US persistent surveillance = perfect prison? Are we inmates?

[Lloyd Blankfein]

I've never been a huge fan of President Obama, but I do remember him talking about getting rid of all the ridiculous shit Cheney/Bush and Rummy put in in the name of defense.

It's been what, 5+ years and nothing? Seems he's just as much of a fan of that privacy infringing stuff as the dipshits before him were.

[nightflameauto]

We're always been inmates. The guards are just getting better at keeping us in line and catching us when we step out of line.

[indienoise]

I've never been a huge fan of President Obama, but I do remember him talking about getting rid of all the ridiculous shit Cheney/Bush and Rummy put in in the name of defense.

It's been what, 5+ years and nothing? Seems he's just as much of a fan of that privacy infringing stuff as the dipshits before him were.

I'm not speaking about Obama here per se. I'm talking about the institutional group think of our armed forces who are supposed to defend our country and its foundational principles correlating our society to inmates in a prison, and imagining they have a mandate to act as our jailors. This has been going on longer than Obama.

I'm also disappointed that Obama didn't go further in rescinding the ridiculous policies instituted after 911.

My biggest disappointment as well. Even though I wasn't a huge fan of his, such a huge part of his platform was ending our overseas involvement and doing everything completely the opposite of Bush in regards to post-911 stuff, I was hoping he would accomplish something, ANYTHING in that respect.

[marshallnoise]

I've never been a huge fan of President Obama, but I do remember him talking about getting rid of all the ridiculous shit Cheney/Bush and Rummy put in in the name of defense.

It's been what, 5+ years and nothing? Seems he's just as much of a fan of that privacy infringing stuff as the dipshits before him were.

That's because Bush is a progressive just like Obama is a progressive. There really isn't much difference between their actions; they both expanded government and ramped up the surveillance state. The idea that Obama is as pure as the wind-driven snow is a farce and an amazing feat of willful self-deception.

[nightflameauto]

I find it funny people still believe a president or presidential candidate when they claim they'll be able to make huge sweeping changes in government direction. First, they're a figurehead with the ability to say no and maybe influence congress. Second, they won't say no because before they reach office they are bought and paid for by the same interests that have been pushing the agenda for generations.

There is simply no real world scenario that allows a president to follow through on any radical shift in government policy on their own. And any candidate touting they will is either completely full of shit, or hopped up on their own BS to the point of losing touch with reality. I'll state I believe Obama to be more of the former, and only a little of the latter as his constituents gave him Jesus like status.

Bush made the changes the real leaders (financial) wanted. Obama has continued to push those same type of changes. Though he's done a much better job of attempting to hide it from the general rubes, it's still there to be seen.

The scorecard shuffle of conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat means jack-all for most people. It's the same agendas with different colored smoke in front of the mirrors on either side.

[marshallnoise]

I've never been a huge fan of President Obama, but I do remember him talking about getting rid of all the ridiculous shit Cheney/Bush and Rummy put in in the name of defense.

It's been what, 5+ years and nothing? Seems he's just as much of a fan of that privacy infringing stuff as the dipshits before him were.

That's because Bush is a progressive just like Obama is a progressive. There really isn't much difference between their actions; they both expanded government and ramped up the surveillance state. The idea that Obama is as pure as the wind-driven snow is a farce and an amazing feat of willful self-deception.

Bush was never a progressive. He's a corporatist and a hawk that just happened to see that alienating Hispanic voters is a recipe for political suicide.

I respectfully disagree. Progressives have no problem expanding government and the socialist variety love to marry the state and corporations together with the state directing corporations as to what to do in exchange for a guarantee of special favors.

Do you not understand that Obama is a corporatist too? GM ring a bell? GE ring a bell?

As for the comment about alienating Hispanic voters, it's pretty clear you relay leftist talking points pretty well. Pandering to any specific race is racist in and of itself. Labeling Hispanics as a group to pander to is demeaning to all Hispanics and assumes they all think the same. Worse yet, if a political party "wins" that racial group, then any behavior outside what is expected becomes grounds for castigation. Just ask blacks who dared to walk off the democrat plantation. It is shitty if you ask me.

[Meelosh]

Found an interesting articles on a Scientific American blog that speaks to a US Naval Post Graduate student's master thesis drawing a correlation between the "persistent surveillance" practice the Pentagon wishes to install as a permanent aspect of our national defense to the 18th century idea of a prison called a "panopticon" whose inmates are so thoroughly monitored that they won't ever act on thoughts of inappropriate behavior.

First, it's troubling to see someone who's supposed to act with the greatest fidelity in upholding our constitution correlate the society who's constitution they are supposed to protect with a prison full of criminal inmates who to be watched and corrected as dictated by the warden and staff.

Second, it's naive to believe that in a prison where inmates are monitored constantly that it won't create more unstable behavior as the inmates rail against their constant monitoring and deprivation of basic privacy that is necessary to maintain a healthy mental state. Finally, we have camera's and guards all over prisons, and it doesn't stop people from getting shivved in plain site.

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... anopticon/

And here's a link to a pdf of the student's thesis. I haven't had a chance to read the entire thesis yet, so I'll hold on commenting further on it.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA514283

Are our defender's now our jailors?

Prisons are full of abnormal people (not all of them though) that don't give a fuck, and that's part of why they shiv in plain sight. I don't think you should compare non-prison folk to prison folk. Personally speaking, I sometimes act differently (more proper? ) when I know I'm being watched.

Actually rereading your response, I dunno what you're talking about. What I remember from that article was that part of the surveillance thing was to figure out what *happened*...not necessarily to affect what *will* happen.

[Meelosh]

I'm talking about the institutional group think of our armed forces who are supposed to defend our country and its foundational principles correlating our society to inmates in a prison, and imagining they have a mandate to act as our jailors.

Do you honestly expect more (sensitivity? foresight? goodwill?) from the military?

[The Anomaly]

I find it funny people still believe a president or presidential candidate when they claim they'll be able to make huge sweeping changes in government direction. First, they're a figurehead with the ability to say no and maybe influence congress. Second, they won't say no because before they reach office they are bought and paid for by the same interests that have been pushing the agenda for generations.

There is simply no real world scenario that allows a president to follow through on any radical shift in government policy on their own. And any candidate touting they will is either completely full of shit, or hopped up on their own BS to the point of losing touch with reality. I'll state I believe Obama to be more of the former, and only a little of the latter as his constituents gave him Jesus like status.

Bush made the changes the real leaders (financial) wanted. Obama has continued to push those same type of changes. Though he's done a much better job of attempting to hide it from the general rubes, it's still there to be seen.

The scorecard shuffle of conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat means jack-all for most people. It's the same agendas with different colored smoke in front of the mirrors on either side.

Pretty much this.

[racerevlon]

Make enough things illegal, pretty soon everyone's a criminal.

Would love to see the Prez's ACTUAL tax returns...

[ComOp]

The president has as much power to change the direction of the country as a surfer has the power to change the direction of the wave he is riding.

If you want to change the waves, you need to go under water and start stacking rocks.

[marshallnoise]

The president has as much power to change the direction of the country as a surfer has the power to change the direction of the wave he is riding.

If you want to change the waves, you need to go under water and start stacking rocks.

It is painfully obvious that you don't understand the power of the executive branch. The EPA can do anything it wants to under the direction of the executive branch. Same goes for NSA, IRS, DOJ, FDA, DOE, you fucking name it.

This is not how the founders intended our three branch system to work, but it has turned into three bodies of government doing precisely what they want to do in isolation and with VERY little common sense involved.

[Meelosh]

Pandering to any specific race is racist in and of itself. Labeling Hispanics as a group to pander to is demeaning to all Hispanics and assumes they all think the same.

What's your point? That it's naughty?

[ComOp]

It is painfully obvious that you don't understand the power of the executive branch. The EPA can do anything it wants to under the direction of the executive branch. Same goes for NSA, IRS, DOJ, FDA, DOE, you fucking name it.

This is not how the founders intended our three branch system to work, but it has turned into three bodies of government doing precisely what they want to do in isolation and with VERY little common sense involved.

No offense, but I am pretty sure you are retarded. Not like, I am just calling you "retarded" because you post really stupid thoughts on a message board all the time, but actually I mean retarded in the sense you are unable to understand the difference between the things you think are real, and reality. Maybe you are just trolling? In which case, you aren't retarded, you are just very witty and clever. I just don't get that feeling though from reading the things you write. In fact, I am pretty sure you are completely serious. In which case I am sticking to me belief that you are actually retarded.

With that being the case, I am just going to say this: No.

[marshallnoise]

Pandering to any specific race is racist in and of itself. Labeling Hispanics as a group to pander to is demeaning to all Hispanics and assumes they all think the same.

What's your point? That it's naughty?

That is antithetical to what the founders built this nation on: the individual.

[marshallnoise]

It is painfully obvious that you don't understand the power of the executive branch. The EPA can do anything it wants to under the direction of the executive branch. Same goes for NSA, IRS, DOJ, FDA, DOE, you fucking name it.

This is not how the founders intended our three branch system to work, but it has turned into three bodies of government doing precisely what they want to do in isolation and with VERY little common sense involved.

No offense, but I am pretty sure you are retarded. Not like, I am just calling you "retarded" because you post really stupid thoughts on a message board all the time, but actually I mean retarded in the sense you are unable to understand the difference between the things you think are real, and reality. Maybe you are just trolling? In which case, you aren't retarded, you are just very witty and clever. I just don't get that feeling though from reading the things you write. In fact, I am pretty sure you are completely serious. In which case I am sticking to me belief that you are actually retarded.

With that being the case, I am just going to say this: No.

Thanks for wasting bandwidth.

[nightflameauto]

The president can't so much as sniff the skirt of an intern congress doesn't approve of without being thrown into an impeachment trial. Once again marshallnoise separates his statements from reality as quickly and decisively as possible.

[marshallnoise]

The president can't so much as sniff the skirt of an intern congress doesn't approve of without being thrown into an impeachment trial. Once again marshallnoise separates his statements from reality as quickly and decisively as possible.

Once again, you are fucking wrong. Since when has Obama been impeached? How about GWB? Or GHWB or RR, or JC, or any president other than Bill Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen ... ted_States

You are a fucking idiot.

[nightflameauto]

The president can't so much as sniff the skirt of an intern congress doesn't approve of without being thrown into an impeachment trial. Once again marshallnoise separates his statements from reality as quickly and decisively as possible.

Once again, you are fucking wrong. Since when has Obama been impeached? How about GWB? Or GHWB or RR, or JC, or any president other than Bill Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen ... ted_States

You are a fucking idiot.

They weren't impeached because they did what they were told you fucking moron. Your ability to twist arguments outside of reality are becoming the stuff of legend. You wanna get pissed at somebody, get pissed at your parents for failing to give you an ability to interpret reality in a way that makes any sort of sense to other people.

[marshallnoise]

The president can't so much as sniff the skirt of an intern congress doesn't approve of without being thrown into an impeachment trial. Once again marshallnoise separates his statements from reality as quickly and decisively as possible.

Once again, you are fucking wrong. Since when has Obama been impeached? How about GWB? Or GHWB or RR, or JC, or any president other than Bill Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen ... ted_States

You are a fucking idiot.

They weren't impeached because they did what they were told you fucking moron. Your ability to twist arguments outside of reality are becoming the stuff of legend. You wanna get pissed at somebody, get pissed at your parents for failing to give you an ability to interpret reality in a way that makes any sort of sense to other people.

So now you are saying that US Presidents that didn't get impeached because they were "following marching orders." Yeah, real magic article of logic you posses there.

Especially funny considering you brought up impeachment trials as the reason why a president can't act outside his authority. One doesn't have anything to do with the other yet you parade it around as if they are an obvious and semi-exclusive indicator of bad behavior of a president. Amazing man.

[nightflameauto]

So now you are saying that US Presidents that didn't get impeached because they were "following marching orders." Yeah, real magic article of logic you posses there.

Especially funny considering you brought up impeachment trials as the reason why a president can't act outside his authority. One doesn't have anything to do with the other yet you parade it around as if they are an obvious and semi-exclusive indicator of bad behavior of a president. Amazing man.

You are absolutely not following the logic I laid out at all. I never said presidents don't step outside their authority. I said they do so when that's what the real power wants. And if they try and do it without the real power backing them they get slapped with impeachment proceedings. Look at the last president to actually attempt to make a positive change for ordinary folks (Clinton). He was slapped. It didn't stick, but he was slapped. Every president since has fallen in line the second he was elected. And onward we march towards oblivion.

If you're honestly stupid enough to think I was arguing . . . whatever the fuck it is you're trying to explain there, then fuck it. This conversation ended a long time ago and I was just too stupid to see it. Actually, I seem to remember a time I was bright enough to realize you weren't worth engaging at all. Luckily for you, I was REALLY bored this afternoon. Don't worry, it won't happen again for a while.

Good luck with your non-reality.

[marshallnoise]

So now you are saying that US Presidents that didn't get impeached because they were "following marching orders." Yeah, real magic article of logic you posses there.

Especially funny considering you brought up impeachment trials as the reason why a president can't act outside his authority. One doesn't have anything to do with the other yet you parade it around as if they are an obvious and semi-exclusive indicator of bad behavior of a president. Amazing man.

You are absolutely not following the logic I laid out at all. I never said presidents don't step outside their authority. I said they do so when that's what the real power wants. And if they try and do it without the real power backing them they get slapped with impeachment proceedings. Look at the last president to actually attempt to make a positive change for ordinary folks (Clinton). He was slapped. It didn't stick, but he was slapped. Every president since has fallen in line the second he was elected. And onward we march towards oblivion.

If you're honestly stupid enough to think I was arguing . . . whatever the fuck it is you're trying to explain there, then fuck it. This conversation ended a long time ago and I was just too stupid to see it. Actually, I seem to remember a time I was bright enough to realize you weren't worth engaging at all. Luckily for you, I was REALLY bored this afternoon. Don't worry, it won't happen again for a while.

Good luck with your non-reality.

You propose that all politicians are puppets with some mystical puppeteers running them around. Who is this "real" power?

I fail to see what Bill Clinton did that was out of step with what is expected of any other president. He didn't do anything earth shattering or ground breaking. Republicans were simply pissed at his ability to get away with all sorts of character flaws that they couldn't get away with themselves. More over, it wasn't about sex. It was about lying under oath, over fairly trumped up charges.

[~Abstract~]

The best way to "Stick it to the man"...is to become "The man".

[Elessar [Sly]]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yndfqN1VKhY[/video]

[The Anomaly]

You propose that all politicians are puppets with some mystical puppeteers running them around. Who is this "real" power?
.

They are called "lobbyists" and "special interest" groups.