• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
So on yesterday's Real Time, I thought Bill Maher made an interesting point. CNN Republican hack, Ana Navarro was talking about how Reagan beat communism, and Maher pointed out that while he did deserve some credit, Reagan came in during the last act, but more importantly, he said that communism was about to fall anyway because it was an unsustainable model, just as Republicans had always been yammering on about.

So if communism was always destined to fail, should Reagan be given any credit, period?

There's a special sort of bullshit even beyond that for any person that came up even remotely around those times from Central and South America to take up for Reagan, of all people, given all the "intrigue" with the Drug War, Contras, etc reckoning all sorts of harmful results for the people that stretch out to this very day.

Maher's Reagan slammiing was very reminiscent of Oliver Stone's presentation on him for Untold History of the US---Maher did tell Stone he watched all of it so perhaps he did and wasn't just saying as much, heh.
 
It's still the Sandy bump due to the rebuilding, once the campaign starts and it becomes about the issues he becomes vulnerable.

he really does have a horrible record. he has not done anything at all worthwhile in office, and our economic situation is worse than the rest of the country's and hasn't really improved at all in the past few years.

people fucking love him though. personality goes a really long way.
 

Gotchaye

Member
For those of you who watch fox news, what has their response been to the NSA stuff?

Benghazi?

Not Fox specifically, but the right has generally been pretty measured in their criticism of it. The libertarians are up in arms, of course, but National Review's take seems to be "good/okay policy, but we don't really trust Obama to oversee it".
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
There's a special sort of bullshit even beyond that for any person that came up even remotely around those times from Central and South America to take up for Reagan, of all people, given all the "intrigue" with the Drug War, Contras, etc reckoning all sorts of harmful results for the people that stretch out to this very day.

Maher's Reagan slammiing was very reminiscent of Oliver Stone's presentation on him for Untold History of the US---Maher did tell Stone he watched all of it so perhaps he did and wasn't just saying as much, heh.

Yeah, I was lolling when Navarro said her family escaped Nicaragua and thanked Reagan for helping with that. Those Contras were so benevolent, after all.


In other news, as if it wasn't amusing enough to see Republicans were hypocrites on the stimulus, now we got the same thing on Obamacare:

ow letters produced by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that many of these same anti-Obamacare Republicans have solicited grants from the very program they claim to despise. This is evidence not merely of shameless hypocrisy but of the fact that the ACA bestows tangible benefits that even Congress’s most extreme right-wing ideologues are hard-pressed to deny to their constituents.

http://www.thenation.com/article/174669/revealed-letters-republicans-seeking-obamacare-money
 
This whole brouhaha over NSA wiretapping stuff is just a joy to watch.

When the FISA bill was signed into law (and PATRIOT act), did NO ONE see this coming? I feel like the rest of the world (media in particular) just woke up. I am utterly unsurprised by this *megaton revelation* because I knew perfectly well how much liberty and freedom we collectively threw out the window in the wake of 9/11 hysteria. This is just a confirmation of exactly what we (people who were in-the-know) totally knew what was going on at the NSA headquarters soon after PATRIOT Act. All of a sudden the world stopped spinning because newspapers are kinda doing their jobs. Hey um where were the alarm bells when these Orwellian bills were first signed into law? Where was this alarm when they were re-authorized? Why did NO ONE in the media business batted an eye when these laws were being debated in the Congress? Now that we know what was going to happen has happened and is happening and will continue to happen, media and pundits are acting like this is a PBS for Kids mystery program: "The government spies on it's citizens! If only we knew how this happened!", a broad theater of playing dumb and feigning outrage because we do not want to get caught knowing full well how it all happened, either because we were too afraid to question government in a post-9/11 environment or it was a ratings-drag story. I want to strangle all the idiots on facebook who just instagrammed a picture of their Mocha Latte and few minutes later became the upholders of liberty by calling Obama a dictator. Obama administration's record on this kind of stuff is abysmal and needs all the blame. But don't think for a second that this stuff hasn't been going on for the past 10 years, and even further than that in different forms.
 

Averon

Member
This whole brouhaha over NSA wiretapping stuff is just a joy to watch.

When the FISA bill was signed into law (and PATRIOT act), did NO ONE see this coming? I feel like the rest of the world (media in particular) just woke up. I am utterly unsurprised by this *megaton revelation* because I knew perfectly well how much liberty and freedom we collectively threw out the window in the wake of 9/11 hysteria. This is just a confirmation of exactly what we (people who were in-the-know) totally knew what was going on at the NSA headquarters soon after PATRIOT Act. All of a sudden the world stopped spinning because newspapers are kinda doing their jobs. Hey um where were the alarm bells when these Orwellian bills were first signed into law? Where was this alarm when they were re-authorized? Why did NO ONE in the media business batted an eye when these laws were being debated in the Congress? Now that we know what was going to happen has happened and is happening and will continue to happen, media and pundits are acting like this is a PBS for Kids mystery program: "The government spies on it's citizens! If only we knew how this happened!", a broad theater of playing dumb and feigning outrage because we do not want to get caught knowing full well how it all happened, either because we were too afraid to question government in a post-9/11 environment or it was a ratings-drag story. I want to strangle all the idiots on facebook who just instagrammed a picture of their Mocha Latte and few minutes later became the upholders of liberty by calling Obama a dictator. Obama administration's record on this kind of stuff is abysmal and needs all the blame. But don't think for a second that this stuff hasn't been going on for the past 10 years, and even further than that in different forms.

Agreed. The public and the media gave Congress and the Executive branch a free pass to do whatever they wanted so as to "fight terror" since 9/11 and are now shocked the massive increase in power and control they gave them is being used.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I don't get it either. Isn't this exactly what everyone was upset over when the Patriot Act was first passed?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
A lot of people are focusing on pre election Obama quotes which appeared like he wasn't going to allow something like this PRISM thing to happen, but I more remember this little event which made it pretty clear his position on this all along even before the election.
 

Averon

Member
I don't get it either. Isn't this exactly what everyone was upset over when the Patriot Act was first passed?

Yes, of course back then those people we either ignored, marginalized, or was accused of being "soft on terror". No one wanted to hear that ten years ago, when America just suffered a massive terror attack on the homeland.
 

Chichikov

Member
This whole brouhaha over NSA wiretapping stuff is just a joy to watch.

When the FISA bill was signed into law (and PATRIOT act), did NO ONE see this coming? I feel like the rest of the world (media in particular) just woke up. I am utterly unsurprised by this *megaton revelation* because I knew perfectly well how much liberty and freedom we collectively threw out the window in the wake of 9/11 hysteria. This is just a confirmation of exactly what we (people who were in-the-know) totally knew what was going on at the NSA headquarters soon after PATRIOT Act. All of a sudden the world stopped spinning because newspapers are kinda doing their jobs. Hey um where were the alarm bells when these Orwellian bills were first signed into law? Where was this alarm when they were re-authorized? Why did NO ONE in the media business batted an eye when these laws were being debated in the Congress? Now that we know what was going to happen has happened and is happening and will continue to happen, media and pundits are acting like this is a PBS for Kids mystery program: "The government spies on it's citizens! If only we knew how this happened!", a broad theater of playing dumb and feigning outrage because we do not want to get caught knowing full well how it all happened, either because we were too afraid to question government in a post-9/11 environment or it was a ratings-drag story. I want to strangle all the idiots on facebook who just instagrammed a picture of their Mocha Latte and few minutes later became the upholders of liberty by calling Obama a dictator. Obama administration's record on this kind of stuff is abysmal and needs all the blame. But don't think for a second that this stuff hasn't been going on for the past 10 years, and even further than that in different forms.
You're a funny guy, I like you, that's why I'm going to wiretap your phone last.
 
This whole brouhaha over NSA wiretapping stuff is just a joy to watch.

When the FISA bill was signed into law (and PATRIOT act), did NO ONE see this coming? I feel like the rest of the world (media in particular) just woke up. I am utterly unsurprised by this *megaton revelation* because I knew perfectly well how much liberty and freedom we collectively threw out the window in the wake of 9/11 hysteria. This is just a confirmation of exactly what we (people who were in-the-know) totally knew what was going on at the NSA headquarters soon after PATRIOT Act. All of a sudden the world stopped spinning because newspapers are kinda doing their jobs. Hey um where were the alarm bells when these Orwellian bills were first signed into law? Where was this alarm when they were re-authorized? Why did NO ONE in the media business batted an eye when these laws were being debated in the Congress? Now that we know what was going to happen has happened and is happening and will continue to happen, media and pundits are acting like this is a PBS for Kids mystery program: "The government spies on it's citizens! If only we knew how this happened!", a broad theater of playing dumb and feigning outrage because we do not want to get caught knowing full well how it all happened, either because we were too afraid to question government in a post-9/11 environment or it was a ratings-drag story. I want to strangle all the idiots on facebook who just instagrammed a picture of their Mocha Latte and few minutes later became the upholders of liberty by calling Obama a dictator. Obama administration's record on this kind of stuff is abysmal and needs all the blame. But don't think for a second that this stuff hasn't been going on for the past 10 years, and even further than that in different forms.

I think people (me included) generally though that the words about oversight and legal boundaries were true.

We were wrong and now we have proof. They say one thing in public and go argue another in a secret court.

And this won't go away. Congress won't do anything.
 

Cloudy

Banned
A lot of people are focusing on pre election Obama quotes which appeared like he wasn't going to allow something like this PRISM thing to happen, but I more remember this little event which made it pretty clear his position on this all along even before the election.

It's so stupid. CNN played a clip of Obama saying he supports surveillance as long as it's not warrantless and judges have oversight. Then they a segment about how he's changed his tone now that he's in office. WTF?

Oh and this is despicable by WaPo

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

A bombshell story published in the Washington Post this week alleged that the NSA had enlisted nine tech giants, including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple, in a massive program of online spying. Now the story is unraveling, and the Post has quietly changed key details. What went wrong?
 
It's so stupid. CNN played a clip of Obama saying he supports surveillance as long as it's not warrantless and judges have oversight. Then they a segment about how he's changed his tone now that he's in office. WTF?

Oh and this is despicable by WaPo

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

I can't find anything in the edits that changes the fact the NSA is collecting data without warrants and is doing so in secret. Nobody said what they were doing was "illegal"
 

Cloudy

Banned
I can't find anything in the edits that changes the fact the NSA is collecting data without warrants and is doing so in secret. Nobody said what they were doing was "illegal"

Apparently the data being collected is not on anyone inside the US. That and claiming the government has unfettered access to Google, Facebook etc. servers when they don't is a BIG difference in how the story is perceived IMO

Read this article from CNET:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in The Washington Post or The Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

That former official's account -- that the process was created by Congress six years ago and includes judicial oversight -- was independently confirmed by another person with direct knowledge of how this data collection happens at multiple companies. The leaked presentation slides say the program began in September 2007, only weeks after the foreign surveillance law was amended.

The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement requests information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

The Washington Post has backtracked from its initial report on PRISM. At first, the paper claimed the Silicon Valley firms "participate knowingly in PRISM operations." But then -- without explanation -- the newspaper quietly removed that language last night. It also abandoned its original claim to have confirmed that the NSA is "tapping directly into the central servers" of the companies.

In a separate article published today, The New York Times cited anonymous sources that cast additional doubt on the initial reports. Each of the tech companies, the Times said, "drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders."
 

120v

Member
A lot of people are focusing on pre election Obama quotes which appeared like he wasn't going to allow something like this PRISM thing to happen, but I more remember this little event which made it pretty clear his position on this all along even before the election.

this is what's most infuriating to me. i mean if you're upset with obama then fine, but if you think he's doing some 180 degree pivot from Candidate Obama either you haven't been paying attention or you're an idiot
 

Cloudy

Banned
Clapper out with another statement tonight. They are really pushing back hard on this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-washington-post-leaks-prism-92446.html?hp=l1

Instead, Clapper said he declassified a 2 1/2-page document with some new details about the program to “help dispel some of the myths and add necessary context to what has been published.”

The document said that PRISM “is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program” but rather “an internal government computer system” for gathering foreign intelligence under the act, and that the government “does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers” since Section 702, which was reauthorized by Congress in December 2012, cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen.

No information gathered from technology companies that participate in the PRISM program is collected “unilaterally” or without the company’s knowledge, according to the document.

The bullet points on intelligence-gathering under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act released Saturday do not provide specifics about what information it has uncovered through its widespread electronic surveillance.
 
this is what's most infuriating to me. i mean if you're upset with obama then fine, but if you think he's doing some 180 degree pivot from Candidate Obama either you haven't been paying attention or you're an idiot

Although I agree with you, I'd say the fact that people believed in a "candidate Obama" was not lost on Mr. Obama.
 
This whole brouhaha over NSA wiretapping stuff is just a joy to watch.

When the FISA bill was signed into law (and PATRIOT act), did NO ONE see this coming?

What was there to see coming? We've known about this forever.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Date: May 11, 2006

it's amazing to see how this is a story today, not 7 years ago...
 
All of this surveillance shit is making me feel hopeless. We are so fucked.

I find the story hilarious in that we play ignorant.

reminds me of the torture stuff from a few years ago.


OH MY GOD ARE YOU SAYING WE TORTURE PEOPLE!?!?!?

I'm not saying torture or this surveillance shit is right (because it's not) but I'm annoyed at how people are pretending like they didn't know any of this stuff happened for the last 5 decades (or longer).
 
I find the story hilarious in that we play ignorant.

reminds me of the torture stuff from a few years ago.


OH MY GOD ARE YOU SAYING WE TORTURE PEOPLE!?!?!?

I'm not saying torture or this surveillance shit is right (because it's not) but I'm annoyed at how people are pretending like they didn't know any of this stuff happened for the last 5 decades (or longer).
I just hate seeing it confirmed. This is one thing where I've tried to be an optimist in order to stay sane.
 
All of this surveillance shit is making me feel hopeless. We are so fucked.

One of the things I really hate it when stories liked this are posted on GAF is the doom and gloom posts. Corporations control everything, we're doomed, we are so fucked, yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder how the internet would've handled the riots after MLK's assassination, which was later followed up with RFK's assassination.

Not well, extreme hyperbole, and so on.
 

Cloudy

Banned
but I'm annoyed at how people are pretending like they didn't know any of this stuff happened for the last 5 decades (or longer).

I'm annoyed at why the media took 6 years to start questioning anti-terrorism policies. Where was all this outrage then?
 
One of the things I really hate it when stories liked this are posted on GAF is the doom and gloom posts. Corporations control everything, we're doomed, we are so fucked, yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder how the internet would've handled the riots after MLK's assassination, which was later followed up with RFK's assassination.

Not well, extreme hyperbole, and so on.

As someone who has lived in my youth through the two different media eras - pre-high speed internet and post-high speed internet - I wonder myself.

I feel like in the past people were aware of this stuff and when it was brought up it was more "see, there's the proof." Now it's all "HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!?"

I'm annoyed at why the media took 6 years to start questioning anti-terrorism policies. Where was all this outrage then?

That is my annoyance as well. Also makes the whole "liberal media" crap even dumber. Same media that was complicit in pushing for Iraq is turning on Obama for what has been going on forever.

Outrage over this is fine. I'm just annoyed how the outrage is a decade too late.
 

Arksy

Member
Hey guys, quick question.

What's the closest equivalent of a Commonwealth/Westminster leader of the opposition in US terms?

Would it be the Speaker? The Majority/Minority leader depending on which party controls the HoR?
 
What was there to see coming? We've known about this forever.


http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Date: May 11, 2006

it's amazing to see how this is a story today, not 7 years ago...

Obama claimed this stuff was going to end or be subject to better oversight. These revelations are a confirmation not only that that was a flat out lie, including lying in congress but that Obama also has EXPANDED it.

Yes certain facets of this are very old but Obama's done nothing to roll it back, in direct contrast to his promises and his administrations claims.

I'm annoyed at why the media took 6 years to start questioning anti-terrorism policies. Where was all this outrage then?

They're have been many people. You've just decided to forget it and instead pretend this outrage is new.

that and the advent of twitter and facebook have made outrage more palpable
 
Hey guys, quick question.

What's the closest equivalent of a Commonwealth/Westminster leader of the opposition in US terms?

Would it be the Speaker? The Majority/Minority leader depending on which party controls the HoR?

As someone interning with a member of the Official Opposition in Canada right now (and I've actually had this conversation with my MP and his legislative assistant), I'd have to say the closest analogue to that position is indeed the Minority Leader.

(Which is to say it's a fairly inexact analogue.)
 
One of the things I really hate it when stories liked this are posted on GAF is the doom and gloom posts. Corporations control everything, we're doomed, we are so fucked, yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder how the internet would've handled the riots after MLK's assassination, which was later followed up with RFK's assassination.

Not well, extreme hyperbole, and so on.
There'd be 24 hours of reddit speculation on who Sirhan Sirhan is that confuses the media.
 

Wall

Member
Oh joy, Cory Booker is running for Senate. We can't have too many Wall Street democrats I suppose. I already see web ads up for him, so you know he has plenty of money backing his run.
 

Maledict

Member
Hey guys, quick question.

What's the closest equivalent of a Commonwealth/Westminster leader of the opposition in US terms?

Would it be the Speaker? The Majority/Minority leader depending on which party controls the HoR?

There's no real equivalent, but basically it goes:

Majority leader of either chamber
Minority leader of either chamber

So Boehner has more clout than McConnell for example, but neither has the power and reach of the leader of the opposition in parliament in terms of press or public attention. If there's no difference between the two (I.e. the opposition controls both houses or neither) it seems to come down to the House rather than the Senate due to the roles of each chamber, but personalities also play a bit part.

That also ignores the roles of governors and public figures - even over the last four years figures like Palin, Limbaugh, Walker etc have acted as effective leaders of the opposition. Because there's no central position like there is in a parliament it allows for a lot more variety and change within the opposition. Of course the downside is that can fragment and tear apart a party a lot more rapidly than a parliamentary party.
 
There's no real equivalent, but basically it goes:

Majority leader of either chamber
Minority leader of either chamber

So Boehner has more clout than McConnell for example, but neither has the power and reach of the leader of the opposition in parliament in terms of press or public attention. If there's no difference between the two (I.e. the opposition controls both houses or neither) it seems to come down to the House rather than the Senate due to the roles of each chamber, but personalities also play a bit part.

That also ignores the roles of governors and public figures - even over the last four years figures like Palin, Limbaugh, Walker etc have acted as effective leaders of the opposition. Because there's no central position like there is in a parliament it allows for a lot more variety and change within the opposition. Of course the downside is that can fragment and tear apart a party a lot more rapidly than a parliamentary party.

It also means there's no political theater in the US that's nearly as fun to watch as Question Period.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I don't give him any credit whatsoever. I feel he kind of lucked into the position. It wasn't if, but when communism would fall.

It is certainly true that Pres. Reagan inherited forty years of policy where containment of communism had been the bipartisan policy of the US. However, that had substantially changed in the 70s with Kissinger's detente policy, so much so that Pres. Ford refused to meet with Soviet dissidents and signed the Helsinki Accords. After the economic stagnation of the 70s in the West and the major social upheaval in the UK, there were plenty of people still championing the Soviet system as superior. Edit: and of course the foreign policy disaster of Vietnam.

Pres. reagan early in his first term did a 180 with regard to rhetoric and willingness to embrace the dissident movements. We had this argument recently (I don't remember who I was discussing it with) and I pointed out that prominent dissidents credit Pres. Reagan greatly for his contribution and linked to articles describing statues of him being dedicated and roads renamed for him in Eastern Europe. Obviously, that has nothing to do with Republicans in the US.

Hindsight is 20/20, but on the day Pres. Reagan left office, what odds could you have gotten that the USSR and the Iron Curtain would crumble peacefully within a few years with virtually no shots fired? 20-1? 50-1? It's plausible.
 
12 Phrases Progressives say and what they could say instead

1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, try: Unelected Government. This puts them in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

(2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, try: Earned Benefits. This term not only sounds better for the progressive cause, it’s also more accurate. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are all forms of insurance that we pay into all of our working lives — via a percentage of our income — and then collect from when the time comes.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: (Also referred to as: Capitalism, Free Markets, and Supply-Side Economics) Like “Fascism” and “Communism,” “Free Market Capitalism” is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society. Instead, try: Socialized Risk, Privatized Profits. This best describes the dramatically failed experiment in unfettered capitalism, as practiced in the late 20th century and early aughts.




(4). Government Spending: (Also referred to as: Taxes, Burden, and Inconvenient) Conservatives talk about “government spending” like it’s this awful thing, but the fact is, communities across America benefit from U.S. tax dollars, especially supposedly anti-government red states, which receive way more federal tax money than they contribute. Instead, try: Investing in America. Because, that’s what our federal tax dollars do. They invest in education and infrastructure that wouldn’t prove profitable for businesses, but which still benefit society in the long-run.

(5) Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage: While these phrases are technically accurate, they play into the conservative notion that marriage between two men or two women is somehow different and inferior than a “real” marriage between a man and a woman. Instead, try: Marriage Equality.

(6). Gun Control: Yikes! That sounds like you want to control people, and all those “freedom loving” folks who want to bully gays and people of color into staying in their place will use that word against you. Instead, try: Gun Safety. It sounds so nice, non-coercive, and reasonable … plus, it’s true. Most of us aren’t against guns, we just want them used safely. Or, for some added punch, try: Gun Violence Prevention.





(7). Homophobic: People who oppose equal rights for gays, lesbians, and gender atypical individuals are not “afraid,” as the “phobic” suffix implies. They are mean, bigoted @ssholes. Instead, try: Anti-Gay.

(8). Illegal Aliens: It’s easy to support draconian laws against people we refer to by such a scary and impersonal term as “illegal aliens.” It’s way harder to act against our neighbors, friends, the families of our children’s classmates, or the nice lady who sells those plump, fragrant tamales on the corner. Plus … are they really “illegal?” If Big Business … Ooops … I mean “Unelected Government” … didn’t want them here — for their easily-exploited, low-cost, skilled labor (yes, our neighbors from south of the border do offer specialized skills for which U.S. agribusiness refuses to fairly compensate) — they’d be gone. Instead, try: Undocumented Residents. Why not? They already do much of what we officially-recognized U.S. citizens do, plus they’re having more kids than Anglos are. Seems like immigration provides an ideal way for us to avoid the demographics crisis hitting Western Europe and Japan.

(9). Pro-Life: Ugh. They are NOT pro-life. Once a child takes its first breath, these supposed conservative “pro-lifers” couldn’t care less about the quality of life for the child or mother. Let’s call them by their true name for once. Instead, try: Anti-Choice. Because, that’s what they really are about. They don’t care about “life.” They only seek to deny choices to women. Not just the choice of whether or not to have a child, but whether a woman can — like a man — embrace her full sexuality without having to worry about pregnancy, and whether she can make related choices about her body, her career, and when to have children, as men always have.

(10). Right-To-Work: Who came up with the phrase “right-to-work” ANYway? It’s total B.S. and doesn’t give you the right to do anything, unless you want to reject unions and earn less money than you would in a pro-union shop. In “right-to-work” states, non-union workers in union shops can decline paying union dues. Which sounds fair, but is not, because union shops pay better wages to their employees, and hence should receive dues accordingly. Instead, try: Anti-Union: It’s far more accurate, and — as unions increasingly gain favor — will make conservatives look bad. Because “right-to-work” really does mean: Right to choose amongst sucky wages and benefits packages. Several readers have also suggested: Right-To-Fire (without just cause), and Right-To-Work-For-Less.

(11). The Environment: When people talk about “the environment,” they often sound annoyingly self-righteous, as if lecturing people with dubious hygiene practices. Unfortunately, you can’t count on people to make environmentally friendly choices — especially when people are struggling financially and these choices cost significantly more. Instead, try: Shared Resources. That makes way more sense. We may not care about some factory dumping crap into the ocean, but we dang-well care about our neighbors up the river not properly maintaining their septic tank.

(12). Welfare: When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes. The majority of us need help at one time or another. Instead, try: Social Safety Net: When people think of a safety net, they’re more likely to think of a protection of last-resort, and one that they can instantly bounce out of like circus acrobats. And if we continue to grow the middle class — instead of cutting taxes for the rich and allowing companies to pay sub-living wages — perhaps the latter will be true again.

NOTE: This piece is updated on an ongoing basis, and new terms will be added as they come to the author’s attention.



Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/24/10-phrases-progressives-need-to-ditch/#ixzz2Vj5YpGZW

What say you GAF? Agree? Disagree?
 

thefro

Member
Hey guys, quick question.

What's the closest equivalent of a Commonwealth/Westminster leader of the opposition in US terms?

Would it be the Speaker? The Majority/Minority leader depending on which party controls the HoR?

Probably the Senate Minority leader right now (Mitch McConnell), but he's really nowhere close to a Commonwealth-style opposition leader. Typically it would be the Speaker of the House but Boehner has pretty weak support from his base and is really unable to do much of anything meaningful.

Keep in mind all that opposition power is basically split up between:
- House Speaker (or minority leader)
- Senate Majority/Minority leader
- DNC/RNC Chairperson
- Various Presidential hopefuls, governors, etc who have their own power bases within the party

Sometimes it does feel closer. Newt Gingrich at his peak was definitely closer to an opposition leader in a Parliamentary style system.

Obviously, after the Presidential primaries, that candidate becomes the equivalent to the opposition leader for a few months.
 

gcubed

Member
I can't find anything in the edits that changes the fact the NSA is collecting data without warrants and is doing so in secret. Nobody said what they were doing was "illegal"

companies are responding to FISA warrants and providing the information in the warrants. The hyperbole about unfettered access to data mine all data was wrong.

From the follow up NYT article -
Under the program, intelligence officials must present Internet companies with specific requests for information on a case-by-case basis, showing that the target is a foreigner and located outside the United States, a senior law enforcement official said Friday. If the N.S.A. comes across information about an American citizen during the search, it turns over that material to the F.B.I. for an assessment, the official said.

WaPo completely botched the data gathering story
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
companies are responding to FISA warrants and providing the information in the warrants. The hyperbole about unfettered access to data mine all data was wrong.

From the follow up NYT article -


WaPo completely botched the data gathering story

Is that really true? Because the other day I got attacked for saying that we should wait until more info is out since the media has had quite the history of exaggerating and making these contraversies out to be way bigger than they actually are. :/
 

gcubed

Member
Is that really true? Because the other day I got attacked for saying that we should wait until more info is out since the media has had quite the history of exaggerating and making these contraversies out to be way bigger than they actually are. :/

multiple follow up stories from different sources have said that the companies give them at most a secure portal where they dump FISA request information for the government to collect.

the two below are from the nytimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/t...government-surveillance-efforts.html?src=recg

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/u...al-to-fight-terror.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp&
 
companies are responding to FISA warrants and providing the information in the warrants. The hyperbole about unfettered access to data mine all data was wrong.

From the follow up NYT article -


WaPo completely botched the data gathering story

So what data does this apply to? Phone records, or does this include the internet information? Because if they're doing it on a case-by-case basis, and only targeting people outside the US, then there definitely was an overreaction.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
12 Phrases Progressives say and what they could say instead



What say you GAF? Agree? Disagree?
(2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, try: Earned Benefits. This term not only sounds better for the progressive cause, it’s also more accurate. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are all forms of insurance that we pay into all of our working lives — via a percentage of our income — and then collect from when the time comes.
They say Entitlements on NPR because that's the actual legal term. It's a benefit given to a class of people defined under terms of standing legislation, which people automatically qualify for by becoming a member of that class.

I forget the full explanation, though, which properly contrasts this to other kinds of benefits.
 
The gay rights movement has been pretty good about reframing the debate in their favor. I see "marriage equality" about as much as "gay marriage" now. One of the only areas where the left is clearly gaining the upper hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom