Is anyone else horrified at the confession

[willpeavy]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

[Aaron]

Nixon/Watergate comes to mind re domestic spying and potential concerns regarding it. Access to political enemies info ... etc. And maybe some concern about the benefit of the majority outweighing some rights of the minority that seem reasonable now progressing into unreasonable thing - slippery slope example.

 

That stuff aside, I thought the issue was more Bush's powergrab by ignoring the courts specifically setup so these things could be approved when they were needed (keeping us safe) but without simply letting things run wild. Maybe I'm not as up on this as I thought.

[sinisterkungfu]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

 

The right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution, regardless of whether it's 'hurting' anyone or not. So, they take away that right? No big deal, still not hurting anyone? What's next though? They take away your right to free speech, they take away your right to practice the religion of your choice, you disagree with the government and then one night you just disappear never to be heard from again? Apparently they've already started doing that. They can hold you for an indefinite amount of time without ever charging you with a crime or legally arresting you. Not to mention the fact that they think torture is perfectly acceptable and to hell with the Geneva convention. This 'Homeland' that the Bush regime is always babbling about is starting to seem remarkably similar to the 'Fatherland' of Nazi Germany. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld need to be taken out of office, charged with crimes against humanity and executed for treason. They need to be on trial right next to Hussein because they're no better than he is.

[Guest]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

Well, obviously the point of previous posts is being missed, so here's another try.

 

The stated assumption about one's own "security" superseding everyone else's privacy is individualistic. The bolded words above show a self-centered frame of reference. Even if the post ends with "community as a whole" or "society as a whole," it is still coming from a world view based on the individual self, as opposed to self-in-relationship. Collectivism is not a collection of independent beings, but the relationships between interdependent beings.

 

The individualist ethic sees privacy and security as competing rights. So it is assumed that less privacy means more security. On the contrary, psychological evidence shows a direct relationship between less privacy and less security. This is, of course, counterintuitive to the individualist point of view that perceives interests as competing. However, if you consider the relationship between privacy and security it is obvious why a mutual spiral of decline exists. The anxiety created by undue observation can have an affect on people's behavior and frame of reference. The structural creation of perceived conflicting interests will influence people to view each others as a threat. In this environment of fear -- where people feel insecure, anxious, and threatened -- people are more likely to be a threat to others.

 

This isn't even taking into account the fact that more law enforcement does not make the victims of official and institutional violence any more secure. Just the opposite, the spying will benefit those in power at the expense of oppressed groups -- women, minorities, the poor, etc. -- and those with views counter to the establishment, which people are less likely to take under government surveillance.

[willpeavy]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

 

The right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution, regardless of whether it's 'hurting' anyone or not. So, they take away that right? No big deal, still not hurting anyone? What's next though? They take away your right to free speech, they take away your right to practice the religion of your choice, you disagree with the government and then one night you just disappear never to be heard from again? Apparently they've already started doing that. They can hold you for an indefinite amount of time without ever charging you with a crime or legally arresting you. Not to mention the fact that they think torture is perfectly acceptable and to hell with the Geneva convention. This 'Homeland' that the Bush regime is always babbling about is starting to seem remarkably similar to the 'Fatherland' of Nazi Germany. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld need to be taken out of office, charged with crimes against humanity and executed for treason. They need to be on trial right next to Hussein because they're no better than he is.

 

Yeah and the judiciary has granted the attorney general the authority to order wire taps on issues of national security, so if you want to get lawyerly it can be justified within the constitution

[sinisterkungfu]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

 

The right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution, regardless of whether it's 'hurting' anyone or not. So, they take away that right? No big deal, still not hurting anyone? What's next though? They take away your right to free speech, they take away your right to practice the religion of your choice, you disagree with the government and then one night you just disappear never to be heard from again? Apparently they've already started doing that. They can hold you for an indefinite amount of time without ever charging you with a crime or legally arresting you. Not to mention the fact that they think torture is perfectly acceptable and to hell with the Geneva convention. This 'Homeland' that the Bush regime is always babbling about is starting to seem remarkably similar to the 'Fatherland' of Nazi Germany. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld need to be taken out of office, charged with crimes against humanity and executed for treason. They need to be on trial right next to Hussein because they're no better than he is.

 

Yeah and the judiciary has granted the attorney general the authority to order wire taps on issues of national security, so if you want to get lawyerly it can be justified within the constitution

 

Ordering wire taps via the court system with a legal warrant is fine. The whole point is that Bush just kinda skipped over that part and has usurped and nullified the power of the court. According to him the process is too slow, so he no longer needs a warrant or court approval. He's systematically destroying democracy in this country, while pretending to promote it abroad. He's a liar, a hyopcrite and a war criminal and a downright terrible human being.

[Jay]

Yes the problem is that they are spying in a way that we have no idea who they are spying on. Usually at a later date you can find out what suspected terrorist was being spying on, here we won't necessarily have any idea who exactly was being syped upon because they didn't use the proper court procedure. The only gain by not using court procedure is that they can hide who they are spying on and/or basically just spy on everyone.

 

Furthermore we do know that they have been spying here and there on peace organizations/peace activists. They have even been performing surveilance on vegan activists. The US government also has a long sordid history of spying on peace organizations. It is likely that as opposed to spying on potential terrorists they are once again keeping tabs on political opponents/peace activists types.

 

But we don't know. Because they aren't going through the courts like they are supposed to. In the past the Freedom of Information act could be used to eventually find out years later, but lately they've been taking a number of steps to permanently conceal their activities. It is the opinion of many political "experts" that this has been the most secretive presidency certainly within the last 50 years.

[CrispyQ]

The right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution, regardless of whether it's 'hurting' anyone or not. So, they take away that right? No big deal, still not hurting anyone? What's next though? They take away your right to free speech, they take away your right to practice the religion of your choice, you disagree with the government and then one night you just disappear never to be heard from again? Apparently they've already started doing that. They can hold you for an indefinite amount of time without ever charging you with a crime or legally arresting you. Not to mention the fact that they think torture is perfectly acceptable and to hell with the Geneva convention. This 'Homeland' that the Bush regime is always babbling about is starting to seem remarkably similar to the 'Fatherland' of Nazi Germany. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld need to be taken out of office, charged with crimes against humanity and executed for treason. They need to be on trial right next to Hussein because they're no better than he is.

 

 

I could not agree with you more, Sinisterkungfu. Especially those last 2 sentences.

 

We now have free speech zones. WTF???? I thought our entire country was a free speech zone. I have a bumper sticker, "I live in America, not the Homeland." Those of us who draw parallels between what happened in Germany & what is happening here are accused of wearing tin foil hats. Well, my tin foil hat fit just fine. Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" is a chilling read. It not only can happen here, it is happening here.

 

The 14 Signs of Fascism (scroll down)

 

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

[willpeavy]

My right to not get blown up is more important to me than my right to privacy. I haven't felt violated when I've been searched in the past, and I think it's a small trade-off to make for more security. Sorry I just don't buy into the idea of the rugged American individualist who must have their privacy rights at all costs. I'm more collectivist. I'm willing to trade away some privacies for the security of the community as a whole

This is a twisted view of collectivism. Collectivism in not synonymous with the Orwellian Big Brother approach that you seem to favor. What you are suggesting is closer to totalitarianism. Collective action and privacy are compatible concepts. In fact, spying on other indicates the lack of a belief in the possibility of collective cohesion.

 

Sounds good. I'm a totalitarian that supports the Big Brother approach...

 

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about? If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want, but the point is that I don't think listening to phone calls hurts anyone that much and I do think getting blown up hurts people a lot. So I think trading away untapped phone calls for more security benefits society as a whole

Well, obviously the point of previous posts is being missed, so here's another try.

 

The stated assumption about one's own "security" superseding everyone else's privacy is individualistic. The bolded words above show a self-centered frame of reference. Even if the post ends with "community as a whole" or "society as a whole," it is still coming from a world view based on the individual self, as opposed to self-in-relationship. Collectivism is not a collection of independent beings, but the relationships between interdependent beings.

 

The individualist ethic sees privacy and security as competing rights. So it is assumed that less privacy means more security. On the contrary, psychological evidence shows a direct relationship between less privacy and less security. This is, of course, counterintuitive to the individualist point of view that perceives interests as competing. However, if you consider the relationship between privacy and security it is obvious why a mutual spiral of decline exists. The anxiety created by undue observation can have an affect on people's behavior and frame of reference. The structural creation of perceived conflicting interests will influence people to view each others as a threat. In this environment of fear -- where people feel insecure, anxious, and threatened -- people are more likely to be a threat to others.

 

This isn't even taking into account the fact that more law enforcement does not make the victims of official and institutional violence any more secure. Just the opposite, the spying will benefit those in power at the expense of oppressed groups -- women, minorities, the poor, etc. -- and those with views counter to the establishment, which people are less likely to take under government surveillance.

 

Now you're just being silly bolding every single "I" and all. Daniel, basically everyone I've talked to, except you, understands what I mean by privacy being considered more individualistic and national security being more collective. If I went around using your definition of things I think nobody would understand what I'm talking about

 

Also, I don't think concerns about personal privacy are the reason that some Arab-Americans want to kill/bomb/etc other Americans. I think they are angry because America supports Israel and because of other foreign policy decisions in the mid east

[Guest]

Now you're just being silly bolding every single "I" and all. Daniel, basically everyone I've talked to, except you, understands what I mean by privacy being considered more individualistic and national security being more collective. If I went around using your definition of things I think nobody would understand what I'm talking about

The bolding of first person singular pronouns is relevant to the discussion: it shows reasoning based on a self-centered, me-oriented position. Ignorance of a we-oriented position doesn't mean a bandwagon can change the basic meaning of individualism and collectivism.

 

Whether conscious of it or not, there are theoretical assumptions behind what we advocate. An unawareness of the basic individualist theory underlining our assumptions only creates more confusion and less understanding. If a person is inexperience with the difference individualism and collectivism, that does little to excuse others' failing to understand the difference. It is absurd to use inappropriate terminology because others are unfamiliar with what is appropriate. That is a clear case of the blind leading the blind.

 

Also, I don't think concerns about personal privacy are the reason that some Arab-Americans want to kill/bomb/etc other Americans. I think they are angry because America supports Israel and because of other foreign policy decisions in the mid east

Actually, Arab-Americans don't want to harm other Americans. That's a very racist statement. It is also irrelevant, as we know the government is not just spying on citizens of Arab descent. Nor does it address the cultivation of fear that affects all citizens. A fear that leads some of us to say obnoxious thing like "Arab-Americans want to kill/bomb/etc other Americans."

[Jay]

Will did not say anything remotely racist. You strawmaned him. That wasn't a very nice thing to do.

[Jay]

But seriously, who cares if the FBI listens to your phone calls. I mean what is everyone talking about on the phone that you have to be so secretive about?

There are two reasons to hide something:

1. You're doing something wrong.

2. Someone else with power over you is doing something wrong.

 

Number 2 applies here. They have been targeting political opponents/peace activists/etc. It was only 50 years ago that people were blacklisted for holding socialists/communists views. 30 years ago peace groups were infiltrated/spied upon. 4 months ago I was suddenly escorted from the building I worked at. I am thinking about filing an FOA. Maybe they got rid of me because I was vegan? Currently the ACLU is filing a lawsuit concerning some people who were targeted by DHS apparently for being vegan. Maybe they found out about my socialist views? My job did require a top secret clearance and was funded by DHS.

 

The idea of not having privacy in order to increase security sounds good in theory, but reality has clearly indicated that the US government will abuse such power.

 

If you don't want to call what I call collectivism, then call it whatever you want..

I don't have a problem with it being called collectivist.

[Guest]

Will did not say anything remotely racist. You strawmaned him. That wasn't a very nice thing to do.

It is sensible to oppose the uncalled for introduced of race into the discussion. Especially when members of a particular race are arbitrarily being singled out as a threat to others. This is a discussion about law enforcement, and the practice by law enforcement of using ethnic background as grounds for suspicion is racial profiling, a form of racism.

 

My position -- supported by the research of Gerbner, Kohn, and others -- is that spying will not make people more secure (especially the oppressed), which is different than saying terrorism results from a lack of privacy. So in addition to being racially-incorrect, the Arab-Americans comment was itself a straw person. However, while the comment was a distraction, it does illustrate the very real problem of racial profiling. Another reason to oppose the administration's use of surveillance.

[CrispyQ]

After 9/11 Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

by Robert Steinback

 

(emphasis added is mine)

 

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13487511.htm

 

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

 

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

 

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

 

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

 

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

 

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

 

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

 

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

 

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

 

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

 

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

 

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

 

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

 

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

 

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

 

=====

 

I like where he asks if Patrick Henry would have been remembered for saying: "What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

[CrispyQ]

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL728/2745263/7447807/124417870.jpg

[neil]

great comic.

 

even though giving up some of our privacy might not be that big of a deal, it's a bit different when you're not white. i know many non-white friends that get pulled over (etc.) a lot more often than white friends.

 

and i see this as a real problem...

 

They have been targeting political opponents/peace activists/etc. It was only 50 years ago that people were blacklisted for holding socialists/communists views. 30 years ago peace groups were infiltrated/spied upon. 4 months ago I was suddenly escorted from the building I worked at.

yep. and the spying on peace activists has definitely happened recently.

 

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?

Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

Dec. 14, 2005

 

i agree that this is a step towards fascism. reminds me of cointelpro (the counter intelligence program).

here's an article:

COINTELPRO Again?

and an excerpt:

Some fear that something like COINTELPRO may again be at hand. There are undercover agents infiltrating peaceful protests in America. Pretending to be political activists, local law enforcement officials are monitoring the activities of advocacy and protest groups based on what one judge calls those organizations’ "political philosophies and conduct protected under the First Amendment."

 

the bush administration is ruling by fear. if the u.s. population is afraid, it will go along with almost whatever they want.

 

the actual risk of being hurt by any terrorist attack is incredibly slim. even for me living in washington d.c. i believe getting in a car is more dangerous (over 50,000 people die every year in traffic accidents).

[CrispyQ]

the bush administration is ruling by fear. if the u.s. population is afraid, it will go along with almost whatever they want.

 

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." FDR

 

 

I'm sad to see how many Americans are willing to give up their liberites in exchange for the promise of safety. The current administration had plenty of info prior to 9/11 that something was up, for example, the August 6th President's Daily Brief. They still did nothing -- took no precautions, issued no warnings. Their arrogance & incompetence is stunning & shameful. Why do people think with more information these same people will perform any better in the future?

 

 

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL728/2745263/7447807/124536466.jpg

 

 

the actual risk of being hurt by any terrorist attack is incredibly slim. even for me living in washington d.c. i believe getting in a car is more dangerous (over 50,000 people die every year in traffic accidents).

 

I wish more people would see the risk in this light. In his book "Dude, Where's My Country?" Michael Moore states that in 2001 more people died from suicide than from 9/11 so in essence, you are in more danger of dying from your own hand than you are from a terrorist attack.

 

---

[CrispyQ]

Turnabout is fair play!

 

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL728/2745263/7447807/128793159.jpg

 

 

[CollegeB]

I believe crispy asked how far will this type of thing go. Well my response has come out of Bush's own mouth concerning the constitution (and all the liberties stated in it) "it's just a goddamned piece of paper." (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) So bush does not care, and thats fine, things wont get any better with any president either. Politicians are not the solution but the problem.

 

 

 

but if you dont like the spying and are looking for a party which values liberty check out the libertarian party (lp.org). The greens are also a fine choice. Just dont support the war party (dems and reps) anymore if you are fed up with the end our country is headed to (total fascism)

[CrispyQ]

CollegeB, I changed my party affiliation the day Kerry conceded the 2004 selection without mention of electronic voting issues. Currently, I am without a party.

 

I will check out the libertarians. I like the Greens because they address corporate personhood in their platform & I cannot sign up with a party that does not recognize this issue as a critical problem with our current state of affairs.

 

You are right that the dems & gop are simply different sides of the same coin -- they both serve corporate interests.