Good to see you back. Just yesterday I was wondering where you had gotten off to. Now all we need is SkinnyMinnie for the old gang to all be here!

I think that he means that the military is threatening to hold the US under martial law, or that the police is becoming too much like the military. The reason that military action against Americans would be strange is the original “Posse Comitatus Act”, and because living under military occupation is a violation of our rights. Of course, the military didn’t care about this when they occupied Iraq, so why should they care when they militarize the police or spy on us?

So you are saying that President Obama IS in fact a bigger threat than any of the Axis leaders? I think it might be time to turn off Alex Jones…

As usual, you couldn’t be more right. I’m simply hoping that in his second term the President decides to grow a pair. (I’m REALLY getting tired of writing that. Ugh.)

And what if he hadn’t signed it? The Rupugs would tear him apart. Just like they are doing for signing the document with the stipulation THEY put in it.

Quite a bit, if his signing of the NDAA – even with the egregious attacks on due process he supposedly wanted removed – is anything to go by.

To expand a little on what Ruslan mentioned: The claim that the banking/housing crisis was caused by government regulators forcing lenders to make bad loans is a myth that continues to be recited by Republicans in an effort to exonerate Wall Street and the banking sector. In fact, if you were to read the lenders’ own internal memos from the period of the housing bubble, you would learn that they knew they were writing mortgages that would go into default. They didn’t care, however, as long as they could get their upfront fees and then securitize the loans and sell them to investors by making false claims about the default risk.

Careful studies have shown that loans made by Fannie and Freddie, and loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act, were lower-risk on average than those made by commercial lenders such as Countrywide.

But again, the relevance of all this to Obama’s economic policies is nil, since the housing bubble burst long before he took office. That bubble, its subsequent collapse and the banking bailout were all products of the Bush administration and Bush appointees like Henry Paulsen, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive who was Bush’s last treasury secretary – and also a product of the anti-regulation movement that remains so near and dear to conservatives’ and corpocrats’ hearts.

I personally think that Obama has been a threat to freedom in ways very different from the ridiculous ones discussed above. I mostly agree with the critiques of Obama cited by organizations like Amnesty International and the ACLU. The “muddying of the waters” I mentioned before is a threat (by demagogues and their useful idiot followers) to the reasonable arguments put forth by these constructive groups.

I say that the right-wing arguments are so weak because they are desperate and at the end of their rope. Calling their bluffs would knock them down quite decisively. There is no need to be polite and treat them with kid gloves. I’m not advocating physical violence; I’m advocating unrestrained ridicule and satire.

The only information that Limbaugh can offer of instructive value is how to get your maid to illegally acquire prescription narcotics for you.

No, but it makes you far less unpopular than the average Anarchist, which are non-Anarcho Communist. And the fact, that you’ve been banned from participating in most Anarchist rallies/marches/and book fairs.

Cat got your tongue?”

I explained this twice; you chose to ignore it both times. Just as I said, conservatives block out facts which contradict their worldview. In response, you posted an article from a long-ago-discredited source.

However, I am also an anarcho communist so….Does it make me an extremiat because I read bakunin, berkman, goldman? If so I could care less. I probably have more in common with libertarians than Democrats who supposedly care about personal freedom and attempt to defend what their party is doing..

BTW, Jon Lott’s work has been shown time and time again to be full of false assumption, shoddy research and poor and unreliable statistical models. I know YOU believe it, but time and time again neutral professional journals have questioned his basic scholarship. Lott does indeed have his defenders, but they seem to be less fully supportive.

Pardon me if I remain suspicious of the full validity of your claims.