rigorousintuition.ca

Simulist wrote:

Alchemy wrote:

Simulist wrote:

beeblebrox wrote:Obama's presidencey has pacified many of these people, while at the same time steering the country along pretty much the exact same trajectory as the Bush administration. I am embarassed to admit that I voted for Obama in 2008, at the time I didn't care if he was a Muslim, born in Kenya, or the son of Malcom X (that's got to be my favorite one ) so long as he really was going try to change things for the better. Nothing has changed, and that was probably the last time I will participate in any election involving the current system.

Understood, and I agree.

I voted for Obama in 2008 — against my better judgment — because I deluded myself into believing what I knew in both my head and my heart was a lie.

Not only am I ashamed of this, I should be.

Well there was no real alternative...

I consider the willingness to acknowledge that there IS NO honest choice to be an alternative in itself.

Alchemy wrote:I mean someone else who had an actual chance to win, and sure Obama has turned out to be a real big disappointment HOWEVER, I would still rather have him as president than one of those crazy fucking Republicans.

Yes, they are crazy. And yes, that is how I felt at the time too.

What I find now is that so-called "liberals" don't seem to know who the enemy is — you know, now that "our guy" is doing everything George W. Bush was doing.

Alchemy wrote:He isnt that much better but those guys are creeps.

"Much better"? Hmm. If someone were to suggest that Obama is really any better, I would find that to be more than debatable.

Alchemy wrote:I have no idea who I will vote for this time around, might just sit this one out as protest, as if that would matter anyway, but again I would rather have Barry than Mitt, yea anyday, but that isnt saying much is it?

Nope. You're right: it isn't.

Agreed, maybe we should just send in our ballot and write in THERE IS NO HONEST ALTERNATIVE SO YOU CAN ALL GO FUCK YOURSELVES.


Well said though and I certainly cant take issue with any of what you posted.


While I do not think Obama is any better on many fronts there are certain things he wont do that a Republican president might, things like a woman's right to choose, gutting the deperatment of education, privatizing social security etc seem to at least be safe with Obama while they may not be with a Republican candidate, that is to say that at least Obama doesnt pander to the religious right as much as they would but when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex and the war on our freedom, yes he as bad as they are, maybe worse because he is more stealth about it and does things that people wouldnt expect him to do in that regard.

Alchemy wrote:While I do not think Obama is any better on many fronts there are certain things he wont do that a Republican president might, things like a woman's right to choose, gutting the deperatment of education, privatizing social security etc seem to at least be safe with Obama while they may not be with a Republican candidate, that is to say that at least Obama doesnt pander to the religious right as much as they would but when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex and the war on our freedom, yes he as bad as they are, maybe worse because he is more stealth about it and does things that people wouldnt expect him to do in that regard.

You may be right; though we'll likely have another four whole years to find out what Obama might do.

I am certain we will, Mitt doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell.

Alchemy wrote:I am certain we will, Mitt doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell.

Of course, he's not supposed to.

That's why they picked Palin for McCain, too, to guarantee that he would lose.

Its silly to even talk about this stuff, because its a foregone conclusion.

You guys largely talk about this like the audience can somehow change the end of the movie. Its already been written and shot.

Nordic wrote:

Alchemy wrote:I am certain we will, Mitt doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell.

Of course, he's not supposed to.

That's why they picked Palin for McCain, too, to guarantee that he would lose.

Its silly to even talk about this stuff, because its a foregone conclusion.

You guys largely talk about this like the audience can somehow change the end of the movie. Its already been written and shot.

But if we just VOTE hard-enough, Leonardo DiCaprio won't drown!

(I'm going to write a strongly-worded letter to the White Star Line about Obama.)

I was going to add "PS! Yes! I'm a hopeless romantic!" to my previous post but decided against it. I shouldn't have. Seems to me the political and financial system in the US right now has already been hijacked by the PTB, so it's basically too late. Resistance within the system is useless, because the system is controlled and owned by Wall Street and Friends. That leaves one conclusion : Give up or move the resistance outside the system.
These sociopaths have no respect for law, morality or anything else that might get between them and power/profit. If they don't play by the rules you're only handicapping yourselves if you do.

Under current constitutional, case and statutory law, all persons born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens at birth, which includes persons born of illegals. The State Department is charged with the responsibility of verifying the citizenship status and documentation of persons running for the Office of President, including those born abroad of U.S. citizens. The constitutional requirement is that they be citizens at birth. Period. The uniform rule/code of naturalization covers the specifics of citizenship acquisition.

This is one thing I can speak with some authority on, as an attorney.


The SCOTUS defined a natural born citizen. They made it clear in Wok Kim Ark that natural born means being born in the United States, as evolved under common law.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

The birther claim that Obama is not eligible is nonsense, but his legitimacy has nothing to do with Wong Kim Ark. Obama was born on the soil of the nation, born of a duly established U.S. citizen. He was a citizen at the moment of birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen.

Obama is legitimate in the sense that he's a real president.

Obama is illegitimate in the sense that he's a real bastard.

No argument there!

DrEvil wrote:It's not like you HAVE to vote either republican or democrat. There are other options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ates,_2012

Beats sitting at home.
And maybe I'm just dense, but if everybody hates all the politicans so much, why do they keep putting them back in power?
Sure, the election system itself is a complete mess (intentionally, I might add), but if you never challenge the system how can you expect it to change? The more people vote for the outsiders, the more the powers that be will have to do "maintenance" on the election results.
More fiddling with the results equals more chances of being busted.

you shoulda got props for that post. write in somebody. anybody.

There isn't going to be a groundswell of "challenging the system" any time soon in any form. The herd is too well-herded.

("All the other herds hate us for our freedom!")

Simulist wrote:There isn't going to be a groundswell of "challenging the system" any time soon in any form. The herd is too well-herded.

("All the other herds hate us for our freedom!")

Except for the system's perpetual instability and tendency to produce crises. Sad fact, any level of injustice, especially to those perceived as outsiders, is usually acceptable to a super-majority as long as it "produces the goods" or a sufficiently believable promise of "the goods" to a large enough or strong enough constellation of social groups. The dynamics are such that points inevitably arrive when it doesn't.

Capital must grow, can never grow enough and capital growth runs into many different kinds of limits, all of them crisis-generating, and most of the strategies that have developed for dealing with such crises are predicated on an initial intensification of crisis (e.g., capital destruction through war followed by reconstruction, economic leveling of cities for eventual rebuilding, or just austerity all the way). Empires always generate crisis on their frontiers, no matter how well insulated these appear to be from the metropolitan centers, and impacts at the center arrive unexpectedly. Most of the rich and the policy-making power elite certainly have no sense of limit to their privilege, they know their own bottom line or career advantage with little awareness of what they are doing on a societal scale. The more aware rich and power elite who do attempt longer views and general strategies tend to come up with ludicrous schemata that usually either fail or intensify crisis. No one foresees precisely the kind and scope and timing of man-made disasters that system-typical action can cause, as with Fukushima and Deep Water Horizon, and no one can say when and in what ways ecological instabilities fostered by an economy blind to ecology will manifest. Another financial crash (inevitable) or unemployment rising again or a new disastrous war (all too likely) are examples of the kinds of events that can (and in the past have) produce(d) groundswells. I'll grant you that on the empirical evidence, groundswells never get very big without systemic failures or new outrages that hit the public consciousness. It's not enough to prove in compelling logic and evidence that something is simply wrong, or will inevitably fail to produce the goods in various ways down the foreseeable line. It would help (and I think someone on this board yesterday noted this as a failure by radicals) if that compelling logic and evidence were more often pitched and framed for the popular mind as a means of priming people to react knowledgeably and do the right thing when crises and groundswells do arrive, which today means: frames, narratives, compelling slogans and memes, short well-done video, easy (but scrupulous) treatments of history and economics, etc. Yesterday I thought I'd like to see a revolutionary news service for children!

Then again, last week my idea (for at least the tenth time) was that we really ought to start a church. (Please don't tell me that's an echo of Hubbard, I wasn't thinking of it as a way of stealing riches from patsies but to create protected spaces and champion some form of liberation theology - at least put some Christ-teachings back into the supposed Christianity.)

Never mind, I'll just wait for the Xatons to arrive and fix (or vaporize) everything.

Agreed. And it reminds me of the old Bach ditty: "The Sheep May Safely Graze."

Well, we're still grazing. (Yum.)

(And for a lot of 'em, it's still "All You Can Eat!" time at the Warren Buffett Buffet.)

JackRiddler wrote:Then again, last week my idea (for at least the tenth time) was that we really ought to start a church. (Please don't tell me that's an echo of Hubbard, I wasn't thinking of it as a way of stealing riches from patsies but to create protected spaces and champion some form of liberation theology - at least put some Christ-teachings back into the supposed Christianity.)

Never mind, I'll just wait for the Xatons to arrive and fix (or vaporize) everything.

The Xatons aren't stupid, just lazy — they hired the Xians to wreck stuff.

(There's not much pay in it for the Xians, but the pie in the sky looks a lot yummier than what they were grazing on. "Lift up thine eyes unto the heavens, from whence cometh thy pie.")

justdrew wrote:

I assure you it's nothing but hateful disingenuous bullshit churned up by a cast of disgraceful scum who can eat my shorts. Every one of them should be ashamed of themselves.

我同意
我向你保證，這算不了什麼，但可恨的虛偽的廢話攪動投了可恥的敗類，誰可以吃我的短褲。他們每個人都應該為自己感到羞愧。