welcome to arizona

[see4]

Many people do not see the benefits offered for liberties surrendered as a bad trade off...

Again, what liberties have I surrendered in the past 5 years?

I say past 5 years, because I know you were not crying about this pre-Obama.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so i'm at the dog park today. it's a great dog park, as far as those things go. there's even a big lake where my dog loves to swim and my parents black lab loves to fetch the tennis ball from the lake endlessly.

so i'm throwing the ball for my parent's dog, and watching as my dog romps around in the water, when i hear my family talking to some lady. i can't quite hear what they are saying, but i can tell just by my wife's tone that this lady is saying some crazy shit.

then i hear my dad and her talking, and it is about obama and religion. so naturally i am interested and wander over.

"obama, what is he?" - says crazy lady

my dad starts saying something, which is immediately cut off by the crazy lady.

"is he a child of the universe? i mean, what religion is he?"

"christian", my wife states matter of factly in that familiar tone i just heard.

"christian? really", says crazy lady.

at this point i decide to turn around and confront this lady with basic questions.

"did you really not know that obama is a christian?", i ask incredulously.

"no, i don't know what he is", she replies.

"he's the president" i state, and walk away again.

as i walk away, i hear her garble some words around as if they meant something, before she blurts out...

"i just don't like big government"

i stopped, turned around again, and pointed out that phoenix only exists because the big government built a dam.

her reply, and i shit you not:

"well, i like dams. i don't want to be flooded!"

i gave up at that point and walked away without mentioning the irony of her making that statement at a public park. i later heard her mention that she is a tea partier and she renamed her adult dog "liberty".

as if the dog is even gonna understand that its name got changed.

i asked what they were talking about at first, and my wife told me she engaged them with some of the conspiracy theories she heard about through youtube videos.

i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry leaving the park.

welcome to arizona.

and california doesnt have crazy moonbats gabbling insane nonsense and shouting at clouds...

ohh wait, california is the CAPITAL of nutbar fruitloops screaming crazy shit.

but if the crazy gibberjabber suits your narrative then thats all that matters.

 

[cannabineer]

No I do not. I have the ability to obtain the same things I did as a child, in fact more so now than before.

What do you mean shifting away from the idea of people's rights? What rights have been taken away?

Since the Patriot Act and the decade preceding...
I have seen the following civil rights significantly eroded.

Free speech
Free association
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
Right to due process
Right to a speedy, public trial
Freedom from cruel, unusual punishments aka "enhanced interrogations"

 

[abandonconflict]

So neither of you think we're headed toward authoritarian calamity? Rights formerly awarded to people are now being transferred to "persons", corporate entities, and the legislative/judicial system isn't catching up. Society is shifting away from the idea of people's rights ... all the while hoisting the PC illusion that that is just what it is doing. To me that is a formula for eventual revolution, and the picayune fighting points of the entrenched parties are part of the blind.

You're becoming increasingly radical. I know coming from me you might recoil at this suggestion but it's a compliment.

 

[cannabineer]

You're becoming increasingly radical. I know coming from me you might recoil at this suggestion but it's a compliment.

From you I know it is, and i appreciate it as such.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You're becoming increasingly radical. I know coming from me you might recoil at this suggestion but it's a compliment.

arguing for a return to core principles and repeal of changes which have not resulted in benefit is "Radical" in your view?

when the left push their agenda so far over the edge that conservatism is viewed as "Radical" then you know they have gone too far.

 

[abandonconflict]

arguing for a return to core principles and repeal of changes which have not resulted in benefit is "Radical" in your view?

when the left push their agenda so far over the edge that conservatism is viewed as "Radical" then you know they have gone too far.

Did you have a nice holiday?

 

[see4]

Since the Patriot Act and the decade preceding...
I have seen the following civil rights significantly eroded.

Free speech
Free association
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
Right to due process
Right to a speedy, public trial
Freedom from cruel, unusual punishments aka "enhanced interrogations"

You do not have a right to a "public" trial. In most cases you do, but this is completely to the discretion of the presiding judge. This has been the case for a long time.

Free speech has not been muted.

Enhanced interrogations, yea, well, thank Cheney for that one.

All the others are just feelings, nothing substantive to support those. And only when it favors some and not others.

Can you name a few examples of each outlined above? Unreasonable search and seizure, can include the Arizona immigrant laws and enhanced interrogations can include Guantanamo Bay. Both Republican mainstays. And since when has the government interfered with Sigmund Freud and his postulation of free association?

 

[see4]

arguing for a return to core principles and repeal of changes which have not resulted in benefit is "Radical" in your view?

when the left blah blah blah conservatism blah blah you know blah blah blah.

you are silly.

 

[UncleBuck]

So neither of you think we're headed toward authoritarian calamity? Rights formerly awarded to people are now being transferred to "persons", corporate entities, and the legislative/judicial system isn't catching up. Society is shifting away from the idea of people's rights ... all the while hoisting the PC illusion that that is just what it is doing. To me that is a formula for eventual revolution, and the picayune fighting points of the entrenched parties are part of the blind.

the revolution will take place after dancing with the stars is over. and we'll need to have a snack on the way.

actually, i have work tomorrow and a dentist appointment on my lunch break. can we revolution next tuesday?

 

[cannabineer]

You do not have a right to a "public" trial. In most cases you do, but this is completely to the discretion of the presiding judge. This has been the case for a long time.

Free speech has not been muted.

Enhanced interrogations, yea, well, thank Cheney for that one.

All the others are just feelings, nothing substantive to support those. And only when it favors some and not others.

Can you name a few examples of each outlined above? Unreasonable search and seizure, can include the Arizona immigrant laws and enhanced interrogations can include Guantanamo Bay. Both Republican mainstays. And since when has the government interfered with Sigmund Freud and his postulation of free association?

Unreasonable search: the destructive service of many police warrants.
Unreasonable seizure: the ascendancy of confiscation (without conviction and without reversal upon acquittal) of property.
Free association: the pursuit of "watch lists" under the aegis of the patriot Act. In my case, I don't think that these being common Republican talking ponts either enhances or repels me from my stance. I don't think of this as a partisan issue at all since both "real" parties have abandoned the isea that civil liberties are a "prime directive".
I will also admit here that I am ignorant about the link between Freud and the right of free association. I can imagine this to be levity based on psychological tests (a favorite punchline: "Gosh, Doc ... you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!") and wonder if this was humor or more serious. I say Uncle.

 

[abandonconflict]

You can't count on democrats to do the left thing.

 

[echelon1k1]

All laws MUST be based on the US Constitution.

What is interpretation? Read it, what does it say? There's no interpretation, there's twisting, there's manipulation, there's restriction of the broad rights granted by the Constitution and it's amendments. "Interpretation" falls in the one of those three. Any law restricting any right, even [] that much, is a law that restricts. End of story.

EDIT:



It's already here.

Citation required. I did not state that armed drones have been deployed in the continental united states.

 

[see4]

Unreasonable search: the destructive service of many police warrants.
Unreasonable seizure: the ascendancy of confiscation (without conviction and without reversal upon acquittal) of property.
Free association: the pursuit of "watch lists" under the aegis of the patriot Act. In my case, I don't think that these being common Republican talking ponts either enhances or repels me from my stance. I don't think of this as a partisan issue at all since both "real" parties have abandoned the isea that civil liberties are a "prime directive".
I will also admit here that I am ignorant about the link between Freud and the right of free association. I can imagine this to be levity based on psychological tests (a favorite punchline: "Gosh, Doc ... you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!") and wonder if this was humor or more serious. I say Uncle.

I humbly agree to your definition of free association, but will ante with the notion that none of this is any more true now than it has been for decades. A former boss of mine was Pope AFB Commander charged with implementing NSA satellite communications in the 80's. I am almost positive if we (the people) dive down this NSA rabbit hole further, we will see that we (the people) have been "tapped" for quite some time. Unreasonable search and it's subsequent seizure have been common practice for decades as well. I do not dispute this, and I do not argue that it is right. I only ask why complain about it now? Why only during the Obama (Democratic) Presidency? Why has this become such a right wing klingon?

 

[NLXSK1]

I humbly agree to your definition of free association, but will ante with the notion that none of this is any more true now than it has been for decades. A former boss of mine was Pope AFB Commander charged with implementing NSA satellite communications in the 80's. I am almost positive if we (the people) dive down this NSA rabbit hole further, we will see that we (the people) have been "tapped" for quite some time. Unreasonable search and it's subsequent seizure have been common practice for decades as well. I do not dispute this, and I do not argue that it is right. I only ask why complain about it now? Why only during the Obama (Democratic) Presidency? Why has this become such a right wing klingon?

Wasnt Obama promising hope and change?

I cant see why you are not complaining about him doubling down on the Bush policies... I guess the messiah can do no wrong..

 

[see4]

Wasnt Obama promising hope and change?

I cant see why you are not complaining about him doubling down on the Bush policies... I guess the messiah can do no wrong..

You stick to your talking points, but please let the adults talk now. Go run along boy. Shoo shoo.

Edit: Ehh, maybe I was quick to respond. Let me add; I am not a Messiah following Obama supporter. If he ran a third term, I would not vote for him. And I am disappointed with his actions regarding aforementioned policies, I wish he were much more liberal.

And again, let me reiterate this, again, for the fourth time. Why only start complaining about this now? I was complaining about it 10 years ago. I still think it's shit. But I am asking you, why are you only complaining about it now? Was it good when Bush did it? But bad now that a black man is doing it?

 

[NLXSK1]

You stick to your talking points, but please let the adults talk now. Go run along boy. Shoo shoo.

Edit: Ehh, maybe I was quick to respond. Let me add; I am not a Messiah following Obama supporter. If he ran a third term, I would not vote for him. And I am disappointed with his actions regarding aforementioned policies, I wish he were much more liberal.

And again, let me reiterate this, again, for the fourth time. Why only start complaining about this now? I was complaining about it 10 years ago. I still think it's shit. But I am asking you, why are you only complaining about it now? Was it good when Bush did it? But bad now that a black man is doing it?

I was complaining about it since before Clinton kiddo...

Just because you were not aware of it does not make it less true.

 

[see4]

I was complaining about it since before Clinton kiddo...

Just because you were not aware of it does not make it less true.

Ok, so what you're saying is you are complaining about politicians in general, not Obama specifically. Ok good. Glad you straightened that out for me.

And when you say before Clinton do mean Bush or Reagan?

 

[Rob Roy]

You stick to your talking points, but please let the adults talk now. Go run along boy. Shoo shoo.

Edit: Ehh, maybe I was quick to respond. Let me add; I am not a Messiah following Obama supporter. If he ran a third term, I would not vote for him. And I am disappointed with his actions regarding aforementioned policies, I wish he were much more liberal.

And again, let me reiterate this, again, for the fourth time. Why only start complaining about this now? I was complaining about it 10 years ago. I still think it's shit. But I am asking you, why are you only complaining about it now? Was it good when Bush did it? But bad now that a black man is doing it?

Why do you call a mixed race person "black"? Are you a racist?

 

[see4]

Why do you call a mixed race person "black"? Are you a racist?

What do you color an African American who is predominantly darker skinned? I would call them black. As most people would.

Nice try, but no.

Why do you want to touch my erection so bad?