ParanoiA

Then doesn't that create a natural check on their usage? Don't want to get caught doing it, then better not abuse it. And isn't that the condition with retroactive warrants? If you fail at getting the warrant, then all of that wiretapping was illegal wasn't it?

No, it's not just you. And I agree wholeheartedly with this whole paragraph. Even without retroactive warrants, I've always suspected the best solution was to do it anyway, while remaining illegal. In that way, they can't divulge any private information or use it against the citizenry - which is essentially why we're against such methods - while simultaneously providing authorities with access to information they could act on, in the case of preventing some attack. Now maybe that makes prosecution a little more difficult, after the fact, if they can't use that information illegaly obtained. But I find it hard to believe there will be no other evidence for such prosecutions. But yeah, like you say, retroactive warrants seem to make the most sense here. I do not see how that hampers their efforts. The only thing it seems to do is ensure they're not abusing the practice.

I suppose that's better than "you're the reason I stopped ****ing your mother".

No, you're missing his point. He's saying that everything we spend money on has a good reason for it, to somebody. And the problem Obama is going to have is that we have to cut spending, which means, we're going to have to cut funding on things in which there's a good reason for it, to somebody. Thing is, nobody wants to sacrifice their particular thing. And that's the problem with tough decisions on cutting. They aren't tough because the pens used to write the budget are heavy and awkward, they're tough because all of it is stuff some segment of the population has justified as good spending. So everything proposed to cut is going to earn a backlash of some kind, from somebody. Everybody talks the talk, but nobody wants to walk the walk. We need to cut spending, so that means we're going to have to cut things that are otherwise a great idea, to somebody. The argument you're making above can be applied to ANYTHING Obama decides on cutting. Name it. There will be an ideological argument on how wrong it is to cut it. "Yeah, I think nuclear power plants are awesome...Oh no, but not by MY neighborhood..."

Absolutely not. And at this point, I'm not sure who organized what. It was seemingly a grassroots effort when the media was silent about it and I was getting pummelled with emails about it. Then a couple weeks before this thing is ready to launch, and suddenly everyone is talking about it; how Fox news and the republicans are spearheading this thing, which checked out the moment you turned on the Fox news channel. I have no idea what happened. It was either a cool idea that got ruined by neo-cons hijacking it or it was never the grassroots movement we thought it was.

That scene, and then the rest of the movie. Geez, I had to sit through that entire pretentious garbage of a flick. Angelina Jolie, the ugliest model I think I've ever witnessed. The woman is a walking corpse...or a permanent heroine junkie...I can't figure which. Sorry, I probly should have kept all that to myself.

Did anyone catch the bit on Fox News' Cavuto lying about the turn out? The Daily Kos, or whatever that's called, apparently got some off-air footage of Cavuto and some producer talking about how there were maybe, 5,000 there, at best. Then 9 minutes later he's on-air declaring they were expecting 5,000 but that there were easily double that, maybe triple. But yeah, they're just covering this event...that's all. I will back off if it comes out that in that 9 minutes they got a better count - after all this is a conversation between Cavuto and his producer guessing how many folks were there. But listening to that exchange it sure sounded like they were cooking up the numbers. Oh, and funny video there iNow. I wonder if Obama has learned anything from that tongue lashing.

Well they resolved 4 flippin' things man, didn't you see? Yeah, there's no meat here at all. It looks like a recount of promises, followed by a reaffirmed demand to keep them. The first step in any conflict really. I doubt an "or else" would be appropriate upon initial contact. But I doubt it goes further than this, other than just making a scene - an investment in future campaigns by exploiting unrest. But I'll enjoy the whole thing, however far it goes or doesn't.

To put an end to federal expansion and spank them back to size. State's rights. A colorful American landscape of various flavors of politics and lifestyle. Where the states are where the action is and the Federal Capital is a napping room. All the states are pretty much the same right now. Their differences are trivial. I can't go live in a libertarian state, or go visit a heavily socialist state or laugh at the religious states. The states do have these flavors today, but they're extremely mild and almost tasteless. Instead, we've taken standardization and applied to concept to governing. We're all going to be the intolerant, boring, non-unique conglomeration of sameness....how incredibly shallow. Yeah, I don't know the "proposal" either, and once I do I may jump ship. Right now, I just like seeing the resistance. Even if it's not to the same degree that I'd like.

Who cares WHO started it, it's time to finish it. What is the deal with you partisan worshipers? If a democrat does the same stupid thing that a republican started, we're supposed to be all cool with it? And you think Texas has issues?

I like it. I like seeing a state with the balls to call out this federal expansion. Too bad it didn't happen sooner. I hope this snowballs.

Yeah, no kidding. Maybe this would be a good time to call them out on their patriotism and how "naive" they are about keeping the country safe. And then, as icing on the cake, Obama should remind everyone every few months how he as kept the country safe. I would like to see the GOP field all that. Sorry, Skeptic, I missed your post before. This is the best argument I've heard for a progressive tax structure. The key being that the richer you are, the more risk you can take, and the more "free" cash you can invest with - it's more money above the survival necessities than those in the lower classes. That kind of analysis avoids the resentment and punishment nature of the arguments I typically hear out of the left - trying to engineer righteousness instead of cold, sterile analysis. I think it can be essentially remedied by a sales tax structure that doesn't tax needs, but wants. In this way, you avoid the sticky nature of picking on a minority since you're not taxing an income after a subjective review, you're taxing a product that is not a need. Yeah, sure it's not like it can't still be used to discriminate against a class minority, but if all goods and services are taxed and categorized in one of those two labels, it would be hard to make a case that a minority group is being singled out for taxation. There are other ideas I'm sure, that essentially divide the line between money needed to survive and money above that minimum, that only tax above that minimum, proportionately. I would sign on to that kind of idea enthusiastically.

You're arguing that it's a folly to use tea bags since the original party was about representation, and I'm saying it's correct to use tea bags since the original party was about protesting taxes. Your take is in the detail, mine is in the theme. I think it's ridiculous to use detail like that to invalidate the symbology of using tea to protest taxes. I'm having a hard time figuring out how you dismiss using "tea" as a prop for a tax protest based on detail buried in the debate. I guess you also rejected comparing Iraq to vietnam since vietnam was in Asia. Yes, they're all selling a product people want. Sure, I wish they didn't want it. But who the hell am I to tell you or anybody else what you should want? I guess you're comfortable with that, but I'm not. If the entire country were made up of people I hate, I would still advocate their full liberties. I try to practice real tolerance. I use my freedoms to speak against that which I don't like, not to legislate against it. That's chickenshit civil engineering. Right, because it all comes back to defining "good" or "best". To each his own. Capitalism lets free society determine what they feel is good or best with their pocket book. Why do you feel you're a better judge of what's good for them, than them? I would never make such a presumption, so I'll never define "good" for you, or anybody else. I'll let plurality decide. Free trade enables this. No, I am not rebutting what you said in that statement, it was part of the development of my point that we always seem to see "hard work" as noble. And anyone who makes money "easy" as somehow, unfair, and certainly ignoble since they didn't burn a lot of calories or something. I don't believe that. I think we naturally resent the upper classes, the overachievers for whatever reasons, and so we look for and assume the worst. I think more often than not, their "easy money" was actually a smart maneuver that could teach us something - that we miss, because we're too busy being indignant since it wasn't "hard work". Your next 4 points are the excuses poor people use to justify sitting on the couch with that bong in their lap, instead of doing something. Yes, making money gets easier as you make more, which is part of the reward you get for taking a chance, or providing services we all need - gambling instead of choosing a secure paycheck. And because of that, it's easier to stay rich. But there's room for so much more. It's not a zero sum game, where we can only have X number of rich people. It's a class that can shrink and stretch as well. And capitalism depends on the idea that people are not anchored to the class they were born in and that everyone enjoys the same opportunity, in terms of law. Since men are not equal, then there will always be classes. Since men do not define success universally, there will always be classes. Individuality really does mean, individuality. No, I agree on checking unethical practices, and I do have big issues with lobbyism. It's a sticky can of worms, that deserves it's own thread. I disagree on disproportionately pushing the tax burden on the rich based on these paranoid, class resentment fallacies that the blue collars eat up like candy. The class envy thing has been successful for democrats, so much so, that when we think of a "rich guy", we think of AIG execs, con-men CEO's, Bailouts, Wal-Mart...no one thinks of the that guy down my street that sells John Deere Tractors. He's rich. He didn't get bailed out. He didn't steal anyone's pension, or use 401K to inflate his bank accounts. He didn't lay anyone off. No one is upset with him, and in fact, no one is very interested in the tractor business. But we need him to provide this service and product. He doesn't deserve to have his property disproportionately taken from him because everyone is pissed off about AIG or Bailing out rich bankers. Remember, we're talking about tea party tax protests and that's the part I object to. Well I believe in the movement between classes and the shrink and stretch of those classes. Classes is just an arbitrary line we draw to categorize people's value in property ownership. Since we are not equal, and since we all develop and change over our lives, it's a dynamic system driven by merit more than any other. When a grown man works at McDonald's, he has made a choice. He's made a choice to stay poor (provided he's not investing in the stock market with his modest paychecks that is...). Maybe he made that choice because music means more to him and he has no interest in material inflation, other than music stuff. Or maybe he's given up, thinks he's stupid and can't compete. Or maybe he just doesn't define his success by monetary gain at all. When a teenager works there, it could be transitory, learning how to sell one's labor. Maybe it works well with his college class schedule. Or maybe he's always dreamed of cooking fries. Or maybe he wants to meet Ronald McDonald. There's nothing stopping either of those people from trying harder for more. But they each have their reasons for where they're at. That's the classes. That's individuality. It's not always about poor people beaten down by Wal-Mart. "Class" is not an insulting term to imply value or importance to human beings - it's merely a measure of the value of the property they own - their money. That's all it is. And it's not automatically about being "forced" into that class.

Damn, if that's true that really sucks. And what's a libertarian doing at a Glenn Beck 9/12 meeting? Yeah, no wonder he got booed, he doesn't put belief in god first and actually expects america to be good before labelling itself good...and that's just the first two Beck principles.

Yeah, but only a handful of us bothered to use your IP to get your name and home address, so don't sweat it. Just kidding, of course. But, I'm glad it's as liberated as it is, but it's still pretty stuffy material for too many people, in my mind. It's so healthy and positive on so many levels that to oppress it in any way seems as insulting and productive as restricting yourself from smiling. My impulse is a big, fat Why?? It costs nothing, it's great for your heart, good for intimacy, good for your mental health... And we're miles away from psychology in this thread, that's for sure. That's actually why I started watching this thing, I was hoping for some psychological break down. Not that it will really change anything, I'm perfectly happy with who I am.

Our laws equally benefit the poor. Our laws keep the rich from hiring mercanaries to mow us down and make them warlords. Our laws benefit everyone. I have no desire to reward the people who work hard. Working hard, in and of itself is a statement of energy expenditure. It carries no value within itself. I have a desire to reward the people who work smart. But even that isn't a statement about liberty since one should be free to not find value in work at all, or to find all of their value in it. My desire is for maximized personal liberty, with a real follow through on equality by removing the power to disproportionately tax the citizenry based on subjective judgements by the republic, particularly voting the tax burden onto some minority group, in this case, the rich. Edit: This is only an issue because our government has grown so huge, and has taken on so many duties that it either should *not* or should leave to the citizenry - that this kind of debate comes up. They're absorbing so much money, and have become such a huge part of our life, that we actually have to talk about who's more able to provide half of their freaking income to pay for it.

Yeah, I'm guessing you're going to be similar to most of us, more or less, in that it's a great spice for your intimacy and it stays there. Just be open with your partner and be clear on your do's and don'ts. Exploration is so much fun at the outset. When you're first testing your limits, your fears - it's quite liberating and rarely will your subsequent follow-ups match the same intensity as the first. Good luck. And yeah, I guess it's not ideal to discuss all of this here, but without all the graphic detail, I figure we're ok. You might be surprised how many are genuinely curiously reading this thread.

Who said hard work has to be part of it? Ingenuity and talent is definitely present on those stations I hate. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of the art of music and pop culture in general. Would the best group of primates be the ones that could miraculously calculate polynomials, or the ones that survive and multiply better? Just because you equate hard work with positive output, doesn't mean it's the best way. No, instead it's the way of individual liberty when you follow through. To rationalize redistributing property by subjective seizure is not freedom - it's a joke. To judge another citizen's resources as "too much" and delude yourself into believing it's perfectly ok to use law and take it from them while being a proponent of liberty, is as hypocritical as it gets, and is just another repeat of oppressing a minority. We always think it's justified, at the time, when we oppress minorities. Yes, all of those things are your american countrymen exercising their liberties. They're pretty stupid huh? I imagine some people think my stuff is pretty stupid too. That's the funny thing about real liberty - you really do have to practice tolerance. Yep. That's not just a one-sided lecture for your southern red neck friends on racism and gay bashing. It's also expected of you, and me too. Those people love their american idol product - so they keep buying. Good product. It's a good product because it's what they want. It may not be good to me, or to you, but it's good to them. And that's the measure. So the guy who makes that product, deserves to be rewarded. Just to turn this around (in spite of the fact I hate american idol...). Think about how much violence is on TV. Think about how much negativity, destruction, oppression, propoganda - all on TV validating our thirst for violence and decadence. The TV is dominated with these dynamics. But american idol? It's a show that rewards self improvement. It's a show that glorifies the no-names and gives us all a chance to kind of participate in something positive that does not involve violence and debasement. And it's a prime time craze. What an improvement in what humans use to entertain themselves. Yes, I see the meritocracy at work here, and it's exactly what I'd expect. We get the products we want, they get the profit they want - everyone wins. And they didn't get it by rationalizing passing law to take it from me. They persuaded me. They understand freedom better, I guess.

Two things... 1) The conservatives don't deserve notice, actually. They should organize their own protest. They are on the hit list of tax and spenders as well. They've got NO business showing their faces in all of this. Makes me sick. They are the worst. At least the democrats are proud to stand behind their propaganda and fool everyone into giving them more money, more power. The conservatives, apparently, are hoping we all forgot about the last 8 years, inside of a few months, and ruined this whole thing. I'm not even going now. The organizers didn't fight the republicans and Fox well enough at all. Now the republicans will likely benefit, in perception, from this movement, which is the LAST thing we want. 2) We're talking about protesting taxes and spending, not mirroring the Boston Tea Party. Taxation without representation is nice detail, but hardly invalidates using "tea" as a tax protest prop. Otherwise, we'd dump tea in a harbor wouldn't we? But no, they're mailing tea bags, which is a GREAT deal different. Just like the detail behind Boston's tea party was a great deal different. However "tea", works as the device to use for protesting taxes, a subtle similarity, given the detail is only subtely similar. Works great. Unless you pull a strawman and misrepresent the movement as if they were trying to make the identical case to the grievances that lead to the Boston Tea Party. I haven't even seen the conservatives do that. No we're bitching about spending more money than ever, without even reading the damn bill (which apparently bothers NO ONE here) and then manipulating the lower classes by using their natural resentment for those who achieve and outperform them to increase taxes on the rich. (Because the rich are all AIG, Wal-Mart and Haliburton execs that steal money from babies and enslave their parents... )

Haha, yeah that's the look I get when I playfully demand my wife change from "Ghost Hunters" to "Hitler's Henchmen" or "The Tanks of WWI". She hates it, which is, of course, why I bring it up. I swear, women have no appreciation for tanks, man... So yeah, I listen to nothing in the morning. Just silence. It's peaceful. I'm drinking Quiktrip coffee and thinking about music, writing, politics, family...no chaos and screaming in my ear. My drive is about 45 minutes to an hour. It's been nice.

Maybe we could instead talk about my relationship with my wife. You see, I kind of love her, but in a she-has-my-kids kinda way, but i'm just not sure if it's gonna work out. I mean 17 years and her ass just keeps gettin bigger. She asked for a boob job once and I told her to rub a piece of toilet paper between her breasts several times a day, since it worked wonders on her ass. But then, she does really nice things, like picking the w's out of my m&m's...I just don't know

Let the record show, that I'm not actually an asshole here...on this one...

Well, would it not depend on how much of your life you want to dedicate to indulging in your fantasy? It sounds like you think you have to either be a BDSM "person" or not, and that doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're considering an entire BDSM lifestyle. There are those people and they're fascinating, but generally speaking, most into BDSM are as well rounded as anybody else and indulge like chocolate, from time to time. I'm not sure why anybody else would need to know in order to judge you in the first place, but to hell with those people. Enjoy yourself, it's your life, not theirs.

That's sounds a lot more expensive than arming our ships.