He *is* pretty set in his views... not exactly threatening.

I feel the same way.

Absolutely!

My excited little friend... let me explain something to you...

When a question is preceded in the same sentence with "what you should ask..." It generally frames the question itself inside a statement as a way of suggesting someone else ask the question for some purpose. Indeed, I wasn't asking for you to give ME a bunch of common definitions augmented with stupid remarks. My point, as I have explained repeatedly, is that there is no legally binding definition that an American citizen can use to to challenge prosecution from the government... Which means the executive branch has the ability to strip ANYONE it wants of civil rights just by calling that person a terrorist.

Therefore, in the interest of our own self defense against a tyrannical government, WE the PEOPLE, should be asking the GOVERNMENT to define, in concrete terms, what a terrorist is. After all, as you have demonstrated quite clearly, anyone can pull a definition out of his ass and if the government can do that AND strip us of all our Constitutional rights as a result... well... we have problems.

Are you understanding now?

So then we shouldn't fear the government. We should instead take it back from the corporations.

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Thomas Jefferson

I think it's a well written article... At first glance I saw all the bold banners and titles referencing the conservative mindset and thought "ok, here we go agian..." Then I started to read and saw the references to the "Workers of the World" which sounds extremely socialist. So after my initial confusion about his angle, I thought ok... forget all that left-right nonsense and just read what he has to say...

He makes no leaping assumptions, but instead he states the views of several relevant sources and in doing so I think he presents a very good picture of what we know as citizens.

A few points that he made, which I think are critical to understanding the problem beyond the limits of partisan bickering...

1. NSA was created in 1947 as a spying program.

2. Bush was the first president (to be caught) spying on American citizens, which was not allowed when NSA was first established.

3. How Bush's spy program circumnavigated the justice system.

4. The significance of the Patriot Act and it's impact on Constitutional provisions there were designed to protect our civil rights.

5. The PRISM system is a continuation of Bush's spy program, which Obama is still defending.

6. The fact that the FISA court has found the spy program unconstitutional both when Bush was using it and now as Obama is using it.

5. The significance of the 4th Amendment.

And he wraps it up with two quotes that I think really put things in perspective.

From the DHS... the notion that we can't balance our right to privacy against concerns such as security and from Ben Franklin the idea that anyone who is willing to give up liberty for the sake of security deserves neither.

This really shows how much our government conservative AND liberal, has diverted from the goals of our founding fathers and how the basic difference is that the founders were courageous enough to seek liberty and our current nation is too scared of everything to even consider it.

Good point.

I wasn't asking for stupid answers. What I am saying is that THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DEFINITION!

See, the difference between us is that I am concerned about the expanding police state and you aren't. All you care about is the opportunity to call the current president funny names. That doesn't help anyone understand the problem which has been developing under the supervision of several presidents, most notably the previous one who pushed the PATRIOT ACT, which maybe you should try reading.

BTW - the non-binding definition of terrorism is...



Remember "Shock and Awe"? That was when Bush ordered the U.S. military to surround a city with a population the size of Chicago and bomb the shit out of it in order to scare the daylights out of anyone it didn't actually kill. He even grinned and called it "Shock and Awe" which is precisely the desired effect of terrorism. (When Obama does something like that THEN talk to me about how he "scares" people.)

Still, that doesn't provide us with a binding definition of a terrorist that keeps American citizens safe from unfair prosecution.

Now, I don't want to get into one these stupid "my president vs your president" arguments... The threat of a police state is not confined to the limits of a single president. We have ourselves as participants in a dying democracy to blame first for being so stupid about politics that presidents past and present are able to do things we don't understand.

My first suggestion is that we remember what Ben Franklin said... "Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither"

My second suggestion is that we repeal the PATRIOT ACT so as to restore the 30+ years worth of civil rights protection laws that it killed.

...and that's just the start.

Yes, it is scary... Are you sure you're reading the Act though... That snippet looks more like a commentary. You should read the official text and come to your own conclusions.

It's part of NSA... Nothing to do with Congress and everything to do with the Department of Defense which operates under the Executive Branch.

If you're gonna shoot - at least aim first.

The question you have to ask then is... WTF is a terrorist? What simply blows my mind with this STUPID war on terrorism is that no one has actually defined what a terrorist is! The worst law EVER passed by Congress, the PATRIOT ACT, actually strips a terrorist of all his civil rights and yet all the while the president can decide almost on a whim whether or not a person actually qualifies as a terrorist. The hundreds of detainees in Guantanamo that were released without charge after being there for several years without trial, makes it clear that a person doesn't even have to commit a crime to be categorized as a terrorist.

So... Carte Blanche for the government!

We Americans don't seem to care much though. We seem to be willing to accept severe treatment of "other" people so long as it's not us. But what many of us don't understand is what separates us from "them", more than anything else, is economic viability. As long as the bulk of Americans are economically viable they present value to big business and everything is cool. With the help of the progressive system of government, this stability is further insured by subsidizing the economic viability of non-productive people or isolating them in prisons.

But the prevailing expectation, given a host of indicators from the concentration of wealth to the rising population in this country, is that more and more Americans will loose their economic viability and when the numbers reach critical mass, there will be a human inclination to rebel.

The emperors of this nation already know this and they've established the "War Against Terrorism" as the perfect excuse to develop all the laws and methods to control us including the NSA and it's extensive surveillance systems.

So... good luck to all of you.

So to wrap up... since obviously, there is no one available or willing on this forum to contribute anything worthwhile. Not that there's much to add anyway. I just thought it was interesting to see such a clear example of how the Tea Party is building a culture of useful idiots and I just wanted to share that. As the title of my OP implies, I think useful idiots can be found on all sides of the political spectrum. The conservatives here don't seem to agree... They think all useful idiots are liberals. Well, I guess they are entitled to their prejudices.

clap clap... priceless!
:thumbup:

So, you first heard the "useful idiot thing" from communists working at colleges in the 1930's... And I am a communist because I failed to comment about it? Well, ya see - I wasn't around in the 1930s.

But like I already told you - it wouldn't make any difference to you whether I am a communist or not. So, you want to slap that label on me? Knock yourself out. If you think calling me a communist will make you feel better... but it won't. Not even if you add "wussie", or any other name your uptight frustrated mind can think off.

Maybe you ought to just take your medicine old man and stop getting yourself all wound up. It can't be good for you to be that angry all the time.

There we go.... name calling... so constructive, so intelligent... LOL. When you fail miserably in the argument and get all pissed off and frustrated you resort to name calling from the safety of your computer. So typical.