Bio not provided
@giant33 @Michael Boldin How clever, suggest that either I, Obama, or both are homosexuals. Because that's relevant and fact-based.
Incidentally, the place you're getting your information IS "the msm."
Did you have anything of substance to add here, or just empty nonsense and bigotry?
1 year ago on NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Michigan House, 107-0
@Michael Boldin Yes, try that instead. Because it has "scary" in the title and appeals to the core audiences essential distrust of government. While we're at it, let's ignore the reality that our president is himself a "leading constitutional scholar" - a point which is critical to the argument I lay out in my article.
One of the most destructive current realities of political discourse in this country at present is the human tendency to gravitate toward conflict, controversy, and sensationalism. That tendency has, over the last three or three and a half decades, morphed into a situation where media content creators intentionally sensationalize information to draw attention to themselves for profit. Some sectors add a factor of deliberately pushing a "REEL TRVTH" narrative in which they, and only they, can be trusted to provide legitimate information, and anyone who disagrees with them is part of the "opposition."
Blindly refusing to accept any information from the government because doing so makes me feel "smarter than that" is no more meritorious as a mode of thinking than blindly accepting all information from the government (or any other source) because it makes me feel comfortable and reinforces my pre-existing ideological cant. We must examine FACTS, and the FACTS of this situation are, in a nutshell, as follows:
"The NDAA" is a horrible shorthand for this issue; NDAA is an annually recurring bill without which our military is not funded.
Section 1021 of NDAA assert no new power of government; it merely reiterates a power that originally was asserted in 2001.
A state government "nullfying NDAA" is silly and egregious on a number of levels: not only are they not "nullifying NDAA" but only a single provision of it, that provision *has already been struck down by a federal court as unconstitutional.* Furthermore, the entire argument rests largely on the false premise that no American citizen is capable of or worth of punishing for acts to destroy the American government - a premise that can be proven false with a single name, Timothy McVeigh.
Still *further*, the entire conversation has been framed by much of the media as a question of Obama administration policy while ignoring the simple fact that this is a Bush administration policy that many in Bush's party - indeed, some who helped craft the policy - are now disingenuously criticizing within the frame of being evidence that the Obama administration is abusing its power. At *best* this is a manipulative double-standard.
*Someone* has to stand up and say "wait a minute, this whole conversation is taking place in a fantasy world."
Why does it matter? Because when we focus on issues created from bad information and framed dishonestly, it detracts attention and energy from other important issues which are based in good information and can be framed honestly. When the flag you rally around turns out to be a lie, you've lost credibility when that lie is exposed...and the exposure of lies is inevitable.
It's time we stopped looking for easily repeatable soundbytes and bumper stickers and started making the effort to grasp nuance and complexity. There are few better examples than this molehill of an issue that has been crafted into a mountain by profit-seeking sensationalist media trying to engender opposition to the Obama administration through deceit. There are plenty of good reasons to criticize this administration; there's no excuse for relying on lies, distortions, and sensationalism to do it.
This is as empty a gesture as there ever was. Get some facts and stop buying - and selling - all this artificial hype.