Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The propaganda piece is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/13/government-reorganization-fact-sheet

Apparently no one thinks Congress will let this go through:
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120113/AGENCY04/201130307/

Essentially he wants the authority to reorganize the offices of the federal government but limited so that he can only reduce the size. I'm not sure why he even needs this power, Bush didn't have it, that I know of, and was able to merge a bunch of offices into Homeland Security. He says his first action will save $3 billion over the next ten years.

Am I the only one who cringes when I hear things like "Will save X amount of billions over x decades"?

We're like twenty trillion dollars in debt now, aren't we? At one point we were spending something like 50 billion a month funding the wars in the middle east, alone. 3 billion dollars is a drop in the option.

That being said, obviously you have to start somewhere and it won't be an overnight thing of course. The propositions made so far by our people in power have just all seen so lame.

all this will likely amount to is lots of reenactments of the 'people skills' scene in office space. perhaps its a move to eliminating useless favor jobs. one would hope.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
all this will likely amount to is lots of reenactments of the 'people skills' scene in office space. perhaps its a move to eliminating useless favor jobs. one would hope. And Obama's going to need that report on his desk by Wednesday. Yeeaaahh. So if you could just get that to him by Tuesday, actually. That'd be great.

Although I applaud this thread, since it creates discussion about current events in Washington, it's virtually irrelevant.

What you should have posted, is a thread about the bill that President Obama signed into law recently: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Under the NDAA, the president of the US now has the authority to detain and arrest American citizens (indefinitely) - without due process of law guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Welcome to a brave new world, indeed.

Don't post off-topic, ushomefree.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
all this will likely amount to is lots of reenactments of the 'people skills' scene in office space. perhaps its a move to eliminating useless favor jobs. one would hope.

This seems to be one of the reasons no one expects the bill to pass. Too many Congressmen have too much invested in existing federal offices to let this through.

No surprises there!

Obama is working on his campaign. Can't trust shit he does. Doesn't even
Make any sense

Nothing he says that he is going to do or is doing makes any sense.

I say kick them ALL out and start from scratch again without any Republicans or Democrates. Start fresh with some new ideas. REFORM the whole government. Restructure it all.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I say kick them ALL out and start from scratch again without any Republicans or Democrates. Start fresh with some new ideas. REFORM the whole government. Restructure it all.

Easy to say, nigh-impossible to do nor is it practical.

Going on the same way we are now is NOT practical either. Nor is anything getting done.

He said a lot of stuff when he was campaigning and turns out that a lot of those things were lies. So how can he expect people to trust what he says now? I wouldn't trust him.

All politicians make promises during their campaign; some they fill, some they don't.

Withdrawing all the troops out of Iraq is one promise he's fulfilled. As an example.

Originally posted by Robtard
Withdrawing all the troops out of Iraq is one promise he's fulfilled. As an example.

That's not the promise he made.

It was withdrawing them like...in the first year or something.

That's not the promise he made.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

He never said his goal was to remove "all" troops, or even most of them, by 2010.

Though you have to admit differentiating between combat troops and fighting troops is kind of a technicality.

Sure, but "what was his promise" isn't. His 2008 campaign promise, IIRC, was "I want all nonessential military personnel out of Iraq by 2010" or something to the affect. That promise was kept.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's not the promise he made.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

He never said his goal was to remove "all" troops, or even most of them, by 2010.

He said 16 months, not the first year. So I was off by 4 months.

Hahaha. Four whole months. You're hella whack, bra.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Hahaha. Four whole months. You're hella whack, bra.


"Here, though, we're rating Obama's promise to remove combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Technically, he's a few months over the deadline, but he often said 'about 16 months' on the campaign trail."

Sounds like a kept promise to me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sounds like a kept promise to me.


Are there combat troops still in Iraq, by the military definition?

No, the last of them left in Late December.


Campaign promise of "about 16 months" kept?

No.


He failed to maintain his campaign promise.




Why? Because the last of the combat troops did not leave until late december of 2011.


When did Obama take office?

January 20, 2009.


What would be 16 months after January 20, 2009?

May 20, 2010.



Even if we give him 3 extra months, just for kicks (because he did say about about 16 months), he still did not keep his promise.



If a project manager repeatedly gave an estimated project completion of about 16 months and blew the deadline by 7 months, he or she would be fired or removed from subsequent projects.


How about another way?

If you promise your "left-wing" supporters a left-wingish campaign promise but fail to make the dead line more than half a year later, you blew it. If you promised to pay back a loan and failed to do so by about half a year, you blew it. No matter how it is cut up, Obama failed to keep the promise from the campaign.

Political fact check should give Obama a "mostly failed" score, instead of a "all the way kept" rating. I think their score is a bit bias.

They are going by a subsequent promise he made AFTER the campaign promise which was not what I was referring to.

Sounds like a kept promise to me.

Trololololololololololololol!

Originally posted by Robtard
All politicians make promises during their campaign; some they fill, some they don't.

Withdrawing all the troops out of Iraq is one promise he's fulfilled. As an example.


Not when he tried extending it.

Originally posted by Robtard
All politicians make promises during their campaign; some they fill, some they don't.

Withdrawing all the troops out of Iraq is one promise he's fulfilled. As an example.

Not really though. He pulled them out at the same deadline that President Bush had set. They should've been pulled out much sooner. And we are still in Afghanistan.

So people are crying cos he wasn't able to do it in some exact and unrealistic time-line? LoL, whiners. There's plenty of ammo to point the boo-on-you finger at Obama, this is scraping though.

I don't recall promises for Afghanistan and I am not so concerned that we're there, as that's the place America should have solely focused on after 9/11, not the BS was in Iraq so a bunch of people could make money.

Originally posted by Robtard
So people are crying cos he wasn't able to do it in some exact and unrealistic time-line? LoL, whiners.

No. People are replying to people like you giving obama credit for taking troops out of iraq recently despite him attempting to extend it.

ie reaching for something to whine about. They're out of Iraq, no it didn't happen in some exact time-line. Boo-hoo.

More like making a correction to something false

Originally posted by Robtard
Withdrawing all the troops out of Iraq is one promise he's fulfilled. As an example.

except that it was an agreement initially penned between the Bush gvt and the Iraqis, which Obama argued against.

Its more like, coincidentally something Obama said he would do happened in spite of Obama's best efforts.

Originally posted by Robtard
So people are crying cos he wasn't able to do it in some exact and unrealistic time-line? LoL, whiners.

You not only insulted me but you deliberately lied about what I had said (water under the bridge: IDGAF). What I said is on this very same page a few pages up. Just because you did not name a person, specifically, does not mean you did not direct your comments at a specific person.





"...

When did Obama take office?

January 20, 2009.


What would be 16 months after January 20, 2009?

May 20, 2010.

...

Campaign promise of 'about 16 months' kept?

No.


He failed to maintain his campaign promise.

...


Even if we give him 3 extra months, just for kicks (because he did say about about 16 months), he still did not keep his promise."


I did not just apply it to an exact date, I gave multiple months of leeway after outlining the exact dates to illustrate that he never met that, either. And the withdrawal timeline was not unrealistic. In fact, it could have been done sooner. We could have been done back in 2007, if we wanted to be. We should not have been there in that capacity to begin with.

If you're going to throw around insults and make condescending posts, at least make sure you are right about it first.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's plenty of ammo to point the boo-on-you finger at Obama, this is scraping though.

And for the left-wingers, our imperialistic foreign-land occupations were near the top of the list agenda back in 2008. "Bring our troops home!!! RAWR!" Or are you forgetting the protesters that protested for years at various state capitols and in DC?

There's a very real reason Obama made such a campaign promise: it was to directly satisfy one of the biggest complains from the left: his primary voting demographic.

Failing to keep that campaign promise, even if we give him several months of lee-way, is still failing to keep that promise.

Regardless, the request was bring ALL troops home. If you remember, Obama said that that was one of the things he was going to do if he took office. But remember he changed his tune, apologized, and then talked about how impractical that was? I do. I remember that. If I REALLY wanted to be an *sshole, I could complain about that instead of the official presidential platform he ran on.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't recall promises for Afghanistan and I am not so concerned that we're there, as that's the place America should have solely focused on after 9/11, not the BS was in Iraq so a bunch of people could make money.

He did make promises for Afghanistan. He promised to shift focus from Iraq to Afghanistan in at least 2 debates he had with McCain.

Additionally, it is ignorance to think that Iraq had nothing to do with US-targeted terrorism. Whether they were supported by the Baath Party and Hussein or independent terror cells, it does not matter. The fact that Iraq housed or allowed terror-related activities pre-2003 does indicate that the US should have had some sort of interest in Iraq. This runs external of Operation Iraqi-Freedom, by the way - I do not think we should have ever done that.


Originally posted by Robtard
ie reaching for something to whine about. They're out of Iraq, no it didn't happen in some exact time-line. Boo-hoo.

This:

Originally posted by Mairuzu
More like making a correction to something false



The left is saying Obama succeeded when he did not succeed in keeping his campaign promise. He missed his deadline by almost exactly 7 months. You (Robtard) say "boohoo" and I say, "tell that to the parents, siblings, children, spouses, lovers, and friends of the people who didn't make it home because they had to stay in the shit 7 extra months."

You're such a jerk robtard! lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
You not only insulted me but you deliberately lied about what I had said (water under the bridge: IDGAF). What I said is on this very same page a few pages up. Just because you did not name a person, specifically, does not mean you did not direct your comments at a specific person.





"...

When did Obama take office?

January 20, 2009.


What would be 16 months after January 20, 2009?

May 20, 2010.

...

Campaign promise of 'about 16 months' kept?

No.


He failed to maintain his campaign promise.

...


Even if we give him 3 extra months, just for kicks (because he did say about about 16 months), he still did not keep his promise."


I did not just apply it to an exact date, I gave multiple months of leeway after outlining the exact dates to illustrate that he never met that, either. And the withdrawal timeline was not unrealistic. In fact, it could have been done sooner. We could have been done back in 2007, if we wanted to be. We should not have been there in that capacity to begin with.

If you're going to throw around insults and make condescending posts, at least make sure you are right about it first.



And for the left-wingers, our imperialistic foreign-land occupations were near the top of the list agenda back in 2008. "Bring our troops home!!! RAWR!" Or are you forgetting the protesters that protested for years at various state capitols and in DC?

There's a very real reason Obama made such a campaign promise: it was to directly satisfy one of the biggest complains from the left: his primary voting demographic.

Failing to keep that campaign promise, even if we give him several months of lee-way, is still failing to keep that promise.

Regardless, the request was bring ALL troops home. If you remember, Obama said that that was one of the things he was going to do if he took office. But remember he changed his tune, apologized, and then talked about how impractical that was? I do. I remember that. If I REALLY wanted to be an *sshole, I could complain about that instead of the official presidential platform he ran on.



He did make promises for Afghanistan. He promised to shift focus from Iraq to Afghanistan in at least 2 debates he had with McCain.

Additionally, it is ignorance to think that Iraq had nothing to do with US-targeted terrorism. Whether they were supported by the Baath Party and Hussein or independent terror cells, it does not matter. The fact that Iraq housed or allowed terror-related activities pre-2003 does indicate that the US should have had some sort of interest in Iraq. This runs external of Operation Iraqi-Freedom, by the way - I do not think we should have ever done that.




This:





The left is saying Obama succeeded when he did not succeed in keeping his campaign promise. He missed his deadline by almost exactly 7 months. You (Robtard) say "boohoo" and I say, "tell that to the parents, siblings, children, spouses, lovers, and friends of the people who didn't make it home because they had to stay in the shit 7 extra months."

TL;DR

Originally posted by inimalist
except that it was an agreement initially penned between the Bush gvt and the Iraqis, which Obama argued against.

Its more like, coincidentally something Obama said he would do happened in spite of Obama's best efforts.

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

"Then my sunset?" the little prince reminded him: for he never forgot a question once he had asked it.

"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable."

"When will that be?" inquired the little prince.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. "Hum! Hum! That will be about--about--that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!"

I can see it

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

"Then my sunset?" the little prince reminded him: for he never forgot a question once he had asked it.

"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable."

"When will that be?" inquired the little prince.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. "Hum! Hum! That will be about--about--that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!"

It'd be like that, but also we find out that the king did everything he could to prevent the sunset at the same time...

We do not need new ideas and reform; we just need our elected representatives to enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That's it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
We do not need new ideas and reform; we just need our elected representatives to enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That's it.

I agree for the most part: as long as you keep most of the amendments as part of your definition of the "US Constitution".

Originally posted by ushomefree
We do not need new ideas and reform; we just need our elected representatives to enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That's it.

You maybe right, but you are way too loud.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You maybe right, but you are way too loud.

We need a R3VOLUTION!

Originally posted by inimalist
It'd be like that, but also we find out that the king did everything he could to prevent the sunset at the same time...



Yes, indeed.

Obama hes your mama....whoa hey hoe..hoe hay...

That's a nonsense, gibberish quote, ushomefree; an old myth that has done the rounds for decades. The amusing bit is the way you put 'historically' at the end to try and give it some respectability despite being utterly unable to attribute it. Before you talk about others being blind, try actually putting some thought into what you post instead of blindly copy/pasting worthless material.

The quote, that you so fervently despise - for reasons that escape my mind - is commonly referred to as the "Tytler Cycle." It is also worthy to note, that the word "Tytler" refers to the last name of Alexander Fraser Tytler, whom is commonly attributed to the writing, but this has never been confirmed. And so, I labeled the originator of the quote as "unknown" (historically). Does this make any sense to you? Regardless, I'm absolutely astounded that you lack the wisdom to interpret what is going on in the world today, not to mention the United States. The Tytler Cycle is a slam dunk representation of what's going on in this country. The NDAA is one of many laws passed through Congress (over the past 30 to 40 years) that confirms this, not to mention the ignorance of the American voter and the mind frame of the today's iPod generation.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The Tytler Cycle is a slam dunk representation of what's going on in this country.

Similarly we know that people opposing SOPA will all become Sith Lords because Yoda's quote from Phantom Menace is a slam dunk representation of what's going on.

Well that or we could try forming actual arguments like adults.

Symmetric Chaos... do you support the SOP Act?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos... do you support the SOP Act?

I think he is just for anything you are against.

Shaky... I love you. Your 100% correct. It's kinda takes things back to Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" doesn't it? Anyway... good to see you on here brother. Whatever happened to Debbiejoe?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shaky... I love you. Your 100% correct. It's kinda takes things back to Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" doesn't it? Anyway... good to see you on here brother. Whatever happened to Debbiejoe?

She's around... she just has a new name.

So, why are you against it? Keep it simple for me.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos... do you support the SOP Act?

I do not. Though unlike most people on the internet that's because I believe it causes tremendous collateral damage and has little practical effect not because I don't believe in intellectual property.

Shakyamunison, the most simplistic answer I can give regarding the SOP Act - and why I'm against it - is this: it is a complete governmental takeover of free speech. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with "piracy." The internet is an alternative media source - and it's educating people on their "appointed betters" - and those in power do not like it. In fact, they fear it - because people are waking up to the truth that they are being bamboozled, tricked and conned. Their motive is to have a dumbed down populace, incapable of critical thought, that works and pays taxes and questions nothing. It's all about power and control. Simply said, the powers that be, want us all to be cattle.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison, the most simplistic answer I can give regarding the SOP Act - and why I'm against it - is this: it is a complete governmental takeover of free speech. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with "piracy." The internet is an alternative media source - and it's educating people on their "appointed betters" - and those in power do not like it. In fact, they fear it - because people are waking up to the truth that they are being bamboozled, tricked and conned. Their motive is to have a dumbed down populace, incapable of critical thought, that works and pays taxes and questions nothing. It's all about power and control. Simply said, the powers that be, want us all to be cattle.

I am suppressed you would have that opinion. You do know that the internet is not a bastion of free speech. It is really the work of the devil, and should be shut down.

Your pulling my leg, right?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Although I applaud this thread, since it creates discussion about current events in Washington, it's virtually irrelevant.

What you should have posted, is a thread about the bill that President Obama signed into law recently: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Under the NDAA, the president of the US now has the authority to detain and arrest American citizens (indefinitely) - without due process of law guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Welcome to a brave new world, indeed.

This is actually the part of the bill that most people cite but isn't really the meat of it. The detention section simply reaffirms legislation passed in 2001 that does not authorize the president to detain US citizens indefinitely.
The scary part of the bill comes later in that it defines the United States as being part of a battlefield in a war on terror which opens the door, theoretically for not just indefinite detention but military tribunals and what the Bush administration would probably have called enhanced methods for enforcing public safety utilizing battlefield tactics at things like meetings and protests of groups allegedly linked to Al Qaeda and terrorists such as...I dunno, live ammunition (well that wouldn't surprise anyone since Reagan used it at Berkely when he was governor), Infrasound and Microwave weapons, chemical weapons, neutron weapons...
When people en masse challenge the corporate masters and a president, any president from a major party has this kind of authority I can't help but think that the results of their actions would ironically make Pol Pot proud.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Your pulling my leg, right?

Just a little humor among friends.

It just seems like you would be for regulation of what is a bastion for pornography lawlessness, but people can change.

Me? I want the feds to go away...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Similarly we know that people opposing SOPA will all become Sith Lords because Yoda's quote from Phantom Menace is a slam dunk representation of what's going on.

Well that or we could try forming actual arguments like adults.

Can I order my lightsabre in cerulean?

I know Shaky



Perhaps you view the internet differently than I do. I have no comment on your statement, but I will say this: free speech is always a good thing. And by the way... people can not change. Any historian and/or history buff will tell you, that despite advances in technology, man remains the same - there has been no increase in wisdom, just knowledge. The world is a dangerous place; in fact, some would argue, much more dangerous. All these advances in technology, but no increase in wisdom. Humans remain human (at their core). Understand?



I don't know anyone who would disagree with you. People fundamentally just want to work and take care of their families - and if they have the money, to take a vacation from time to time. People just want to be left alone to live their lives, but megalomaniacs don't care about that.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I know Shaky



Perhaps you view the internet differently than I do. I have no comment on your statement, but I will say this: free speech is always a good thing. And by the way... people can not change. Any historian and/or history buff will tell you, that despite advances in technology, man remains the same - there has been no increase in wisdom, just knowledge. The world is a dangerous place; in fact, some would argue, much more dangerous. All these advances in technology, but no increase in wisdom. Humans remain human (at their core). Understand?



I don't know anyone who would disagree with you. People fundamentally just want to work and take care of their families - and if they have the money, to take a vacation from time to time. People just want to be left alone to live their lives, but megalomaniacs don't care about that.

I still find it strange that you believe in freedom of speech. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but isn't freedom of speech inconsistent with Christianity? I know that when I was a Christian, we did not believe in freedom of speech, unless you were talking about religous speech.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, although I may disagree with what people say.

Freedom of religion is freedom of religion, although I may disagree with their beliefs.

In any case, what kind of so-called "Christian" church did you go to?

It sounds to me, and excuse my ignorance, that you we're in some sort of cult. Can you elaborate?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, although I may disagree with what people say.

Freedom of religion is freedom of religion, although I may disagree with their beliefs.

In any case, what kind of so-called "Christian" church did you go to?

It sounds to me, and excuse my ignorance, that you we're in some sort of cult. Can you elaborate?

I'm sorry, but that would be inappropriate. I would be happy to tell you my life's story, but this is nether the place nor time. Please let us stay on the topic.

I will agree, we did not come from the same Christian denomination.

Well maybe you can send me a PM, and I'll reciprocate.

Anyhoo.

Regardless of whatever Christian denomination(s) that you and your church practiced, all denominations hold core tenants of Christianity, and why freedom of speech would become an issue blows my mind.

Regarding freedom of religion in the "Christian" church, we are taught to preach the Word and saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are all sinners and need redemption. If people wish not to listen, let it be.

Did your church practice "legalism?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do not. Though unlike most people on the internet that's because I believe it causes tremendous collateral damage and has little practical effect not because I don't believe in intellectual property.

Can't help yourself being contrarian even if you agree with most people, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can't help yourself being contrarian even if you agree with most people, eh?

Its not my fault that other people are right for the wrong reasons


Also I just noticed that this thread is now about SOPA and the SOPA thread is now about government power . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its not my fault that other people are right for the wrong reasons


Also I just noticed that this thread is now about SOPA and the SOPA thread is now about government power . . .

I am not sure if you are right though. Especially Google and Wikipedia protest not for piracy, but against the overreaching powers the government will give itself. Of course everyone that is pro-piracy, is probably against the bill, but I wouldn't say a majority, nor that it is the main focus.

And that is a funny coincidence, as long as the important topics are discussed though, that's pretty good.

Originally posted by ushomefree
We do not need new ideas and reform; we just need our elected representatives to enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That's it.

yeah but the problem is most of them are bought off and paid for and dont believe in the constitution.so she is right,kick them all out since they are not here to serve us and dont believe in the constitution or the bill of rights.