It doesn't matter if you are ok with this surveillance or not as those who do it are above the law. They write it the way they need it.

@enoch I'm not hostile towards those who disagree with me, but towards those who intentionally misrepresent me. I'm guessing you once met some fundamentalist hard-headed fox news republican whatever, and you think I'm that guy. I'm not. So, please stop misrepresenting me, it's really annoying.

You suggest letting government/society burn? Sure, maybe that's what we're headed to anyways. I don't treat politics as discussing "what should we do", that's irrelevant if you and I can't agree on what's actually wrong. To me, it's more about understanding the problem.

@dag The problem I see in how you're using examples outside of America is that what you suggest as a solution in another country can just as much be an example of another country's success despite what you're pointing out as the solution.

"we tax the rich a lot in Australia and everything is better over here". Ok. What if Australia would be better off if you didn't tax the rich so much? Then you'd be just proposing we do what's not helping Australia to help America, all the while overlooking whatever is actually working in Australia.

It does seem somewhat obvious that taxing the rich would forcefully reduce wealth inequality, but then we wouldn't be looking at what's causing the inequality, just trying to punch it out of existence with taxes, and possibly establishing more social injustice in the process. To me, it seems quite unfair to tax someone more just for being richer, a moral hazard even (punishing productivity?), but moral concerns are passé and don't seem to bother anyone these days.

@shatterdrose I treat a smaller government solution as something like a paradigm shift. You see government doing things right in country X, Y or Z, and I see them as, most likely, taking credit for what they're not fucking up. I mean, seriously, don't you know governments do that all the time?

There are plenty of people who unfairly benefit from government, but government is mostly not a net benefit to society, and those people will lie through their goddamned teeth about how much good they do, usually taking credit for anything working in society. There sure are plenty of suckers who believe them.

Wanting less government is not snap judgement, it's not dogma, it's quite often what no one ever considers.

Wanting more government is the convenient way out, governments are the agents of every social planner's wet dreams. In their minds, governments always have "unlimited" resources, they're always above any law, they're never morally wrong, and they're always run by honest uncorruptible people.

I love your "get involved" answer to criticizing government. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm criticizing how much government IS involved. That can hardly be changed from the inside. People who run for government always want a bigger piece of the pie, they're not likely to win on a "we want less pie" platform.

I don't expect this to be fixed by politicians because they only benefit from such a system. Unfortunately one of the side-effects of having people with so much wealth and power that they are untouchable. They are above the law, above the court system and will never pay for the laws they have broken to gain their wealth and we have a political system in this country and around the world that will only help them do it. One would have thought that our politicians would have woken up after the 'Great Recession' but that clearly isn't the case. I only fear that the next great collapse will do even more harm as these people go unchecked in their greed and willingness to fuck over the middle class to make a buck.

"Corporations are people my friend" except apparently when they break the law. Then they, and the people who run them are above the law, or too big and important to jail or prosecute. They get to have their cake and eat it too. When will the working class people rise up against these people? Why do people not care? The streets should be flooded with people in outrage... not just over this, but cases like this and it just keeps happening...

>> ^criticalthud:

amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.


Exactly. One has to admit that this is entirely plausible, and that time lines certainly stack up. Karl's conniption fit on FOX about his certainty that Hamilton County would go Romney, even though Romney lost the county by 4% or so.

As to why he didn't try this in 2004, I would suggest it was because the tide was so severely against republicans in that year. As with this year, Obama would have won whether or not he lost Ohio.

Hopefully Anonymous will release some hard numbers and details. Karl Rove has been doing this for half his life, some time in prison might change that.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.

I'm not sure if they're questioning whether Rove would stoop to cheating, they're questioning whether it's probable that he actually did.
So a question of capability rather than intent.
I believe Rove is actually Mr Burns made flesh and would gleefully steal candy from a baby, given the opportunity.


indeed. he didn't invade iraq by himself, did he? he got help. he's arguably one of the most powerful men on the planet. I'm assuming he has some people that know their way around the backend of a pc.

>> ^criticalthud:

amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.


I'm not sure if they're questioning whether Rove would stoop to cheating, they're questioning whether it's probable that he actually did.

So a question of capability rather than intent.

I believe Rove is actually Mr Burns made flesh and would gleefully steal candy from a baby, given the opportunity.

amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.

Fact: The US (government?) is above International Law. And they don't care.

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

Guessing Zimmerman is from a powerful family in that area. Because it could just as easily be about which family has more strings to pull.

If the teenager were white, wealthy but not as wealthy as 28 year olds family.....cops wouldn't do shit to the guy especially if his family had ties to high up police force, etc and he could make some halfway credible claim that everyone could grab hold of and use like a shield to respond to all questions.

Ice tea in his pocket = bulge thought to be gun....he said something, reached for his pocket and I defended myself.

Should look into more than one angle than just the race angle. Yes, the black/white situation is one possibly explanation, but I don't think it totally explains it. Unless where this took place white people are still living with the "white is right" mentality, and if they were..black family in their paid for gated neighborhood would not be going over well with that crowd. In which case, they would have more ammo to use against the police department.

And the fact that the guy called the cops and didn't stay in his fucking house when approaching a guy who was not actively trying to break into a house or car.......I just think something other than race related stuff is going on. I suspect a family who lives above the law as a rule in that area, guy probably could have shot an old granny dead on her own yard with no witnesses and not been taken in.

It seems to me that it's these cops getting a government payout: doing a shoddy job on my dime. They do a bad job, violate citizens' rights, then open up the city for huge lawsuits. How are they sympathetic again?>> ^quantumushroom:

I feel bad for all involved.
Yeah, we see ONE video where these cops overreact, we don't see the no-doubt non-stop bullsh1t from lowlifes these cops have to put up with all the time, many of whom are ready to put on Oscar-winning performances for the camera, trying to create a scene in the hopes of getting a gummint payout.
You can't have a functional society when EVERYONE thinks s/he's a badass who's above the law.
This is an excellent book, written by an ex-cop.
Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion
These cops may need more training, society needs REAL education.

I feel bad for all involved.

Yeah, we see ONE video where these cops overreact, we don't see the no-doubt non-stop bullsh1t from lowlifes these cops have to put up with all the time, many of whom are ready to put on Oscar-winning performances for the camera, trying to create a scene in the hopes of getting a gummint payout.

You can't have a functional society when EVERYONE thinks s/he's a badass who's above the law.

This is an excellent book, written by an ex-cop.

Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion

These cops may need more training, society needs REAL education.

I learn so much about what I believe when I talk with you. And here I thought I wanted to reform our election system so that corporations could not so easily subvert the democratic process. And here I thought I wanted to reform our economic system so that corporations were held responsible for their actions and not allowed to siphon and hoard societal wealth. Who knew that I was such a fan of the global corporate empire? And who knew that removing all barriers to corporate wealth and power would result in liberty? It sounds so unintuitive and absurd on it's face that I would not have believed it had I not learned it from someone in possession of such formidable mental prowess. Your advanced wisdom is truly indistinguishable from magic. Expecto Patronum Mano Invisablo!>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^The more we deregulate, privatize, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest, the worse things get. Unregulated capitalism has become its own worse enemy. If we want to save capitalism from itself, we need regulate it, so that it can not be used as a weapon to subjugate the working poor, the middle class and labor. The economic reforms you call for are the same reforms called for by corporatists and plutomists like the Kochs, The Scaifes, Luntz, Norquist among other corporate elites. How is it that you can rail against crony capitalists and regurgitate their propaganda in the same sentence? In my opinion, it is be you are being manipulated to put for an agenda that appeals to your base nature by people who could not care less about you.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us:
-Vast Income Inequality
-High Unemployment
-Wage Cuts while productivity continues to rise
-Endless War for profit, oil
-Massive political corruption at every level of government
The 'free market' you dream of is a pie in the sky, no different from St. Peter and the Pearly Gates or 72 Virgins. "Free" Market ideology has been at work in American Government for over 30 years, and it has resulted in the creation of a global corporate state that is anything but free. Stop making excuses for failure. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Being wrong only becomes problem when your foolish pride hinders you from assessment. Pull your head out of the sand. @marbles

Good Job. I link an essay that specifically identifies the problems and you respond with hollow partisan talking points that ignore the problems. Nationalizing risk by the big banks and privatizing profits is not free market capitalism, no matter how much you claim it to be.
Free market ideology didn't create a global corporate state. Putting our economy in the hands of a select few did. The Federal Reserve is an above the law private banking cartel. And whether you believe in a free market or not is irrelevant. Believing that Wall Street politicians are going to solve the problems that they help create is the real delusion.
Banks have taking over the government. Your solution: Support Wall Street puppets and regurgitate their talking points.
Banks have taking over the regulatory agencies. Your solution: Pass more Wall Street written regulations.
Government uses our tax money to bailout corporations and wage war around the world. Your solution: Give them more money to funnel to the top and fund more death and destruction.
So who's really being manipulated here? The corporate shadow government is erecting bars around your glass house and you're busy parroting their talking points. Good job pal.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^The more we deregulate, privatize, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest, the worse things get. Unregulated capitalism has become its own worse enemy. If we want to save capitalism from itself, we need regulate it, so that it can not be used as a weapon to subjugate the working poor, the middle class and labor. The economic reforms you call for are the same reforms called for by corporatists and plutomists like the Kochs, The Scaifes, Luntz, Norquist among other corporate elites. How is it that you can rail against crony capitalists and regurgitate their propaganda in the same sentence? In my opinion, it is be you are being manipulated to put for an agenda that appeals to your base nature by people who could not care less about you.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us:
-Vast Income Inequality
-High Unemployment
-Wage Cuts while productivity continues to rise
-Endless War for profit, oil
-Massive political corruption at every level of government
The 'free market' you dream of is a pie in the sky, no different from St. Peter and the Pearly Gates or 72 Virgins. "Free" Market ideology has been at work in American Government for over 30 years, and it has resulted in the creation of a global corporate state that is anything but free. Stop making excuses for failure. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Being wrong only becomes problem when your foolish pride hinders you from assessment. Pull your head out of the sand. @marbles


Good Job. I link an essay that specifically identifies the problems and you respond with hollow partisan talking points that ignore the problems. Nationalizing risk by the big banks and privatizing profits is not free market capitalism, no matter how much you claim it to be.

Free market ideology didn't create a global corporate state. Putting our economy in the hands of a select few did. The Federal Reserve is an above the law private banking cartel. And whether you believe in a free market or not is irrelevant. Believing that Wall Street politicians are going to solve the problems that they help create is the real delusion.

Banks have taking over the government. Your solution: Support Wall Street puppets and regurgitate their talking points.

Banks have taking over the regulatory agencies. Your solution: Pass more Wall Street written regulations.

Government uses our tax money to bailout corporations and wage war around the world. Your solution: Give them more money to funnel to the top and fund more death and destruction.

So who's really being manipulated here? The corporate shadow government is erecting bars around your glass house and you're busy parroting their talking points. Good job pal.