Obama: Government tyranny is impossible because govt is us.

[Hayabusa Rider]

And this is where your ignorance is highlighted. Not by what your views are but that your views don't allow for facts and that your immediate response is to attack me instead of acknowledging the truth. You confuse the facts as if I wrote them and agree with those that support actions you do not when in reality I have made no such statements. You simply don't like America because Americans don't agree with you and it must not agree with you because it's broken and corrupted by money, according to you. And while there may be some truth to it, most people generally don't agree that scraping it is the way to go, no most people understand how this country works and it works in many different ways, ways in which you seem to have forgotten or don't think is worth your time.

But to answer your question of how I know who supports it, here is your answer:

from 2004
http://www.gallup.com/poll/10858/Americans-Generally-Comfortable-Patriot-Act.aspx

from 2011
http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/

We get the government we vote for, the government represents us as a whole, not just you. If you have a problem with government then you have a problem with the American people and the last thing people want to hear is how the system doesn't work that currently represents them and a majority of their views.

We get the government we're offered. Feinstein explicitly wanted to keep us in the dark regarding wiretaps. Justice backed that. That's not the Patriot act. There isn't a choice in parties, not a real one. Show me what choice we had that didn't support it. I don't feel a bit bad for calling you out after the hiding under the bed nonsense, not one but. We weren't offered a real chance and you seem to run away from that fact. Your response seems to hinge on saying that people want their rights violated and that excuses everything because we didn't vote for a choice we couldn't have. Now what percentage of people think the should be allowed to illegally wiretap them again and shouldn't be held accountable? Now that's not part of the Patriot act. Good luck.

 

[ivwshane]

We get the government we're offered. Feinstein explicitly wanted to keep us in the dark regarding wiretaps. Justice backed that. That's not the Patriot act. There isn't a choice in parties, not a real one. Show me what choice we had that didn't support it. I don't feel a bit bad for calling you out after the hiding under the bed nonsense, not one but. We weren't offered a real chance and you seem to run away from that fact. Your response seems to hinge on saying that people want their rights violated and that excuses everything because we didn't vote for a choice we couldn't have. Now what percentage of people think the should be allowed to illegally wiretap them again and shouldn't be held accountable? Now that's not part of the Patriot act. Good luck.

Apparently you didn't read the poll questions. People are willing to give up some rights for protection from terrorist.

BTW Feinstein is an elected official and has been re elected many times, the people she represents seem to have no problems with her actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Apparently you didn't read the poll questions. People are willing to give up some rights for protection from terrorist.

BTW Feinstein is an elected official and has been re elected many times, the people she represents seem to have no problems with her actions.

You ignored both points. First that what I'm talking about you ignored. People might be confused as to some aspects of the Patriot act, but I have yet to see that the acts I mentioned are met with general approval. Second, you might point out who stood a chance of beating the party machine behind Feinstein who didn't back this? How about someone other than a Republican opponent? Oh there wasn't one who could fight the machine.

I'm going to let you live in your comfortable illusion where there's free choice and the majority want anything that promises safety.

 

[ivwshane]

You ignored both points. First that what I'm talking about you ignored. People might be confused as to some aspects of the Patriot act, but I have yet to see that the acts I mentioned are met with general approval. Second, you might point out who stood a chance of beating the party machine behind Feinstein who didn't back this? How about someone other than a Republican opponent? Oh there wasn't one who could fight the machine.

I'm going to let you live in your comfortable illusion where there's free choice and the majority want anything that promises safety.

You aren't getting it. People weren't voting for those against the patriot act. Mike Gravel and Ron Paul both ran for president and were both against the patriot act, the people rejected them (hey look at that, a republican and a democrat).

Yes people might be confused but it's not because of some machine or false choice.

And I'll let you live in your cave where you can hide from everyone that is out to get you.

 

[SlickSnake]

In N.K., all the shoeshine boys like to lick your boots long time... since they can't afford boot polish, and then they bend over on their knees and let the customer give them a big tip.

 

[chucky2]

Considering the source, is this really what Obama said? It's sort of hard to believe honestly, I'm thinking Brietbart or whatever the F his name is took it out of context and deleted/re-arranged it somehow. Think about it? We don't need laws against rape...rapists are us. We don't need laws about murder...murders are us. Etc. etc. It's the same logic.

I'm thinking Brietbart doesn't have what Obama really said he's got something to make it seem like Obama said something insane but in reality he didn't really.

Chuck

 

[unokitty]

Apparently you didn't read the poll questions. People are willing to give up some rights for protection from terrorist.

BTW Feinstein is an elected official and has been re elected many times, the people she represents seem to have no problems with her actions.

"... Lessig also cites similar examples from both sides of the aisle, blaming neither political party in particular. The corruption, he says, is systemic and systematic: in 2009 alone, lobbyists spent $3.5 billion, or about $6.5 million per each elected member in Congress."
-- Article

Lobbyists spend 3.5 billion dollars annually to buy influence with Congress. That's who Feinstein represents.

Government by the people? That 3.5 billion dollars didn't come from the people. It came from the lobbyists.

Uno

 

[SlickSnake]

"... Lessig also cites similar examples from both sides of the aisle, blaming neither political party in particular. The corruption, he says, is systemic and systematic: in 2009 alone, lobbyists spent $3.5 billion, or about $6.5 million per each elected member in Congress."
-- Article

Lobbyists spend 3.5 billion dollars annually to buy influence with Congress. That's who Feinstein represents.

Government by the people? That 3.5 billion dollars didn't come from the people. It came from the lobbyists.

Uno

And that amount is just what lobbyists admit to contributing, the number is a lot higher than that. They also make indirect contributions to causes the candidates support, too.

 

[Anarchist420]

Considering the source, is this really what Obama said? It's sort of hard to believe honestly, I'm thinking Brietbart or whatever the F his name is took it out of context and deleted/re-arranged it somehow. Think about it? We don't need laws against rape...rapists are us. We don't need laws about murder...murders are us. Etc. etc. It's the same logic. I'm thinking Brietbart doesn't have what Obama really said he's got something to make it seem like Obama said something insane but in reality he didn't really. Chuck

I'm pretty sure Obama said it because Dr. DiLorenzo pointed out how non-sensical it was.

 

[Thump553]

I'm pretty sure Obama said it because Dr. DiLorenzo pointed out how non-sensical it was.

Yeah, who would possibly suspect a professional pundit-who makes his living off of his media exposure- of even considering doing a snowjob? After all he's a "doctor." Your unquestioning adoption of highly suspect sources always amazes me.

And I'd go further than other said in this thread-those who elect not to vote (not including those barred from voting) have CONSENTED to the election results by their deliberate inaction.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yeah, who would possibly suspect a professional pundit-who makes his living off of his media exposure- of even considering doing a snowjob?

Actually, he's a professor at Loyola University in MD and an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute.

After all he's a "doctor."

I don't know about you, but I never called my professors by their first names.

 

[chucky2]

Well, does anyone have a video of Obama saying this? That'd put this to rest quite quickly I'd think...

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, does anyone have a video of Obama saying this? That'd put this to rest quite quickly I'd think...

It sounds like something he would say just to try to be cute.

I don't think he believes it (as he went to Harvard and all), just as he knows that he was not in any way responsible for Bin Laden's death.

 

[marvdmartian]

You automatically give your consent when you fail to exercise your right to vote.

Anyone else feel sorry for the OP?

Not really. He's not twisting the facts & figures any worse than any political party does. :hmm:

 

[NoStateofMind]

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush or Obama said this. It does surprise me people don't believe it. Hell every action they have made proves this thought is held in their minds. Hayabusa Rider has already proved it in this thread. Yet many will ignore it because they can't have their "god" challenged. Well your "god" is challenging you whether you wake up to it or not.