Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/7/10 06:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/6/10 01:10 PM, TheMason wrote: That could open the door for the Libertarian party to nominate someone credible and have a very, very good shot at winning the presidency.

If not, I think Palin would probably win over the "Liberal".

I don't see how there's a hope in hell of the libertarians winning, ever.
Unless the Democrats could get somebody as inspirational and motivating as Obama, Palin would win.

Libertarians have the same problem Liberals do. The majority of the populace has know idea what they are or what they stand for. Conservatives have done a very good job of polarizing everyone with a false dichotomy between "conservatism" and their imaginary "liberalism"

Thank you Musician, those are all good points.

Most Americans believe they are center to center right, but when polled on the issues they are center to center left on many issues, even if they are center right on others. This means there needs to be legislation from the left occasionally, not just legislation from the exact center and the right.

At 12/6/10 12:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The stimulus and the Healthcare bill were both definitely liberal and they were actually his ideas.

Actually, no they weren't.

Reforming health care had been a promise for the last 40 years by both the "left" and the "right." This particular push was spearheaded by Hilary Clinton. Obama took up the call because he saw it was winning her points in the long primary and adopted her ideas. He called for, among other unfulfilled promises a public option. What was actually passed was a Federal version of Republican Governor Romney's Massachusetts health care reform. You are welcome to look up the freely available related facts. The healthcare solution we got was a combination of corporate & republican desires, for the most part that Republicans voted against at the last second. The very idea of a health care exchange is markets, a strongly conservative idea.

As for the stimulus. Part II is the only part Obama asked for and it was still a continuation of a plan that was suggested while his predecessor was in charge. 35% of the plan actually went to tax cuts (Republican idea). The remainder went to filling in state budgets for already planned "shovel-ready" projects. For the most part, this stimulus didn't create any new work or projects. It wasn't an investment in anything, except slightly into energy (and that was a very small amount of money). For the most part it was an investment in already failing systems and an attempt to keep the states from going under. Which is why, it had the limited effect of stopping downward momentum with out pushing the economy up and starting it back up again.

So a health care plan called for by a "Liberal" who is really center at best thought up by Republicans and a stimulus drafted on Republican watch to be passed for (initially) a Republican president, even if the congress was mostly democratic at the time.

If you remember the jobs & infrastructure bills were killed by Republicans. These would have been the more liberal options. Additionally, the new electrical grid was never invested in. Alternative energy was replaced with "clean" (no such thing) coal & nuclear energy (no one has built a nuclear plant in over 30 years because they always go over budget and there's nothing to do with the waste).

The tax issue now is a compromise to try to open the conservative cock blockers to allowing something through before they control Congress.

You're reading the situation incorrectly. The only reason we are talking about taxes is because that is all that Republicans will talk about aside from the next budget. And the only reason they picked that is because they know the democrats won't agree with them immediately and its a great stall tactic. Plus since everyone "knows" democrats are "tax & spend" clearly its the Democrats who can't agree.

The democrats already tried to pass an extension for all taxable income less than or equal to $250,000 (which is closer to $350,000 after deductions). That means everyone gets a tax break, not just the middle class. But Republicans want to keep all of the cuts, which just means people who make more than $250,000 taxable will get an extra break on the extra money. Calculated that's a $700,000 addition to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Republicans of course are claiming to be fiscally conservative, while they cut taxes but not spending. And if you ask them what they want to cut, they say earmarks. Earmarks redirect funds that have already been put in the budget and tell agencies exactly how to spend them. Earmarks are a non issue. Getting rid of them doesn't fix the budget. Basically, the Republicans are saying they aren't in favor of cutting spending, just taxes. Which is the exact opposite of fiscal conservative.

With such dishonesty, I can only conclude we are talking about taxes because the Republicans want to score political points. Combine that with the fact that Republicans have threatened to filibuster 140 pieces of legislation in the last two years along with push the average appointment time back twice as long, and it makes more sense that they are just being obstructionist and using this "pop" legislation in an attempt to make Democrats look bad. Republicans haven't governed in at least 2 years.

The wars issue is different. He has kept up his promise. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain irresponsible.

He did not withdraw from Iraq, he reclassified troops as "non combat" troops. Its a change, but largely a diction change. Yes, we are withdrawing, but on the Bush appointed timeline. As far as Afghanistan he did promise to go in with a larger presence; however, this is not the liberal position, it is Barack's. This just adds to the point that Obama is "Third Way" or "Center" or "Not Liberal." I'm not saying I disagree that Afghanistan needs our attention, but I am starting to believe it is a lost cause.

Pushing hard enough for it? In the climate of the huge status quo blow back you think pushing harder would get through what he wants?! Sorry, that's like the Republicans starting a bad war in Iraq and thinking that after the Country really hated it a "surge" would cause people to like it again. Things just don't work that way.

The people are largely uneducated. That's why we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. Every now and then the leaders have to do something they think is right regardless of its popularity. If popular will takes them out of office, it happens.

The DADT is a strategic issue. He is challenging it to punt it to Congress. That way you don't get the massive fights that will come from those who claim the Court is forcing gayness on everyone.

That sounds idiotic. Sorry, it does.

He wants to do it legislatively because he thinks it'll be more organized and they might get more benefits. Plus, then he can blame the legislative branch if things go wrong. But if he honestly, at this point it isn't going to happen from the legislative branch, he should drop the appeal now, while he has the chance, before it goes to the supreme court.

Otherwise it shows he doesn't really want it. It is perfectly clear it will not happen in the legislature. Just look at McCain's movement of the goal posts yet again. He said a few years ago he would do it if the chiefs told him it should happen. They said it should and he called for a study. The study happened and now the study is "flawed." It just doesn't end. It is opposition for opposition's sake by an old bigot, but Obama just doesn't want to do it because of procedure. Which is horrible. The point is, he is not liberal. A liberal, even a libertarian, would be for gay people being able to have the choice to serve openly.

You're right. The Country is digging in its heels and Obama is fighting tooth and nail just to move inches and then people come along and chide him not making massive 10 foot strides.

He's stopped trying to move left. He moved center after election, and never budged. Again, try to point out a "liberal" move by Obama. You won't find one that's actually happened. That's because he doesn't want to pass them.

There were options. Such as forcing an actual filibuster or forcing Republicans to try to shut the government down. They chose not to break the minority, and they chose to capitulate.

At 12/3/10 05:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote: His goals only become moderate left when he found out that the status quo people would only accept the very center as the farthest left they would go. Compared to this status quo, Obama's Nerfed goals are still quite far to the left.

No, they aren't. Tax cuts are not "liberal." Staying overseas and fighting wars is not liberal. Everything he is doing is either right or center right. There isn't an ounce of socialism or libertarianism in his policy; at least one of which you would need to be able to claim he was trying to be liberal in some fashion.

Anything that is liberal on his agenda isn't going to happen because he isn't pushing for it hard enough or isn't negotiating in a way that will lead to it happening. The most liberal thing he could do is banish DADT, but he is literally fighting it in court. DREAM was a republican idea. START is supported by everyone and reducing nuclear arms to a level that can still blow up the world doesn't really sound all that liberal to me.

I think this is tragic, but the Persident's job is not to push his agenda at all costs. The President's job is to do what you called a failure, in taking baby steps when it comes to dragging the country behind you. Obama has got a huge fight just to get his watered down goals in. Just imagine how much more impossible it would be to pursue any of his campaign goals.

Right now the "country" (ie the right minority) is doing all of the dragging. The country is not moving left, not even an inch.

I agree with the first point, but I don't think that compromise (or as you put it, capitulation) is bad. I would rather us move slowly in the right direction than know we're in the wrong and not be moving at all.

We aren't moving away from the policies of Bush, except that we aren't pissing off other countries when we can hold onto our documents. Capitulation is giving in. Capitulation is not compromise. It involves surrender. Obama is capitulating to the right. He is not passing an agenda that is even slightly to the left.

At 12/3/10 03:55 AM, WritersBlock wrote: Got further than me with it. :)

I know right, but it still doesn't feel great.

If anyone is still active enough to care, e-mailing writing.ng [at] gmail [dot] com is still the best way to stay in the game. Assuming this gets passed on, that'll probably be the one resource that I can rely on.

I'm fine talking about things that are on topic, but lets not branch out by replying to the right wing in this thread like what happens in every other thread and derailing it. The topic here is whether or not Obama is actually a Liberal, whether he concedes before he should, and whether liberals should find another representative to replace him. Which is why I'm not going to reply to the walls of text above, and it'd be cool if no one else did.

At 12/2/10 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/2/10 10:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

These people have spent vast amounts of capital, both in money and support to fight everything Obama has tried to do.

No disagreement here.

The thing is this capital is completely contrary to anything you want to do. Obama is trying to do his best to drag the status quo along with him toward goals you would like. If he went and completely threw aside the status quo people he would have got even less done.

I'm not saying Obama can ignore the political climate. I was fine with him up until recently when it became apparent that he was making concessions before attempting to negotiate. And Obamas goals are at best moderate middle ground that actually will hurt us more than a true liberal policy. DADT was considered "the best we could have" during Clinton's time and it was still a horrible policy. Its yet another example of a moderate pretending to be a liberal sacrificing and caving to the loud right.

There's a great deal of blaming Obama for society's problems. Our soicety is just not mature enough to become truly liberal. until that point, and short of a fscitst take over, NOBODY could do what you are asking. It's a shame that most people just cannot see this.

We know what the real problems are. We are asking him to actually take a stand now that its clear republicans are oppositional and will not accept his policies. Capitulation at this point only makes things worse. And as far as the society not being mature enough, I'd agree. But with such weak leaders, nobodies making the case for liberalism anymore and that is part of the problem.

At 12/2/10 10:18 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Now, I somewhat agree. Yes, Obama's hasn't done what he's promised, yes, Dems had 2 years of controlling 2 branches,

Dems had 2 years of control while, caveat, the republicans threatened filibutster more than any other senatorial group has in the entire history of the country. Cloture had to be used 2xs as much as the most it had been used in any previous session (almost 200 times).

So I am well aware of the challenges faced. I am also well aware of how the media presented the situation and how the democrats avoided confrontation at all possible costs. Imagine what would have happened if they'd forced a filibuster. You think Republicans could have stood up for that politically? At this point they don't have time for that and they won't do it. They are incapable of it.

but consider this:

Waving a white flag now isn't going to help. If anything, it's going to make it worse. Normally I don't agree with Robert Shrum, but in this article he's got a point. Giving up on Obama now is only going to make it worse.

Its already as bad as its going to get for Obama's presidency. The republicans control the house. The senate is deadlocked. The only thing Obama can do now is be a foreign policy president who can't sign any treaties because they'll never make it through congress.

As far as the article you linked to, I whole heartedly disagree.

As a liberal, I don't have a problem with the bailouts happening. I have a problem with the government getting ripped off, as it were, by the bailouts and by not focusing the stimulus on something other than tax cuts. Liberals aren't arguing that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks or auto industry. We're arguing that after that was done, the criminals should have been prosecuted instead of being granted hall passes.

As far as the rest of it, he's missing the point, which is that Obama's next two years will not be years as a moderate liberal president. He'll be a moderate right wing president that occasionally says no, and that's only if Republicans are suddenly willing to legislate. If they do legislate you can guarantee it will begin with Israel & tax cuts and move directly toward deregulation, attempting to pull down "Obamacare" and enforcing social conservative values on the rest of us.

At 12/2/10 10:10 PM, fatape wrote:

At 12/2/10 09:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: , who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

I would pick someone who would get up and kick ass everyday , I think Cenk from the the young turks would be a good choice. He's in your face and sometimes he goes a bit overboard , but we need to balance out the pussies in the democratic part anyhow.

Uygur was born in Istanbul;

Sigh, even if he were a good choice, we can't elect him.

At 12/2/10 09:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: So to keep this from being yet another "Obama sux"-"no he doesn't you c***f**"-"don't call me c***f** you f***t***" thread, I offer the following question: given your stated position on Obama and acknowledging the possibility he may not run for re-election, who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

Honestly, I'm just beginning to research the playing field. So I'll shoot out a name and we can debate whether he'd be a good Liberal candidate. I don't know everything about the guy, but why not.

How about Russ Feingold? He's not perfect from what I'm seeing, but he's seems to get it more than Obama.

Thoughts?

I mean, part of the problem here is that we really don't have any true Liberal leaders anymore. At least not well known politically. Point me in the direction of some other actual Liberals and I'll be happy. I'm certainly not happy with the status quo.

At 12/2/10 08:07 PM, AdamCook wrote: Don't be sorry yet, mate.
Can I make a suggestion?

I assume you have no objection to appointing another creative brain to lead the Anthology?

No problem with it at all, but unfortunately what I have is very scattered which is part of the problem. I can give you access to the writing.ng gmail account and there are several stories there. But as far as sorting through my pms, I have 40 odd pages of messages that I can't even begin to scratch the surface of. As far as wave, they are shutting that down at some point so I wouldn't trust it as a resource. So everything is spread across those three resources and I'm not sure I can get everything to you.

Let me know ASAP if you're keen and we can talk details; let's not hang about here!

I can't take anymore time for this tonight and tomorrow night I'm all tied up as well.

If you want to discuss over an e-mail chain until we have more time trash@gumonshoe.net is the best way to reach me. Title it "ng anthology" and I'll sort through the clutter to get to it.

I'm sorry I can't get back to you immediately, its part of the problem of me trying to do this.

At 12/2/10 07:09 PM, Musician wrote: Our country desperately needs a real left-wing party.

There's been talk lately of actually establishing one, but as usual its probably just blogosphere mumbling. The "conservative," or rather plutocrat, movement has been very successful in branding "liberal" as a bad word, and most liberals have just let it happen.

At 12/2/10 08:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/2/10 07:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: - I agreed we needed a bailout.

...because you're an economic illiterate.

Explain to me why the Fed needed to loan these companies 9 trillion when the banks started crashing. Oh yeah, in your world, the banks fail, we go through a depression and come out "stronger." Fantasy land.

Lol, so government "Job creation" is a good thing, even though it ultimately boils down to is spending billions of dollars america doesn't have in order to temporarily create jobs that disappear once the money stops being pumped in, all on the basis of some lunatic "money cycles" where people having money will fix an economy and somehow magically reallocate the widespread malinvested resources, all the while ignoring the idea that resources can in fact be wasted.

If resources were truly ever represented by money you might have a point. Except money is an abstraction and value can't actually be set for any given item. Value, as it were, is in the eye of the beholder.

And yeah, basically you spurn ideas that are probably more accurate than your own ideas.

here's a crazy idea, how about we let the market work

Fuck off. We've been here and done that and in the end you know we fundamentally disagree that markets can "fix everything" and that I think you're a complete and total loon when it comes to that subject.

blah blah fed evil

Abbreviated Timeline:
Depression -> economy crashes
Glass-Segal -> economy stabilizes
Deregulation -> boom bust boom bust boom bust

s-m makes spurious thoughts about the fed when regulation was brought up that didn't have anything directly to do with the fed.

Please, you think (coercively funded) soldiers "Defend this nation"? How quaint.

I support open borders, but if you think contributing to something that is costing the american taxpayer billions of dollars every single day and in all likelihood making them less safe should be seen as some virtue that deserves citizenship, then fuck that shit.

Some defense is necessary. Whether I believe the middle east wars or excessive base deployment is worthwhile has nothing to do with a man being willing to die for a country not getting citizenship.

Thank goodness for that. I mean, you're right inasmuch as Obama is a wimp, but consequentially its a good thing.

Obviously we disagree and since you're on the "opposite" side you would view this as a good thing.

Public employees are over-paid, and if you work for the government you should be thankful to be even receiving a paycheck, let alone increases. Sure, government action destroys jobs/job creation and I am sympathetic about this, but government employees tend not to be free-market sort of people.

Actually both private & public employees are underpaid. The only people who are overpaid are the people that think symbolic ownership grants them the right to also take the majority profits that come from additional work of other people who voluntarily provide their services.

And most government employees I talked too regarding this aren't nearly as upset about it as I am. They've all seen it coming, some are more accepting than others. Of course none of them are thrilled.

Wait, THIS is what you're complaining about (in relation to torture)?

Its all connected. A spanish national was tortured and Obama helped suppress Spains attempt to find out more and prosecute. Essentially Obama has covered up and forgiven the torture.

- Net Neutrality has been watered down to allow loop holes where providers can still control the speeds of their internet or grant individual sites "privileged streams" for just their kind of data.

yeah, let's give (necessarily) ambiguously worded powers to the government to control the internet, because they will of course never overstep their bounds, and besides, its only the internet we're talking about, right?

You clearly don't understand net neutrality. But this topic is about Obama's constant need to concede before making a stand, and actually never making a stand more than it is about educating you.

The fact that most people believe that the government can create (productive, long term) employment is so very sad. Lucky I'm not American.

Damn right, for us at least.

Due to bad house keeping on my part, and relatively low turnout (that's why rolling submissions have never ended), on top of generally bad writing I've got to cancel the anthology, or at least resign my position as "self appointed dictator."

Were there good & polished stories, absolutely? I could count the number of them on less than two hands.

Honestly, most of the blame lies on my door step. I've not had the time to read the stories, nor the means to do it easily. Printing the stories and taking them on the train was too expensive, long run. Sometimes I didn't have the appropriate software to even open the stories. By the time I would read something and respond, the author had often forgotten. And, I'm not willing to sit here and guide every young burgeoning author to success. I don't have the time or patience for it.

Yeah, I was hoping to pull this off. It would have been nice for us & for the community. I still think its a wonderful and very possible idea, just perhaps without me heading it up.

Take care everyone, and I'm sorry.

Let me preface this by saying I'm hoping there's a primary challenger in the works for the Democrats because 4 more years of this would totally blow.

Now, let me also preface this by saying;

- I agreed we needed a bailout. (What we got was less than perfect being 50% tax cuts, Republican ideas and nothing focusing on job creation)
- I agreed we needed health reform. (What we got was something that was meant to increase participation in insurance, nothing to actually reduce the cost)
- I agreed we needed bank reform. (What we got was something that ignored the entire derivative market, part of the problem for the crash)

I will also acknowledge that the Republicans are entirely fucking oppositionalist. They haven't voted yes to a single one of Obama's policy gaols. They hold a majority of the blame for my disappointment because they went to Washington and literally refused to allow anything to happen. As such, I will be voting for anyone but them unless there is a major shift within their party.

That said, Obama has turned out to be a horrible champion for any of his policies or goals, and an even worse champion for those goals of his base.

Right now there are three bills he's trying to get passed:

DREAM- This would allow aliens (people not from here) who serve in our military for a number of years a path for citizenship an education. IE, people who risk their lives to defend this nation would have the right to live here.

START - This was a hard bought negotiation between Russia and us that is entirely necessary to reduce the nuclear weapons cache between the two countries. It also gives us rights to check in on the Russians. The army wants it. Several Republicans want it. All of the democrats want it. But one loan republican senator is blocking it because he doesn't want it passed during a lame duck session. If it doesn't get passed now, it won't pass. Note the entire lack of a valid point for not passing it.

DADT REPEAL - This is something Obama literally had the option of just letting happen. The courts had ruled it unconstitutional. The army has said 70 to 30 that the repeal would not be harmful. A poll of united states citizens also comes up along those lines in favor of it. Obama chose to appeal the courts decision and try to force it through a less than friendly congress because he wants more time. But anyone from a sane position can tell he's setting up the entire push for defeat. If this goes to the supreme court, as is likely now, they will vote against it because a majority are fucking Conservatives who don't believe in the word justice.

Neglecting DADT, you'd think I'd just be upset with Republicans, but while all of this is going on what has Obama done?

- He watered down health care from the start, by keeping the public option off the table. While I agree a public option wouldn't have passed he didn't even bother to use it as a bargaining chip.

- He recently declared of his own volition to freeze non-military pay rates. You'll notice a total lack of attention to actual rates of pay or merit. That is, people who make very little, say a VA nurse, can kiss cost of living increases good bye. And why did he do this? No one knows? Its something a republican would do or want, but he just gave it away. He didn't use it to try and get any of the three policies above enacted.

- The bush tax cuts. Again, he's just giving what the Republicans want. And they aren't taking it and they want more (as in all of them extended). As has been the case for everything he's done with them. Never mind extending them for $250,000 or less actually is an across the board tax cut, its just that the rich wouldn't get anymore of a break than anyone else who makes at least $250,000.

- Obama used a Bush appointed diplomat in Spain to suppress inquiries into whether Bush officials broke the law to torture prisoners or who broke the laws of war in ways that affected Spain.

- Net Neutrality has been watered down to allow loop holes where providers can still control the speeds of their internet or grant individual sites "privileged streams" for just their kind of data.

- A complete lack of focus on creating jobs in America.

- Etc

Essentially, whenever Obama has had a bargaining chip he has literally given it away for nothing in return. The guy lacks anything closely resembling balls.

If there is an alternative primary option I'll be looking for it. And if there isn't, come 2012 I'll be looking for a 3rd party candidate.

Here's a list of things you might be disappointed in if you were strongly liberal. I'm not in most cases, but this is very clearly stuff Obama has done as he's drifted away from his base, some of which looks innocent, but looks strikingly similar to the last 8 years of policy once you really look at it:

- surging in Afghanistan?
- intensifying drone attacks in Pak?
- imposing harsh restrictions on Iran?
- providing Israel cover to build on disputed land and starve the Palestinians?
- selling huge arms caches to Saudi Arabia?
- building enduring military bases in the region?
- Like creating a stimulus package reliant on tax-cuts and paying for States' already-planned construction rather than new programs?
- healthcare reform that mandates private insurance?
- increasing the defense budget?
- extending Bush-tax-cuts?
- not reforming campaign finance rules?
- by allowing indefinite detention to continue
- not persecuting war crimes
- not closing Gitmo
- denying habeas corpus
- not repealing the Patriot act
- allowing covert ops to inject agents to peaceful countries
- allowing assassinations of US citizens on foreign soil on the suspicion of terrorism... ?

And talk about political inefficiency. What do the democrats have to work with? They have practical gifts of political talking points:

1) Republicans want to give tax cuts to the rich but won't give you one unless the rich get it too.
2) Bush convinced the fed to loan the banks 9 trillion dollars on the eave of the bank crisis. Almost 9xs the size of TARP.
3) Republicans would vote no on just about anything. Float a jobs bill, get it voted on. Have republicans vote no. Score political points! Float another stimulus, get it voted on, republicans vote no. Score political points! etc etc etc

Face it, Obama is a horrible negotiator, and his next two years are going to be full of nothing accomplishments or a concessions to Republican ideas that haven't worked the last 10 years, like tax cuts, spending freezes, etc.

Even if we tried to qualify what you meant by this, sexual slavery or historical indentured servitude, I'd find it hard for anyone to have a positive opinion that wasn't morally bankrupt to begin with.

But, really, is there a point to this topic or are you just looking for jokes/people to mindlessly say "slavery is bad?"

At 11/25/10 04:19 AM, TheMason wrote: Yeah...about your story...

Notice it comes from MSNBC where they've had to suspend some commentators for donating to Dems...hardly a Republican mouthpiece.

No, it comes from the AssociatedPress. I'm pretty sure members of the associated press are required to post stories from the AP when they are released. When I used to read FoxNews.com they occasionally had a democrat favoring piece, but it was usually written by the AP and was buried instead of being highlighted.

And anyways, costs have risen 128%, profits are climbing regardless of whether it is "anemic" by the standards of other industries. And, profit really ignores the true cost of doing business. Essentially, profit comes after all expenses. To use profit as an example of whether your prices going up is justified, relies on the heavy assumption that your money isn't being wasted somewhere between the point that you paid and the company made its profits. Take a look at health care CEO pay for instance, that's on the rise. That reduces profit. Take a look at the amount of advertising these companies do, which does not directly go to health care. Then, after looking at all of those costs and more you have to look at whether the hospitals, drs, & drug companies (which are in the top 10 profitable industries) are overcharging, and you are left concluding that they are, which would up the bottom line on insurers & "reduce" their profits, while overall the entire industry is actually taking more money than it needs to run.

Who Wants to Live Forever

RIP

At 11/23/10 09:59 PM, Proteas wrote: No, I'm trying for the umpteenth time to show you that the types of people you keep bringing up do not pose a continuing threat to us. They're threats to our security ended with their capture. Al-Queda and it's operatives continue to pose a threat to us to this day. Guy Fawkes does not still pose a threat to London Parliament, mmkay?

And I'll agree that Al Qaeda poses the most serious and likely source of a threat, but that doesn't mean everyone else is safe. You don't just worry about the threats you know about when you worry about security. And besides, as mentioned earlier, we've found recently that some our own citizens have been going to training camps.

So I guess the guys at El-Al in Israel are just full of shit then in the way they profile people and ensure they're own security, then?

Israel is in a very different situation than us due to demographics, population size, mandatory draft, etc. If 50% of the guys on our planes were commandos I'm sure 9/11 would have come out differently. As far as profiling, if Israel is only checking Muslims its opened a security breach. They might be more comfortable with that due to the presence of so many military people on board, but we couldn't afford that here.

"Fair skinned" comment notwithstanding, am I the only one here who noticed that almost all those individuals on the FBI's Terrorist wanted list (which is what we're discussing here, terrorism) were ethnic Arabs between the ages of 20 and 40 with distinctive non-European facial features, not white grandmothers and little kids? Hm? Why is that?

"almost" <- key word. I was providing evidence that not everyone was brown skinned as you claimed. As in, you claimed a universal truth. I proved it wasn't universally true.

A- "All the marbles are red"
B- "But there's a blue one"
A- "Aside from the blue marble, did anyone notice that all the marbles were red?"

Oh, that's right, Al Queda primarily operates out of the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and that's typically who they're operatives are; males between the ages of 20 and 40. Not grandmothers, not little kids, not white guys from Oklahoma, not business men from Texas, and not computer programmers from California on their way to South Dakota for a hunting trip.

Take a look at ZamZam, when they show the mug shots

But I was right, and what's more interesting is that you acknowledge the fact that I was right.

>_>

Are you really claiming you can just predict who is a threat based on their job, where they live, & what they look like?

And that that was what I was saying you were capable of doing? I said you were a successful backseat predictor of the past. Congratulations. I bet, given any situation that happened in the past and an article or video about what happened, you'd be pretty good at predicting what you were just shown. Congrats. No really, that is a unique trait. You should be proud.

So... I should trade my freedom for security to get on an airplane because there are people out there who pose a threat to my safety, but they shouldn't trade their freedom for the security of being able to worship in peace despite the fact that there are people out there who threaten their security?

You're the one who made the argument that you shouldn't have to trade your freedom, but Muslims should. Which do YOU want?

And on top of this, this is a false equivalency. That's when you compare two situations that are substantially different, but pretend they aren't. You're talking about prohibiting Muslims from building Mosques in certain areas, and I'm talking about allowing everyone to fly as long as they submit to a security check. Key words in that sentence were the limiters "Muslims" & "everyone"

Or did you think I was afraid Muslims would be attacking their own mosques?

Where did I even imply that? >_> <_<

"Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down."

"Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands. "

Did you catch that? If they object to being invasively patted down, they have alternatives which can work around the woman's objection. They just bypassed going through the backscatter x-ray and the groping pat down in favor of either a chemical swab after handling their own neck scarf, or allowing the TSA Agent to touch the "suspected area" i.e.; neck scarf. The rest of her body is off limits.

I'm sure the law applies to everyone. If you're not aware of your rights, that's not my fault. I highly doubt there is a law on the books specifically for Muslim women. But if you can find it and show it, not a possibly related press release, let me know.

I'm sure if you wore a headscarf of hat and you refused to remove it and asked if that was the reason you were being pulled aside you could ask them just to check that region. Go on and try it, see how it goes.

If a Muslim woman chooses not to do the full body scan, she goes through the same procedure as everyone else.

At 11/20/10 04:00 PM, Proteas wrote: Do you just not know the difference between "lone psychopath" and "organization that has a specific agenda?"

Are you really claiming that it is only possible for an "organization that has a specific agenda" to undermine the security of a plane?

Look, I'm just pointing out that people who aren't Muslim want to do violence in this country as well, and that if you're going to check one person you should check them all.

The point of this topic was to discuss how invasive TSA procedures have become, and you keep bringing up shit that nobody has any control over, can't possibly have any amount of control over, and isn't very likely to happen AGAIN.

You think it isn't very likely, but that's just your opinion. People charged with the security of this nation don't have the luxury of opinions when they choose who to check and who not to because opinions aren't always based on measurable facts.

TSA procedures have become invasive because the methods people who have tried to blow up planes aren't discoverable by non-invasive means. You're arguing they should be less invasive, yes. But you've also argued that it doesn't make sense to check "grandma" or the "white guy;" which really just comes out to, check "THEM" but don't check "ME OR MINE." The reasons you started this topic did not prevent you from wondering into this realm, so I have every right to call you out on it.

Me: check everyone, especially people who make a scene.
You: Don't check the white people. Check brown people though, that makes sense.

What I said was "he was pretty low on the list of people likely to blow up an airplane," and guess what? I was right.

You were right after the fact, with the benefit of not being there at the moment and not being responsible for the lives of those who were to get on that plane. Don't give yourself props for guessing what you were already told.

The people who attacked us on 9/11 were all dark complected extremist Muslims, and everyone who has attempted to attack us since then has fit that profile.

Take a look at this list and you'll find a few fair skinned folks: FBI Terrorist Wanted List
And just generally dangerous people are mostly not Muslim: FBI Most wanted list

And you're wrong. Not all Muslims have a dark complexion. Not all terrorists are Muslims. And not all people who want to attack America fit into your little niche.

I have a serious concern about their ability to ensure their own safety. If I was a true racist, if I truly hated Muslims, do you think I would for one SECOND be sitting here concerned for their safety and not PRAYING that they build the thing so some jingoistic fucktard with a patriotic boner would go and attack them for building their mosque that close to ground zero? Hm, did that thought ever cross your mind?

It just says something about you with where you place the blame. You know its wrong to attack these people, but for their own "safety" they should give up their freedoms. Its like saying that a girl who shows a bit of skin was asking to get raped. Yeah, a rapist is going to get a boner, but its not the woman's fault he knocks her out and drags her into the bushes.

Did the fact that I'm making the distinction between peaceful Muslims who should be left alone to their worship and extremist Muslims who consider us to be Infidels and want to blow us to fucking kingdom come ever gnaw at your subconscious ever so slightly?

You aren't making the distinction though. And you're ignoring the fact that other people, who aren't Muslim are capable of committing the same atrocities.

So? Check everyone at the airport, but be consistent about it. Either consistently give everyone pat downs at the airport and harrass everybody, or don't harass anybody at all.

The pat downs are random because they don't have the time or man power to check everyone, which is why he was selected and others weren't, most likely. But, on the off chance that he was selected because of his fishy behavior, I can't say I blame the TSA agents.

Oh, and by the way? CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has issued a travel advisory; Muslim women can be exempt from TSA Patdown and backscatter x-ray security screenings if they object to them, opting for alternative measures. Gotta love poltical correctness and the sensitivity it brings.

That says that they are then to be subjected to a pat-down. Which is exactly what the man in question was subjected to. It then offers them guidelines with how to approach it and says that if they want they can choose to be pat down in private, and if the guards say they are pulling them because of a head dress, they can only check the head dress as required by law.

I didn't see a single special exception in that link.

Gingrich pragmatic & bipartisan?

Didn't he lead the government shutdown, the impeachment of Clinton, get accused of multiple ethics violations and eventually have to resign after his policies lead his party to lose seats in the next election?

Wow, what 12 years can do for your image.

At 11/20/10 03:37 PM, germanturtle wrote:

At 11/6/10 09:18 PM, Lunaful wrote:

At 11/6/10 09:15 PM, desert116 wrote: I hope it's gonna be better than the last two. So much was left out. It's a good thing that they're doing it in two parts.

And things they put in, Ron's house doesn't get attacked in the Half-Blood Prince.

um yes it does?

No, it doesn't... that's all made up.

it leaves out the epic battle at the end of the 6th one.

That it did. Sad.

But the new one didn't leave out anything truly important. It was true to the story and much better. Its comedic, enjoyable, tense, and takes time to actually tell the story.

There are only 2 scenes where they really messed up. The snatchers scene, and a couple seconds of Dobby's death scene.

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that all the people we've caught since 9/11 trying to blow up our planes and send us explosives through the mail are brown Muslim people.

I forgot about this one happening earlier this year...

Oh, not true at all.

Statistically speaking, it doesn't make any sense to ignore this fact. Should there be tight screening procedures at airports? HELL YES, but only if they are paired with a fair bit of common sense on the matter. If you want to pick on old ladies, children, and computer nerds, FINE, but don't tell me it's not right to pick on the ethnic Muslims when it's their extremists that are the the ones out to get us.

I'm saying you need to worry about everyone. I didn't say ignore any specific group. That's the differnce so far between my and your argument.

Me: check everyone, especially people who make a scene.
You: Don't check the white people. Check brown people though, that makes sense.

If you can't understand how that makes you look racist and/or bigotted, I can't help you. But, I'm not the only one who thinks you look like a racist. I'm probably just the only one with enough balls to say it on this forum.

In my home state of Tennessee, somebody set fire to the equipment that was being used to break ground on a new Mosque. They hadn't even built the damn thing yet, they've barely broken ground on it, and somebody went and destroyed and damaged hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of construction equipment. And what's more? The TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) STILL doesn't know who did it! They're still out there! Click.

So, you should give in to vigilantes and crazy people because they might hurt you from the outset, unless you are white, 6'2'' and have short brown hair.

This isn't getting your phone tapped or getting your library checkout records seized by Big Brother, there are people out there who are militantly violent towards Muslims and they are willing to act on their beliefs. And in a city where 19 extremist muslims crashed planes into buildings, killing 3000 people and sending the U.S. econonmic system into a nose-dive for years to come, and you're telling me that the people who are building the mosque should stand up for their right to build it within WALKING DISTANCE from Ground Zero? And you think I'M THE CRAZY ONE?

Yeah I do. Muslims were killed there, same as everyone else. Look what are you? Probably protestant. If a Catholic crazy went and shot up an abortion clinic, you wouldn't take kindly to people calling Christians murderers. Also, if we told you we didn't want you to build churches near doctor's offices, you'd freak out. Same deal.

You're the crazy bigoted one if you can't differentiate between extremists and everyone else. And even if you claim you can, you clearly can't when you claim for their own safety they shouldn't do something. What you should be claiming is that the people who are fucked up enough to harass them shouldn't be harassing them.

I can understand the "don't bring trouble on your own house" argument, but I think its an idiotic one that cedes territory and rights in the long run.

Uh, yeah. 400 years ago. You're really grasping at straws to try and prove a point.

No, I'm really not. Any person of any age, of any background, of any skin color, of any creed has the capability to commit atrocities, so it makes sense to check everyone at an airport.

Today or Tomorrow I am making a new post. Actually an entire new thread. Feel free to lock this while I compose everything...

At 11/17/10 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote: Yeah, we could. And the last time someone was a threat to our country with a bomb in a Ryder Truck was... oh, that's right, about 14 years ago. Nobody's focusing on them anymore. NEXT.

I'm not exactly arguing that if a white man is going to blow up something its going to be a Ryder truck. I think that's idiotic, which is why below I said I was being an idiot. I'm trying to show you that white people can be just as violent if not more so than Muslims and have demonstrated equally a need to be watched. And I'd pass that on to every other person as well, not just white people & muslims. But you singled out White People & Muslims originally and I didn't feel a need to drag anyone else into it, though I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to do so.

He acted alone, there weren't more of them coming after him if he failed in his mission. He was it, end of story. NEXT.

There are white terrorist groups too. Yeah, this guy was a solo act. Oh well.

I'm not saying there isn't an organized group of extremist Muslims out there, but their existence doesn't make everyone else safe. Especially as lately Americans citizens who have gone over seas have come back from terrorist training camps. They're starting to recruit our own, which is only more reason to check everyone.

Especially the guy who is being stand offish and trying to make a point & draw attention. He would seem to me to be the kind of person who might be unhinged enough to do something. He probably brought it upon himself by fishing.

But again, I said I thought that there had been a bit of an over reaction. If he had said he wanted to leave and they hadn't found anything on his person, he should have been allowed to leave, imo.

Yeah, and he was the only one doing it, making him as much of a fluke and a statistical anomaly as McVeigh. FUCKING NEXT.

Exactly how many muslims are terrorists out of all of them? Muslim terrorists are pretty flukey too.

Google Image Search, ain't it grand?

I think from your post below you're well aware the blue images are photo shops and the others were the ones released by the company & government from agreeing sources.

I have no problem with Muslims, I have problems with people like you who blind themselves to the facts that are in front of them in the interest of being fair and not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. You go after everybody else at the airports and let guys like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab harassed and look where it gets you.

I know plenty of people with funny sound names. Most of them have stopped flying or complain of being pulled to the side every single time for a pat down because of their last name or the way they look. They do it agreeably, and they understand, but there's plenty of racial profiling going on right now. I really only took exception to your statement because you said the guy shouldn't be looked at because he was white, a certain hight, and going to South Dakota, none of which is mutually exclusive to wanting to blow up a plane.

I realized that there are crackpots in this country who just might take offense to the Mosque being where it is and they might just react violently over it, so I thought they should move it outside of easy walking distance from Ground Zero, you and everybody else ignored me and wrote me off as a crackpot. My idea was well thought, well reasoned, well written, and you accused me of being a racist for it. I lost my nerve and decided not to get myself involved any further than that.

That Ben Franklin quote which really isn't what he said sounds mighty appropriate here. If Muslims gave up their right to build a mosque where they wanted for the sake of safety....

You know, people on here bitched and carried on for days and weeks on end about how the Patriot Act was a violation of our personal freedoms, and they posted that Ben Franklin quote about "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither freedom or Security" to the point that I could have projectile vomited blood, but you're all perfectly fine with be treated like criminals and being groped and prodded at the airport in the name of Security? That's funny.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Not exactly, what he meant...

But I understand what you're getting at. As I said, I find some of the policies disagreeable, but I don't believe this guy deserves the pass he thinks he does.

And you're choosing to be blind to the fact that McVeigh was an anomaly which has not been repeated in this country and is not likely to ever happen again.

Guy Fawkes, I know its British. Its still an angry white man who tried to blow something up.

Look, I want everyone checked. None of this, focus on Muslims because they've done it in the past. If you agree to get on a privately owned plane which flies over territory you don't own and people whose lives might depend on your actions, you agree to get checked too.

That's the way it is.

At 11/17/10 08:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/10 08:16 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

(1) He used a Ryder truck, not a plane. There are no invasive security measures to ensure you don't hijack a Ryder Truck.

We could implant GPS devices & chemical sniffers, but only for white men who are tall and have short hair mind you; because Muslims don't blow up buildings with a Ryder truck.

There are no Watch Lists with half a million names on them of people who can't rent Ryder Trucks. There are no stupid TSA Agents there to search what you put on Ryder Trucks, either.

Maybe there should be, but again only for white men.

(2) He used far more explosives than he could fit on or in his person or that he could pack in a carry-on bag. That's why he rented a RYDER TRUCK.

(3) McVeigh acted of his own accord, not on the wishes of a clandestine terrorist organization.

And that makes it any better? I'm sorry, I'm being an idiot above and being sarcastic, but this man obviously was malicious enough to blow up and kill innocent civilians. It doesn't matter how he did it, he chose the most opportune means available to him to fit his target. There's nothing to say some future angry white man won't do the same to a plane. It was an angry white man scientist who was sending anthrax around as well, right after 9/11. There are plenty of angry white people and it doesn't matter if they are associated to terrorist organizations if they plan on doing harm to innocents.

Its an idiotic argument to make. Oh, just ignore the white guy. He's probably safe.

And with that, it makes you bringing him up pointless and off-topic.

lol, in your eyes.

You ever wonder how the news media got a hold of those grayed images of people who went through those machines?

Some of them were actually test subjects that were released to show what was actually visible, in an attempt to try to alleviate the fear surrounding them. I believe one of the pictures was actually of one of the directors involved.

Show me an image, though, that wasn't meant to be released before you just make accusations.

I will not be cowed into silence on this one by accusations of racism, so you can blow it out your politically correct ass.

Fine, I meant bigot anyway. We all know you simply don't like Muslims. And it is bigotry, even if you find yourself above that. You never did answer my question in that other thread because you said it would make you look like a racist, to which I responded there was probably a reason it would make you look like a racist beyond the question. And this is just more of the same.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct. You assumed that because the man was white he should have been given a pass. I presented evidence that not all white people (even meeting your description) were incapable of violent crime, and you just brushed it off because he chose a different vehicle for his destruction. You're choosing to be blind and to be this way, even if it isn't conscious.

At 11/15/10 09:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/15/10 09:01 PM, LardLord wrote: Do you have any ideas about what system could be put in place that accounts for security while at the same time keeping the rights of citizens intact? I'm not so sure there's a satisfying solution.

How about we start by hiring TSA agents who have enough common sense to realize that a 6'1" Brown Haired WHITE MAN traveling to SOUTH DAKOTA is probably really low on the list of people likely to blow up an airplane, hm?

Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

Oh, a 6'3'' white man, with short brown hair

Various images

lol that his bio is on imbd....

Anyway, on topic.

The airplanes are run by private companies. Airplanes transport citizens over other citizen's property. If something goes wrong with a plane, due to mechanics or terrorism, some other citizen takes property damage from the plane crashing, beyond just those on the plane. So, as far as I'm concerned the government has every right to try to ensure people getting on planes aren't trying to blow them up or high jack them. And when you try to get on those planes, you agree to be bound by those rules and submit to searches.

Now, should you decide you want to leave and not take the flight I think they should be obligated to let you go if they don't have proof of wrong doing so far, such as finding weapons on you or something else.

I've done the full body scan once, and while I don't appreciate the extra radiation, I'm comfortable enough with myself that I don't mind having the image taken. One which is supposed to be destroyed immediately, anyhow.

Pat downs are generally done in a random fashion and the guy was probably selected at random.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But seriously, stop being such a racist Proteus. I know, you're not racist, except when you're protecting white people who are all "innocent," obviously. :)

Cause, you know, here's one white boy who bucks your "common sense":

That isn't straight pride. Strait pride would be "I'm proud that I have sex with the opposite sex!"

What he said is, "If you have a particular kind of sex, you'll be punished."

That isn't straight pride. That's expressing a bigoted view about someone else's lifestyle. Its like trying to claim that making blond jokes is a form of brunette pride, when it clearly isn't.

The gay community celebrates what they are. They don't enforce their views on others.

The teacher was right to do what she/he did.

There is no alternative to government. :P

This is a silly argument.

Where there are people there is government. Arguments about government are far more worth while when you're talking about the method of governing.

As far as the free market, we're all quite aware that free market really means "I want to fuck over stupid people for self enrichment, and possibly destroy/harm the economy/lives too" or "I don't realize that removing some of the obstacles that cause me a bit of annoyance would allow others to fuck over stupid people for self enrichment, and possibly destroy/harm the economy/lives too."

At 11/7/10 10:32 PM, Chronamut wrote: gumonshoe a few bugs:

if you don't click skip at the beginning itll send you the promotional code, you put it in - and then the visualizer doesn't work.

I can't reproduce this at all. If you can send me a specific list of actions you did to make this happen, maybe I can trace it in the code.

Also if you keep skipping through songs the player will eventually freeze. Sometimes it will lock up completely.

I have a theory that this might be fixed after I start using playlists, but we'll see. I may have also messed something up when I turned streaming on, which I didn't test very much before releasing.

also is there no way for it to maintain your settings? Every time I went to it it treated me as if it had never met me before..

Well, I can't get rid of that opening bit because you might want to in the future enable/disable your songs. You'll just have to say you haven't submitted music if you want to skip that bit.

As far as saving filter settings and things like that, I was trying to decide whether to save it as a flash cookie or into the database. I haven't decided yet which would be best, so I haven't implemented it, knowing the next phase is all going to be about persistent data anyway.

At 11/7/10 01:43 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 11/7/10 12:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Fox News specifically donated $1,000,000 to republicans this year, just as an entity. Then, on top of that, its employs donated more money.

I get the feeling something else was going on behind closed doors.

You think this is some sort of stunt to put pressure on FOX to "follow suit" with the rest of the news networks and curb their campaign contributions? That would be awfully craft of them, though hard to say if it would be effective.

Oh, it doesn't matter. Fox doesn't care at all. They know what they are and what they are doing and they believe they are right. This is just a fairly liberal station that can't accept what they are and has to apologize for their views. You see it as a common trait between the two parties. Republicans know they are right and democrats more than often will apologize for their views even as they tell you them.

At 11/7/10 02:15 PM, Mich wrote: I've had to do that for this review request club list maker thing I made, and I noticed it's rather slow; but then again I don't have to get ALL submissions' info.

Well, I should also note that it depends on where you run your script from. My home internet connection is pretty slow, but I use dreamhost for hosting, and off of the server I'm paying for there I'm guaranteed unlimited bandwidth & storage and a guaranteed amount of ram. So, I run my crawlers from there and it is faster. I tried using my computer as an ftp relay point, but that was also extremely slow. Now, I'm using multi threaded crawlers that take what they want specifically from where they want it.

Your system now does make sense, weird that I didn't think of that.

It took me a couple of tries to think of it too.

Whoa; you actually downloaded all that music o.O I didn't think there'd be a problem streaming it from Newgrounds. Glad it worked out though. :)

I wasn't going to. But flash has something called a security sandbox & you can't do certain things with audio without a cross domain policy, which legitmately newgrounds wasn't going to implement for my little player. If I hadn't of downloaded all of the music I couldn't have had visualizations, for instance.