bdickens wrote:
Well, guess what. The regime is not interested in distinguishing terrorists. Just like they are not interested in putting a stop to gang violence or random nutballs going off and shooting up schools and movie theaters.
What they are interested in is political power. Period.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dear Leader and his ilk actually have operatives doing these things, they certainly make sure to do their level best to perpetuate the conditions that allow them to happen while playing both sides of the fence.
When an incident is stopped, they crow about how wonderful a job law enforcement did and look at how effective our policies are. And when an incident does happen (as it will) they are only too happy to exploit the tragedy to further their agenda and further injure the liberties of their subjects - I mean citizens.
As I understand it, the current "regime" simply clarified policies put in place by the prior "regime". Regardless of which particular political faction you're with, if the fact that the government is listening concerns you, you don't get to scream "Obama".
And those complaining about Bush, guess what... Obama let it continue.
cb1000rider wrote:
As I understand it, the current "regime" simply clarified policies put in place by the prior "regime". Regardless of which particular political faction you're with, if the fact that the government is listening concerns you, you don't get to scream "Obama".
And those complaining about Bush, guess what... Obama let it continue.
That's been my point for the last 5 years. On this subject, it likely doesn't matter who gets elected to the POTUS job. The momentum of the Federal government is to become more and more intrusive. The politicians keep trying to divide us into the R verus D camps when we should be unifying against all of them and what they are doing.
The only thing that changes with the President is the level of corruption. Some are worse than others - both sides. It depends on how corrupt the Presidential advisors are as to the amount that they turn the various government bureaucracies into their person shills. Checks and balances to prevent that are slim and none. Most of the corruption is deliberately kept from the President for plausible deniability, weak though it may be.
chasfm11 wrote: That's been my point for the last 5 years. On this subject, it likely doesn't matter who gets elected to the POTUS job. The momentum of the Federal government is to become more and more intrusive. The politicians keep trying to divide us into the R verus D camps when we should be unifying against all of them and what they are doing.
The only thing that changes with the President is the level of corruption. Some are worse than others - both sides. It depends on how corrupt the Presidential advisors are as to the amount that they turn the various government bureaucracies into their person shills. Checks and balances to prevent that are slim and none. Most of the corruption is deliberately kept from the President for plausible deniability, weak though it may be.
The checks and balances disappeared when Senators became elected directly by the people instead of by the states. The rational behind a House and a Senate was that the House would represent the People and the Senate would represent the States. Now, we have, in effect, 2 houses representing the People (kinda sorta but not really) and nothing protecting State's rights.
chasfm11 wrote: That's been my point for the last 5 years. On this subject, it likely doesn't matter who gets elected to the POTUS job. The momentum of the Federal government is to become more and more intrusive. The politicians keep trying to divide us into the R verus D camps when we should be unifying against all of them and what they are doing.
The only thing that changes with the President is the level of corruption. Some are worse than others - both sides. It depends on how corrupt the Presidential advisors are as to the amount that they turn the various government bureaucracies into their person shills. Checks and balances to prevent that are slim and none. Most of the corruption is deliberately kept from the President for plausible deniability, weak though it may be.
The checks and balances disappeared when Senators became elected directly by the people instead of by the states. The rational behind a House and a Senate was that the House would represent the People and the Senate would represent the States. Now, we have, in effect, 2 houses representing the People (kinda sorta but not really) and nothing protecting State's rights.
Perhaps. Another viewpoint is that the checks and balances disappeared with size. The shear number of Federal employees makes oversight difficult. A rogue manager in one division of the Federal Bureaucracy could get away with a lot as long as it was done reasonably discretely. Whistle blowers are frowned upon or worse and there is no real incentive (unless the person has a strong set of moral values) to go against the establishment. Congressional oversight has been lost in the same volume problem. One could argue that whatever the Senate does is irrelevant to the House's Constitutional oversight authority. In practice, a lot of that authority is ceded via legislation to the Executive branch - who has too much to look over already. For me, DHS is a great example of the problem. It went from an almost nothing department to one of the most powerful organizations at the Federal level with little or no Congressional review. The immigration bill would grant it even further unwieldy power.
I'm hard pressed to find any part of anything that comes out of D.C. that represents the will of the people. All actions represent the will of the huge lobbist organization. That is where the real power is.
chasfm11 wrote:Perhaps. Another viewpoint is that the checks and balances disappeared with size. The shear number of Federal employees makes oversight difficult.
Perhaps. But it was in 1913 that Senators became elected by popular vote instead of by the State Legislatures. And it's after that point that government began growing at an ever increasing rate, culminating in the behemoth we have today. Had the Senate remained as intended by the Founders, I believe this could/would have been at least partially prevented.
RottenApple wrote:The checks and balances disappeared when Senators became elected directly by the people instead of by the states. The rational behind a House and a Senate was that the House would represent the People and the Senate would represent the States. Now, we have, in effect, 2 houses representing the People (kinda sorta but not really) and nothing protecting State's rights.
They're not doing such a great job protecting the rights of We The People either.
RottenApple wrote:The checks and balances disappeared when Senators became elected directly by the people instead of by the states. The rational behind a House and a Senate was that the House would represent the People and the Senate would represent the States. Now, we have, in effect, 2 houses representing the People (kinda sorta but not really) and nothing protecting State's rights.
They're not doing such a great job protecting We The People's right either.
That's been my point for the last 5 years. On this subject, it likely doesn't matter who gets elected to the POTUS job. The momentum of the Federal government is to become more and more intrusive. The politicians keep trying to divide us into the R verus D camps when we should be unifying against all of them and what they are doing. 
