Not just our allies, but our own citizens as well. Why do you think the Occupy movement was attacked by the cops? One rogue actor… one hundred times? FBI coordination is not speculation, it’s documented.
In the fifties, we crushed anybody who opposed our corporations in the Third World. Today our leaders increasingly view us as the Third World.
An embargo just isn’t going to work against the US the way it works against Cuba or Iran. For starters, we have way too many nukes. If you think the US is horrible now, just go ahead and attempt an embargo, tempt the rabid dog.
I say this as an Usian who would very much like all those things on your list, and a few more.
Right on. If she is so “upset” she should demand the immediate closing of all U.S. military bases within Germany’s sovereign territory.
No worries. We could launch the first attacks from our bases INSIDE GERMANY. Until and unless Merkel demands those bases be closed, she is just blowing smoke.
I have to disagree with your implication:
“Trade with us, or we will nuke you?”
Nahhhhhh.
That’s ot surprising at all. There are 60.000 US troops in Germany.
I’m sure that would have gone well for you.
And what exactly is your point? Or are you just trolling everyone?
Really, is there a reason for you to just be negative?
Seems to be working to some extent for North Korea. 
Are you one of those Americans who are under the impression that we want or need those bases? They are just moderately odd cold war relics.
Do you really think that the US surveillance system rises to the level sufficient to grant political asylum? Seriously? Was that your point?
Is this forum just some sort of echo chamber, like some (happy) mutant analogue of the forums I imagine you find at Fox News, with no need to ground comments in reality?
No–hence the sarcasm.
Exactly. The supposedly inevitable forces of economic “globalization” that we in the 99% are supposed to just buck up and swallow are utter bullshit.
I would like to thank the readers of BoingBoing, Cory, Maggie, Mark, Xeni, Rob, David, Jason, Ken, Dean, Eric, et. al. for making me the official voice of the BoingBoing forum. I will certainly have big shoes to fill now that Antinous is gone, but I’ll do what I can.
(Hint: they didn’t, so I don’t know why you’re speaking as if I claim to represent anyone other than myself.)
Yes I do. I think that in the past decade we have seen:
The surveillence is where we finally caught the government in a naked, bold lie, committing grave offenses against the Constitution and demeaning each and every one of us netizens. Not Americans, not terrorists, but each and every human who uses electronic communications. This is a trans-national problem. And for me, a tipping point.
I have been very vocal, on here and Twitter (the only places I use social networking), and extremely vocal when among persons in my sphere of influence (friends, family, colleagues) about this issue. I regularly walk down to the offices of my Senators and Representative (they’re a few blocks away from my workplace). and do what I can. I donate to all of them, even the ones of the other political party, because I’d rather have them take my money and be beholden to me than to a corporate interest. I vote. I think Keith Alexander and James Clapper are traitors. I think the death penalty should be considered. This is wholesale violation of human rights as laid out in the founding of the USA (but we can only prosecute for the Amercians harmed–sorry bout that, rest of the world). This needs to be stopped NOW or it will never be stopped short of massive infrastructural havoc.
I think it’s that bad.
P.S.- Piss off.
Good point, but to play the N. Korea/Ahmadinejad card, you have to be (rationally) 100% irrational, so that your nuclear threats can be seen as credible by virtue of irrationality.
The US has too long a history of rationality for anyone to believe a nuclear threat to be credible.
I’m not saying you represent anyone other than yourself. I’m saying that a lot of the comments here are not grounded in reality, and contain so little factual information or coherent arguments that they cannot realistically be interpreted as doing anything other than preaching to the converted.
As for all of the things you cite as things that should justify a claim of political asylum: it’s clear that, despite your apparently strong views on the subject, you either do not understand how asylum works or are not making a good faith argument. Asylum is granted on the basis of persecution. Additionally, the persecution must fall under a protected category, such as race or religion. Not liking the policies and laws that a country has enacted is not persecution. When the same laws apply to everyone in the country, it’s not persecution. No rational government
would ever find that every person living in the US has a right to asylum in their country. And if they did, then they would likely have to find that residents of just about every other country in the world would also have the right to asylum. If the law treats everyone equally badly, there’s a clear solution in a democratic state: elections.
Do you really think that your suggestion that the ills you speak of are some sort of new phenomenon from “the past decade”? Is there evidence to support an increase in police militarization? I suspect, if anything, we are now more aware of—and more sensitive to—civil liberties violations by police than ever. You think that strict, “evidence free” drug policies are something new? If anything, we are now seeing them swing to levels of tolerance that have not been observed in at least 30 years. You think anti-abortion efforts are new? Do you think that prison collusion with judges is a widespread phenomenon?
Yeah, if we find out Germany has been talking to Mexico, all bets are off. Again!
You’re moving the goalposts of the debate. Since your original complaint was that
But now you say
So, are they not grounded in reality (your first contention), or have they been going on for a while (your second)? Cake and eat it too?
Your suggestion that you should be eligible for political asylum is not grounded in reality. I think you essentially conceded that when you told me to “[a]ssume for a second that you are correct insofar as my conclusion (asylum) is incorrect.” As my entire point was that your asylum claims were ridiculous, it seems to me that it’s very much you who are moving the goalposts by asking me to now critique your “supporting statements.”
Your list contains a lot of things that you object to, and you claim that they show how the country has been going in the wrong direction over the past 10 years. Apparently you think that these objectionable policies create the basis for asylum, and I can only infer that you think that the recent nature of these policies means that asylum would be appropriate now when it wouldn’t have been 20 years ago. But it’s difficult to know what your point is because your argument isn’t very coherent. Does the time matter? If not, why do you emphasize that these are recent developments? If it does, then my time-based criticism holds. Even if time doesn’t matter, how do these policies create a cognizable basis for asylum? Who is being persecuted? Why is the political process inadequate? Do you have a coherent argument?
Notwisthstanding the above, I haven’t seen compelling evidence that there is widespread collusion between prisons and judges, that police are more militant than they have been historically, that the financial community is behaving more irresponsibly than they have historically, that civil liberties have been rapidly eroded, that everyone’s electronic communications (as opposed to metadata) are being recorded, that the current stance on abortion is radically different than how it has been treated for most of US history, or that campaign finance contributions are being allowed in ways that haven’t been allowed for most of US history.
