich/successful has everything to do with leadership. The fact that he forged somewhat of a path on his own as a businessman and moving on to become governor suggests to me that he has at least some amount of leadership experience. Not always direct leadership per se, but a wide enough breadth of experience to put him far and above the average pleb who cries about the world being unfair and never does anything to change their fate. It's not a silver bullet as a leadership test, but it's one of those things that separates the men from the boys. Something over nothing. In these days of Presidential politics, that's sadly something =)

That's not to say that there aren't other candidates who made themselves. Far from it. But like I said, it's something that at least places him in the running. And frankly, I appreciate his candidness about crybabies. Few candidates are willing to go that far, with the exception of Newt and his comments about the Wall Street Protestors, which I also found hilarious and awesome.

I would suggest that believing in capitalism is a more rare quality than you think, at least in a more pure form. Today's society *does* tend to believe more in government regulation and limited capitalism(to the extent that more people can still make it without floundering as easily, and to the extent that there's a desire to target entities that begin to edge close towards monopolies; as well as "inequality" in general). It is, at the very least, significantly more rare to see someone in today's economy endorsing capitalism to the extent that one would say people should stop whining about inequality and do something about it.

I still don't think they really want him out. They want him to stay right where he is for the next four years while we recover, so they can continue blaming him for everything that goes wrong. It will be very difficult for the president to look good at all, especially with a hostile Congress, in the next four years -- no matter who he is. The better long-term strategy may be to tether Obama on the White House lawn for another four years and release the velociraptors.

You can grade on a curve if you want, but I've never believed that people's failure to meet reasonable standards was any excuse for lowering them.

We're using different definitions of the word "capitalism". I like Oxford's definition: "an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." In the pure form, a capitalist economy doesn't have anti-trust laws or a welfare system. Pay close attention to exactly what kind of capitalism you're venerating your candidate for supporting.

Except, as I indicated, I'm not lowering them. I'm saying that's what we have to choose from. As I said, something over nothing. I wish we had a better selection =/ My standards may be unreasonably high for any current candidate, but that doesn't mean I won't make a choice. What's your alternative? Please don't say Obama.



No dictionary definition will fully encompass the word's breadth, TBH. It's like going to merriam-webster for a definition of philosophy

Though I'll agree that it's harder to narrow down as a result of our different perspectives on it.

I would argue that, as a result of a strongly-held belief in capitalistic principles, a person is unlikely to piss and moan about inequality. That is a often a result of a typical capitalist system. There will almost always be a class of people that fall under the bus in a capitalist society by the nature of the system, but that doesn't make it inherently flawed.

There are drawbacks to every system, and that's one for capitalism. A person who believes in it believes that the drawbacks are worth it over the alternatives. And as you note via the definition: as opposed to being controlled by the state, whereby there probably is a higher likelihood of a low/average person getting a more "level" playing field than capitalism.

By the way Tranthas, you still in the same area? If so, are you snowed in? =p I think this is worse than the snow a few years ago with all the power outages =x

No, I think Barack and I are done with each other. I went to Olympia to help get him elected, and he fucked me on this NDAA thing. I won't forget that tomorrow. But it sounds to me like rationalizing "This is our set of choices" basically amounts to re-calibrating the standard to accept the best available as the top of the curve, which is exactly what I refuse to do. Everyone fails this year so far; I don't live in a universe where someone has to pass. No Child Left Behind was a spectacular failure, but I knew what would happen long before it was cool.

There are parallels in evolutionary theory, and with roughly the same results. As the sentients in the equation, we should probably be looking ahead to make sure we don't over-specialize into extinction.

I was trapped in my home for three days by an 18-inch layer of ice over my driveway, but a solid day of rain took care of that. I can get around again now, thank you.
This is probably the worst it's been since 2008, but for the moment it's passed.

Oh damn, there goes Santorum. Start the 7-day countdown to surrender, he's pulled a Rick Perry and waved his Bible around in front of a secular camera.

He creeps me the hell out.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Everyone with the currrent Republican noms creep me out. I mean really.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Santorum IS a nutjob.

The fact that he is close is sad.

Stewart summed up Santorum nicely:

"Rick, I'm sorry that hearing that JFK speech on religion makes you throw up. But if it makes you feel any better, if JFK were alive today, knowing you were running for President would make him shit his pants.”

_________________

I loved that quote too. hahaha

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Yeah. Frankly Santorum is the worst candidate (who is getting votes, not fringe candidates) that I've seen in my voting lifetime.