Indeed. Current apprehension and confusion will turn into support and appreciation for steps taken, which will turn into calls to go further.
-
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 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. Current apprehension and confusion will turn into support and appreciation for steps taken, which will turn into calls to go further.
Assuming Powell still considers himself a Republican, I agree with him that you can be a Republican in many ways and still want universal healthcare. I'm personally a liberal, but I don't see why UHC has to be only a liberal cause. Even most libertarians think that the government should provide what is essential to a society and can't be profitably provided by the private sector. Roads, police, fire, etc. Why isn't healthcare on that list?
It comes down to thinking about healthcare as a basic right in a modern society rather than a privilege; you shouldn't need to go bankrupt to receive your basic rights. Sure, police and fire could be privatized, and the select few would have really great security and fire protection, and those industries would fight tooth and nail to stop us from socializing them. But even conservatives and libertarians accept this socialism because society deems those things that important.
It all boggles my mind. I feel like there should be more people that hold their ridiculous opinions on welfare, guns, and religion but at least understand healthcare. It can't just be that they don't know how bad it is; almost everybody has been sick at one point or another and experienced the shittiness that is private for-profit healthcare, with or without insurance. Do these people look at their doctor's bill that they can't pay and feel that they didn't deserve to be treated?
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I think a lot of it is just apathy for the government that they've grown up in. Which TBH I don't blame them for that. Blame Obama and others for being useless and untrustworthy.
The Librarian
Banned
Apparently Steve Stockman is going to challenge Cornyn in a primary.
*giggles to herself uncontrollably*
*giggles to herself uncontrollably*
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, but they have to at least wait until they can market those fixes under a different name than Obama's.
"Let's all drastically change the thing we already drastically changed" isn't a great message to send politically unless it's for a minor part of the bill. I just wonder how long until Democrats feel separated enough from the bill to start criticizing it again.
As a whole? Probably never. You have to remember this has been from the beginning a democrat vs republican issue as not a single republican voted for aca. As long as republicans main platform is that it's slavery and to repeal it, democrats will never be separated enough to criticize it.
The idea of UHC to begin with was first proposed by a Republican.
Kinda funny looking back how most of the things Republicans hate nowadays are cause of ideas proposed by Republicans (income tax, business regulation, UHC,
the thirteenth amendment
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rick-scott-struggles-promises-jobs
How can this be? I thought by sheer virtue of being a Republican, the job creators would be free to bring about a new era of prosperity?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=731863
This thread got me thinking about something fun: if we could figure out were the people in this thread work, we could send them nasty PM's about the shady shit their employer doubtlessly does, and watch the fun.
This thread got me thinking about something fun: if we could figure out were the people in this thread work, we could send them nasty PM's about the shady shit their employer doubtlessly does, and watch the fun.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I can't get over the infantile reaction to NSA stories on the internet. Or the NSAs complete dismissals.
There is no debate. There's outrage and insane comparisons and cries to eliminate SIGNIT. Or crys about this being the only way to stop a world of pedophiles and terrorist.
You can feel that the NSA and other branches have gone WAY to far but some of the comparisons and characterizations are just outrageous. And you can feel that the NSA is a needed thing without saying, yeah they can overreach or the need more checks
I still feel like there isn't any real smoking gun that the NSA is an evil organization, just one that very zealously keeps to its mission and didn't have any oversight or checks on developing new programs or tactics. That needs to change, they can't be an organization that's completely divorced from democracy.
My feeling is they've created a dangerous weapon or are in the process of doing so while at the same time feel so down is they don't have any intent to miss use it they're not bad people and don't ever see themselves turning it against anyone but evil people that want to hurt their fellow countrymen. They're not "bad guys," but at they don't understand why the public doesn't see that. I think more openness could create more of a trust but when the only source of information has been leaks (and I still maintain the guardian and other outlets sensationalize these stories. the video game one being the most recent, oh no the NSA recruits people where potential recruits are most likely to be!) its hard to have that. The slurs about NSA workers are disgusting, they're not the equivalent of considerations camp guards or the stasi.
There is a great need for reform. But people need to realize first of all these type of tactics aren't new and secondly we can still reform a lot of these tactics before the turn us into the cartoonish Orwellian state so many are predicting.
People given a lot of money and with a bunch of smart people develop awesome but sometimes dangerous tech, its our job to debate the morality of their usage. I just hope we can with some humility, perspective and reason. The signs from Reddit, the OT and the National Security apparatus aren't convincing me of this yet.
You don't need to drastically change the law. Just intruduce ideas already debated and designed to work within the framwork of the law. It wont happen till 2017 at the earliest but progressives need to start pushing the overton window. Play offense.
There is no debate. There's outrage and insane comparisons and cries to eliminate SIGNIT. Or crys about this being the only way to stop a world of pedophiles and terrorist.
You can feel that the NSA and other branches have gone WAY to far but some of the comparisons and characterizations are just outrageous. And you can feel that the NSA is a needed thing without saying, yeah they can overreach or the need more checks
I still feel like there isn't any real smoking gun that the NSA is an evil organization, just one that very zealously keeps to its mission and didn't have any oversight or checks on developing new programs or tactics. That needs to change, they can't be an organization that's completely divorced from democracy.
My feeling is they've created a dangerous weapon or are in the process of doing so while at the same time feel so down is they don't have any intent to miss use it they're not bad people and don't ever see themselves turning it against anyone but evil people that want to hurt their fellow countrymen. They're not "bad guys," but at they don't understand why the public doesn't see that. I think more openness could create more of a trust but when the only source of information has been leaks (and I still maintain the guardian and other outlets sensationalize these stories. the video game one being the most recent, oh no the NSA recruits people where potential recruits are most likely to be!) its hard to have that. The slurs about NSA workers are disgusting, they're not the equivalent of considerations camp guards or the stasi.
There is a great need for reform. But people need to realize first of all these type of tactics aren't new and secondly we can still reform a lot of these tactics before the turn us into the cartoonish Orwellian state so many are predicting.
People given a lot of money and with a bunch of smart people develop awesome but sometimes dangerous tech, its our job to debate the morality of their usage. I just hope we can with some humility, perspective and reason. The signs from Reddit, the OT and the National Security apparatus aren't convincing me of this yet.
You don't need to drastically change the law. Just intruduce ideas already debated and designed to work within the framwork of the law. It wont happen till 2017 at the earliest but progressives need to start pushing the overton window. Play offense.
User 250141
Banned
NSA protestors are the victims of an effective propaganda movement by a libertarian fringe seeking to advance a radical anti-government agenda that will allow them to further dismantle our society and concentrate wealth and opportunity at the top.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There is an element of that but there are real gripes. Especially in the CATOs of the world trying to hard to lead this. It makes me uncomfortable.
That thread must logically consist of 3 and only 3 types of people:
A. Unemployed people who sure can spout hot air when it isn't their job
B. Employed people somehow fortunate enough to not work for a business not doing shady shit and can spout hot air when it isn't their job
C. People who live in glass houses.
A. Unemployed people who sure can spout hot air when it isn't their job
B. Employed people somehow fortunate enough to not work for a business not doing shady shit and can spout hot air when it isn't their job
C. People who live in glass houses.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
That's assuming the Republicans will be able to continue to talk that way and still be able to win elections 5-10 years from now. Even today the expand or keep as is crowd outnumbers the repeal and replace with a Republican plan crowd. Actually if they really push it too far it would go a long way in discrediting any criticisms they'd have of a brand new plan.
But really it all comes down to public opinion. Both parties can afford to have unpopular positions, but they can't have their number one most defining position be unpopular for very long, especially if that position is changing the status quo, which ACA will become status quo relatively soon.
Yeah I don't like a lot of the nazi or traitor generalizations either. It's a mess for people like me who are in the middle ground who still want the nsa to operate but want a lot tighter control over what they can do via legal means. It's like you can't even defend your opinion since people are already at 10 on the rage meter due to the sensationalizing and the reality of the scope of what the nsa does.
I think it's an inevitable consequence of it hitting the mainstream. You're going to get a lot of people at the... shallow end of the bell curve yelling, and they probably outnumber the small number of people with particular knowledge and interests who sought out and circulated the story before it really exploded.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't think its the mainstream. If anything they're somewhat level headed if a bit apathetic they don't care. Its the people who come to every story with their preconceived ideas: The US is evil, the Spy agencies are the most evil, they're spying on everything and have cursory read of the article confirming what they want.
Literally every article I've read has the caveat about them not doing it or them not having evidence of abuse but time and time again I read comments stating the article confirms everything and is filled with insinuations the NSA is seeing everything and spying on everyone.
The most infuriating is the common refrain they're reading emails or listening to phone calls when its been repeatedly confirmed they're not.
It sounds like the insane conspiracies the right brings up with stuff like bengahzi or syria. Some true facts which get spun out in to unrecognizable untruths. The name calling too is recognizable.
Edit: I want to clarify, snark towards the NSA is understandable but it seems to me to be blatant ignorance
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well if NSA really does turn into an organization that uses online sex habits against NSA defined political "radicals", or if anti-net neutrality laws end up closing the modern day marketplace of ideas, then that would undermine the entirety of our democracy and would make it impossible to fix those real problems. Free speech and privacy are both essential tools in changing the government for the better.
Personally I am only slightly worried that the NSA will really turn into that organization or internet providers will go that far, so I personally put those things on fairly low priority. But I can't blame anyone for being completely worried about it because it's really only a gut feeling of trust or mistrust, not something anyone can determine off facts. There's certainly plenty of historical examples to point to in order to prove mass corruption is possible, even though there's not quite enough proof to prove that is what's going to happen with it.
It's similar to our lax campaign finance and lobbying laws stepping on the free speech of those without money which is already a major blocking point to actually moving to fix those issues.
User 250141
Banned
Yes, and being unemployed and full of hot air leads them to libertarian voting patterns that affirm the kind of dysfunctional economic policies that keep them unemployed in the first place, thus perpetuating the cycle.
The plutocrats have pulled a grand old trick on America.
Reading emails and listening to phone calls is certainly conspiratorial, but not of the outlandish type where it would take a number of leaps to arrive at that point. The NSA are on the record as most definitely being interested in the storage of more than just metadata, and their acquisition of unprecedented bulk storage certainly fits that motivation. A comprehensive store of phone calls and emails isn't quite equivalent to reading them at their caprices, but it doesn't take much for that outcome when the agency decides one day that it should, that it needs to. Short of the magic algorithms that will cut through the chaff that they're more or less counting on to retroactively justify the dragnet approach, they'll approach that much as they have metadata: disregarding privacy concerns and brute forcing their way through mostly unrelated material on mostly unrelated persons.
People may be muddying shit up with invention as with Benghazi-bengheezy-mcsqueezy-gate, but the underlying problems are far from conspiratorial.
Yoho: I hate big guvermmit, except when it helps rich people elect me!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You see this everywhere now on the Internet. Apparently reading Wikipedia makes you an instant expert on everything.
"No, that cop should have shot the knife out of his hand!"
"Vaccines contain mercury, lead to autism!"
"Global warming is a scam!"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why are you creating a straw man? If you're fine with billions of data/information being stored with little oversight that's your opinion. I and many other people aren't fine with it, in fact I think it's a blatant breach of civil liberties. Because you apparently know some of these people doesn't make what they do any less disturbing.
This is about precedent. It's the same with drones. We are setting very ugly precedents here, that will be further expanded by future presidents and get worse. There was a story a few days ago about the Bush administration having the CIA snoop on Juan Cole. If you can't see how the NSA issue will eventually lead to worse shit, I don't know what to tell you. They're already looking for ways to embarrass and de-legitimize opponents in foreign countries, does anyone think the same won't occur in the United States?
Black Mamba
Member
Tea Party is really just Corporatist Party.
Also just noting again that the NSA developed in-house surveillance technology that had privacy protections built in (ThinThread)... and scrapped it. The replacement has no such restrictions save the ones FISA "imposes" upon them, the same ones they have and will disregard if they get in the way. Inconvenient to the data gathering at hand? Ignored and/or parallel constructed around to make it look like they're being compliant when they aren't.
That's just one example, but it's entirely consistent with how the NSA has been allowed to operate in general. Their oversight is permitted so little actual authority that it alternates duties between "rubber stamp" and "ineffectual angry-letter-writing committee".
That's just one example, but it's entirely consistent with how the NSA has been allowed to operate in general. Their oversight is permitted so little actual authority that it alternates duties between "rubber stamp" and "ineffectual angry-letter-writing committee".
Sirpopopop
Member
Mass corruption is possible, but I'm not sure there is a historical analogue to a country that has had a tradition of free & fair elections like the U.S. (Read: no electoral fraud. Multiple parties) for such a long period of time turning into 1984...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What straw man besides my composite of posters I see on the internet? I don't think all this data is ok to collect without oversight. I did not say that in my post, in fact I said the opposite I think there needs to be a lot of oversight I think that's something that needs to change. There was a lack of it, that's what I take away from this. Not this giant evil NSA. Nothing has convinced me they want to look at everything.
I see them wanting to have the ability to find something if they want it. Some people (myself included) see trouble in the ways they go about this (section 215 collections) or dubious FISA orders, three hops, I could go on... I don't like the general warrants I'm seeing. There is a lot wrong but its a question of legal and morality not tech IMO.
My point was I said the internet has exaggerated what's happened/ We're not debating anything. We're not discussing how metadata is used and why its troubling, where not discussing the legality of section 215 or whether business records are protected by the 4th amendment.
What I instead see is insane statements about the NSA listening to all phone calls (or worse storing all of them) without a shred of evidence. Even the European data numbers have been distorted. We see cherry picked stories presented as 'proof' of evil intentions or statements that we're spying on every country in the world or wantonly giving information out. I don't think people read the stories and instead read the head lines or the bullet points and then start spouting of the notions they spouted before snowden's leaks. Part of this is due to the lack of oversight and the NSA not being honest or at least open about what its been doing.
I'm not saying there aren't complaints, even giant ones that go to the root of the business of spying or counter terrorism and the system we have set up. What I AM saying is that we base the debate on facts and the whole truth rather than emotions and what ifs which tie together disparate programs and articles into one giant behemoth. There is a cause for alarm I do think this is about precedent but freaking out and going into conspiratorial mode or ascribing the worst motives to people who evidence I don't think really shows are acting all that maliciously (for the record I know nobody in the intelligence community) I'm purely basing it off the fact that them spying on former lovers is the worst actually malicious thing I've seen.
Greenwald I think began his articles with the accusation that the NSA want's to eliminate privacy. That in his opinion is their goal. I disagree. I think a lot of Reddit and GAF agree and that's what's got me frustrated. We're assigning to many motives to actions. I've learned in my life, most people are wrong when they try to ascribe motives.
The Juan Cole story was from 2011 and was obviously disturbing. Those are the things I'm afraid of.
Sirpopopop
Member
He's not creating a straw man. Posters are getting pretty histrionic in their NSA rants:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93020428&postcount=18
These Nazi comments are plain silly. I could probably go dig some more, but I'm sure one is enough to get the point across. You may not agree with APK, but he's not creating a straw man here.
JesseEwiak
Member
Maybe it's that I read one too many John LeCarre novels, but I really can't get worked up about the NSA at all. Yes, it's bad, but even if Congress passed a law that said the NSA can't do this...the NSA would just find a backdoor way to do it.
It's just one of the downsides of technological improvement - we're going to lose privacy.
It's just one of the downsides of technological improvement - we're going to lose privacy.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I guess I should say these kind of debates are endemic to the way internet discussion work.
Its not real time like a debate or discussion where you can feed off each other and address points as they come up. You type up your feelings on a subject, which can sometimes change (I have written some that when I went back and saw them again wondered what the heck I was thinking) or be poorly expressed and then they're picked apart and are added to the others feelings to which you again proceed to do the same, ad nauseum. Its frustrating. And hardly a good way to convert or convince people though it can happen.
I just know when I discuss things in person, which I do frequently I get a debate going rather than entrenched beliefs yelling at each other. I've had some frank discussions where I've learned a lot. I tend to ignore those threads now because I've kind of learned its just not worth it a lot of the time.
Its not real time like a debate or discussion where you can feed off each other and address points as they come up. You type up your feelings on a subject, which can sometimes change (I have written some that when I went back and saw them again wondered what the heck I was thinking) or be poorly expressed and then they're picked apart and are added to the others feelings to which you again proceed to do the same, ad nauseum. Its frustrating. And hardly a good way to convert or convince people though it can happen.
I just know when I discuss things in person, which I do frequently I get a debate going rather than entrenched beliefs yelling at each other. I've had some frank discussions where I've learned a lot. I tend to ignore those threads now because I've kind of learned its just not worth it a lot of the time.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
And government agencies thinking they are above the law, national and international
*cough
Jersey hero Chris Christie shutting down bridges because he no like mayor.
More at link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/chris-christie-bridge_n_4415953.html
More at link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/chris-christie-bridge_n_4415953.html
Well, that's that. America doesn't like a sore loser, Scott Walker's recall taught us that much. Told you guys Christie wouldn't play outside of Jersey.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
christie is such a fuck
Christie throwing around his weight.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Further proof that Chris Christie only cares about Chris Christie.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If Christie's anger problems are as bad as that bridge closure and teacher confrontation seems to suggest, it seems unlikely he'll make it through the primaries without a high profile incident, and certainly not a presidential election, given how stressful and confrontive the whole process is.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So Obama talked to Castro. MARXIST!
I am so looking forward to the Fox reaction
I am so looking forward to the Fox reaction
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Yeah that's what I'm thinking too. He has a somewhat juvenile schoolyard approach to things that anger him. Plenty of people like red meat politicians but Christie can't channel any sort of righteous anger, it's like he's trying to play off things that annoy him as no big deal but it comes with heaps of overblown rhetoric, sarcasm and eyerolling that let you know he's just really bothered. Sometimes your opponents are obsessed over an issue, blowing it out of proportion, or plain wrong; but you can make it seem like they've got a point if you act like that.
As for the suggestion he actually did itit's sort of 'I did' in his denial, isn't it. "Of course I had nothing to do wit' it, but I mean look, do they need all those lanes? All's I saying is it wouldn't be a big deal if I had, maybe they had it coming."
The Librarian
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Never forget!
The Librarian
Banned
Amanda Carpenter is not having a good couple of days. Yesterday it was Brian Beutler, today is Jonathan Chait.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Christie is very disciplined in the NJ debates I've watched, but he has never truly been poked by someone on stage. How will he deal with Cruz or Paul blasting his record? Or the inevitable leaks that Drudge will get his hands on?
Amanda Carpenter is not having a good couple of days. Yesterday it was Brian Beutler, today is Jonathan Chait.
You should tweet her and say "How does it feel to have your words and actions twisted into a totally different meaning?"
bodyofanamerican
Member
I live in Jersey, and a friend of mine is the president of his teacher's union and HATES Christie. Christie was the grand marshall of some parade near his town and he went there, and got himself front holding a HUGE placard/poster with more text on it having to do with Christie and the unions than any reasonable person would be expected to read.
Christie's float/car comes by and, while he didn't confront my friend, Christie unmistakably saw the poster, read every word, glared at my friend and looked ready to explode.
If he's getting riled up over one guy holding a poster, I can't imagine how ready his primary opponents will be to provoke him into crazy anger.
- Status