NDAA

A "fairweather citizen" ?

That's a good one.

 

I think "a citizen of a fair-weather constitutional democracy" might be more precise.

 

Its quite interesting to see how the many companies in the US try to "explain" the citizens how regulations on said companies by the government is taking away the freedom of the citizens. And they also sell those laws as communism/socialism.

I am curious when will the people over there wake up ?

 

Blame will McIntosh and his book Soft Apocalypse. Now I'm deathly afraid of any type of societal collapse

 

Not true, most Ron Paul supporters are liberal college-aged kids.

The best comparison I've heard is that Ron Paul supporters/Libertarians are to the 2000's what hippies were to the 60's. They're just sort of the modern version of hippies.

 

That's like the opposite description of paulfans , except the college part.

 

- Young college kids
- Want to legalize all drugs
- Want to end all the wars
- Want to stop big corrupt government

Sound familiar?


It's just a cleaner and less sexually focused version of the hippie movement in the 60's.

 

Fixed, it's one of the main differences between liberals and libertarians.

 

If I had more idealism in me I'd be an anarchist, but as it stands I have none.

Which is why something like this doesn't surprise me, the fact that it took so long is the real surprise. Ever since I was old enough to actually read and understand the PATRIOT act, it seems like something like the NDAA was ALWAYS possible.

 

What is "rather rural"? City population of 50,000? 20,000? 5,000? 500?

That's not how US law works, the law can be passed and can/will be enforced until someone takes the government to court over it. Private schools can hire other people over those in burqas claiming other reasons.

Pot, say hello to Kettle.

They are will to sacrafice freedom which they don't feel effects them for the illusion of security.

Mitt Romney is a better option?

The political scale of left and right is centered to the right of the actual scale so many Democrats, especially viable presidential candidates, are pretty close to center. Depending on what district in what state you live in, the scale tends to move. I'd suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

For a lot of reasons, no. For starters, "hippies" weren't as unified of a group as you make them out to be as there were socialist/communist/"liberal" hippies and libertarian hippies. It's somewhat like discussing the civil rights movement and ignoring the difference between the Black Panthers and MLK's movement.

 

Ron Paul is a better option.

Mitt Romney is ≤ Barack Obama. I'd still vote Romney over Obama though if that's what it came down to, simply on principle. Romney's just as crooked as Obama, but at least he doesn't have a creepily loyal fanbase that defends him despite the evidence (for whatever reason).

Paul is the best candidate running though (who actually has a chance of winning at least).

 

This. Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he beats the alternative.

 

None of the candidates are good this year IMO. I just hope it doesn't make the country worse.

 

I think we are fucked no matter who wins.

 

Unless Steven Colbert gets that nomination

 

Yeah. That's change we can believe in.

 

There's always Vermin Supreme:




Free ponies and mandatory oral hygiene for everyone!

 

Honestly, since Rick Perry's pretty much done from his own stupid campaign videos and so on, most people see Bachmann is just trying to ape Palin and get her kind of voters, Santorum's just one big joke, I'm at least decently hopeful for someone with at least one iota of decency making it in. They were pretty much the ones where it would honestly be "I'm leaving this country now." levels of hate if they somehow won. Though as much as Obama has/hasn't done, I don't regret him making it in over bag 'o' bones and Palin, I can still say that with all certainty, even if that's all he might have going for him nowadays.