NationStates Jolt Archive

Big Brother rears his ugly head yet again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080212/47b127d0_3ca6_1552620080212-1169036964).

My God, January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Fuck, not again!

My sentiments exactly. When will the fascist bastards ever give up?

My guess: never.

I guess the same.

Fuck, not again!

I'm too lazy to read the article.

*looks over at camera*:eek:

Too lazy.

Nutshell: Liberty suffers another kick in the 'nads, the prospect of fascism in America becomes greater.

My sentiments exactly. When will the fascist bastards ever give up?

My guess: never.

I'm too lazy to read the article.

*looks over at camera*:eek:

Too lazy.

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security

Liberty can never be sacrificed. If I have to choose between liberty or security, I will always choose the former, without hesitation.

Big Brother rears his ugly head yet again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080212/47b127d0_3ca6_1552620080212-1169036964).

My God, January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Since the Senate is controlled by the Dems, shouldn't you be blaming them too? After all, they're the ones that approved this.

Since the Senate is controlled by the Dems, shouldn't you be blaming them too? After all, they're the ones that approved this.

I blame everyone who voted for this repugnant legislation.

Real Americans oppose tyranny in any form whatsoever. I'm not one to throw around the "unamerican" label recklessly, but anyone who thinks the government in its current form will ever act in the best interests of ordinary citizens is either ignorant of history or willfully stupid.

Dims and Pubbies work for the special interest groups who pay them the most. There are only a handful from each party (at the national level) who are honest, trustworthy, conscientious statesmen. The rest - well, it may be too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the ba$tards.

QFT

Real Americans oppose tyranny in any form whatsoever. I'm not one to throw around the "unamerican" label recklessly, but anyone who thinks the government in its current form will ever act in the best interests of ordinary citizens is either ignorant of history or willfully stupid.

Dims and Pubbies work for the special interest groups who pay them the most. There are only a handful from each party (at the national level) who are honest, trustworthy, conscientious statesmen. The rest - well, it may be too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the ba$tards.

Ron Paul is the closest candidate to my point of view. The rest are disturbingly fascist.

I'm too young to remember even most of the Clinton years, but didn't we already have a surveillance program in place called Echelon that was more severe than this? Why is stuff like this being deliberated when it was already in place?
Confused.:confused:

Real Americans oppose tyranny in any form whatsoever. I'm not one to throw around the "unamerican" label recklessly, but anyone who thinks the government in its current form will ever act in the best interests of ordinary citizens is either ignorant of history or willfully stupid.

Dims and Pubbies work for the special interest groups who pay them the most. There are only a handful from each party (at the national level) who are honest, trustworthy, conscientious statesmen. The rest - well, it may be too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the ba$tards.



High five.

Yet another power grab for the benefit of a political elite at the expense of private citizens, using the newest crisis to make them hand over their liberties. They'll just keep taking and taking...

Yep.

Big Brother rears his ugly head yet again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080212/47b127d0_3ca6_1552620080212-1169036964).

My God, January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.

What bothers me about this is not so much the immunity for the companies as immunity for the officials.

I can't understand why the democrats in Congress who swept into office on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment are so determined to do everything they can for him. Not only are they selling out America, they're selling out themselves. It could only help them to send him the bill without immunity and let him veto it so that democrats can campaign on "look! republican's won't protect you!"

What bothers me about this is not so much the immunity for the companies as immunity for the officials.

I can't understand why the democrats in Congress who swept into office on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment are so determined to do everything they can for him. Not only are they selling out America, they're selling out themselves. It could only help them to send him the bill without immunity and let him veto it so that democrats can campaign on "look! republican's won't protect you!"

Because the Democrats are pusillanimous weasels without spine or scruple, who care only about getting elected. Fucking traitors.

Good to know the Democratic Congress has successfully proved it is equally as bad as its Republican predecessor. In fact, they've managed to achieve a lower approval rating, which is quite an achievement.

And let's not forget the greatest irony; this crisis is entirely the fault of the Feds and their hyper-aggressive foreign policy, the cost of which is also borne not by politicians but by those on the periphery.

No, no, no, Venndee, you're wrong.

They attacked us because they hate our freedoms.







Yes, I'm being 100% sarcastic.

Yet another power grab for the benefit of a political elite at the expense of private citizens, using the newest crisis to make them hand over their liberties. They'll just keep taking and taking...

Because Federal politicians share a common interest; the strengthening of the Federal government. Sure, they tell the voters that they are against Bush's policies, but behind closed doors they make their deals with one another by the particular interests who control them both. (See rational ignorance, rent-seeking and iron triangles.)

Young man, go to the head of the class.

Yep.

And let's not forget the greatest irony; this crisis is entirely the fault of the Feds and their hyper-aggressive foreign policy, the cost of which is also borne not by politicians but by those on the periphery.

I can't understand why the democrats in Congress who swept into office on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment are so determined to do everything they can for him.

Because Federal politicians share a common interest; the strengthening of the Federal government. Sure, they tell the voters that they are against Bush's policies, but behind closed doors they make their deals with one another by the particular interests who control them both. (See rational ignorance, rent-seeking and iron triangles.)

Edit: This is why Republican politicians bluster about how they're going to cut the size of the Federal government and taxes, but then cut the taxes in a way so as to benefit their friends while making us pay for their increases in spending through debt.

Nutshell: Liberty suffers another kick in the 'nads, the prospect of fascism in America becomes greater.

Fascism's not too bad...Fascism is fun (http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4-wicKsoi0)

:p

The president called the Senate bill a good piece of legislation that allows the intelligence community to monitor communications of foreign terrorists while protecting Americans' liberties.

Yeah...let's protect civil liberties by taking them away...

OK, for starters, if you are not living in the US, tell us so we will know that in advance.

Secondly, to quote a famous persona, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I believe that we are just learning how to be vigilant. If you want an example of how vigilant we have to be, look at Israel.

Thirdly, what do you have to hide? Frankly, I don't care if the government reads my e-mail and listens to my telephone calls if it saves lives. That said, I also believe that many of these provisions can easily be taken too far by those who are not working for the good of the American people. This has always been true and it will always be true as long as human beings are involved in the process. Humans are inherently flawed, nothing we do is perfect and nothing we create is perfect. Live with it.

Fourthly, to quote another famous persona, (liberty is not the freedom to do what we want, it is the responsibility to do as we ought." The question those who oppose measures intended for their own good need to ask is, Are you doing what you ought?

Yeah...let's protect civil liberties by taking them away...

Kind of like destroying the village in order to save it, huh?

Fascism's not too bad...Fascism is fun (http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4-wicKsoi0)

I love the wonderful stylings of commenter GoogleJewWatch, who has kindly informed everyone on that video's comments, that we're actually just slaves to the Neo-Jew Gestapo (irony!) who wants to instate Apartheid in South Africa against the Semitic people.

...Or something about as retarded.

I love the wonderful stylings of commenter GoogleJewWatch, who has kindly informed everyone on that video's comments, that we're actually just slaves to the Neo-Jew Gestapo (irony!) who wants to instate Apartheid in South Africa against the Semitic people.

...Or something about as retarded.

WTF

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/civil-liberties.jpg

WTF

So I embelished a little. Anyway, GoogleJEWWATCH is one of the people who left a comment on the video that New Manvir posted. His wonderful gems include,

Osama Bin Laden is deead, he was a CIA agent.The CIA trick the Muslim world into believe that Osama was their hero, it's turn out that 911 was an inside(a USA Zionist government ) job. Osama get on TV with the help of the CIA claiming that he is responsible for 911, and the stupid Muslims believe Osama lies.What a bunch of moron.

You hear that, you goddamned Muslims? You're stupid!

Oh, and who could forget his classic:

The war was not fought for oil, we went to wars in the middle east to fight for our masters, the Neocon, Zionist Jew, and the racist aparthied state of Israeli. We sacrifice our kids for the racist aparthied state of Israeli, so the Gestapo Jew's kids can have a better life than our dead (kids)soldiers.

Y'know, 'cuz the US is real big on sending our children to fight wars.

'Course, when this (http://youtube.com/user/GoogleJEWWATCH) is his bio, whaddya expect?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/civil-liberties.jpg

[/thread]

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security

O'Rly? I think a wiser, more learned man than yourself has to disagree with your thoughts on that...

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security


Well I am a Fascist, and I don't like this particular peice of legislation. In reagards to wars, if a state can not survive because of the (lack of) effort of its free population, then it does not deserve to survive.

Well I am a Fascist, and I don't like this particular peice of legislation. In reagards to wars, if a state can not survive because of the (lack of) effort of its free population, then it does not deserve to survive.

:eek:

:eek:

Boggles the mind, doesn't it? :p

w00t! 400 posts!

Boggles the mind, doesn't it? :p

w00t! 400 posts!

Indeed

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security

Congratulations, you deserve neither liberty nor security.

No, no, no, Venndee, you're wrong.

They attacked us because they hate our freedoms.

Yes, I'm being 100% sarcastic.

Why? Seriously just think a second without any prejudice or notions and just hear me out. Open minded.

First, remember a lot of this is history, not just because it has a great punch-line like "here's the evil", but because there is some truth to the fact that extremest islamics do believe that our freedoms are corrupting their people and we are infecting them with our 'wrong' beliefs. Look at this year's statement and actions by saudi arabia against valentine's day. They stated that not only is it an non-islamic holiday, but that it corrupts the people by creating inappropriate feelings and actions between unmarried people.

They have stated that or culture of allowing women freedom is wrong and now infecting their young women with ideas (like how being a hair dresser or underground beauty shop owner is punishable by death, and young men dating unmarried women without escort will have them both publicly beaten). Remember, radical islamic people believe that women must have the permission of their fathers or husbands to marry, divorce, have a job or become educated. Men who do not treat their wives in a certain way or follow a certain line are punished by the religious enforcers.

Take for instance..it's 6:30 am in the morning. The air is clear with a touch of night still whispy against the curtains of your room. The calender on the back of your door says November 4, 1979. 500 radical students, known world-wide later as the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" gather at the front gates of the US embassy to protest as they had been doing nearly ever day. A few 'heads' of this group arrive and brief the rest of the students on their plan to take the embassy. A female student was given a pair of metal cutters to break the chains locking the embassy's gates, and she hid them beneath her robes.

The crowd overran the soldiers and staff and paraded them blindfolded in front of photographers. Six American diplomats avoided capture when the embassy was seized and found refuge at the nearby Canadian and Swedish embassies in Tehran for three months. The Islamic Revolution in Iran had occurred.

Why? Because they blamed American not only for their economic troubles but were outraged of the culture of America and the Western World. Many things we had were considered immoral and threatened to undo the teachings and firm control the religious leaders had over their people. Some were jealous of how prosperous the west was, however most were just outraged at what they considered the infection to their country from the western world.

Now I am not saying that US Policy had nothing to do with it...certainly it did. The US came in contact with the middle east about the time we were stretching our legs as a nation and feeling the power of our might after WWI and WWII. We were arrogant and bold. We pushed for what wasn't ours and treated the people there like lesser humans. (for that I am truly sorry as an American) It set the stage for our later dealings with the middle east.

I do say that it's easier to hate a nation that has 'screwed you' and interfered with internal politics if they also have a culture which clashes with yours.

The leaders behind the people know the score...it's about power to them (oh some of them believe in the cultures being different but some are there just for the power over the people). The common man on the street believes that it is our culture that destroys their nation. I've been there and spoke with some of them openly (before the first gulf war, and after the second). Some are fixed in their hatred while others will listen and accept you as a human...not a 'satan'. Often the younger they are, the less reason they have and the more filled with unreasonable hatred they are. Often but not always...but isn't that the way of teenagers the world over (latching onto one idea and not letting go, or truly listening to the other sides argument.)

There are many other examples but to keep this short I will just say this. There are those out there that do honestly believe killing Americans is justified. Some believe that sacrificing themselves to kill dozens of other people is needed and acceptable. If there had been noone willing to sacrifice themselves, we wouldn't have car bombings, 9-11(I hate using it as it's often over played for the wrong reasons), the Iran Hostage Crisis, Irani gunboats attacking US service ships in the gulf (back during the Iran/Iraq war), aircraft hijackings, or secret training camps designed to make and train terrorists.

Extremists do believe strongly in what they believe and some will kill non-believers or those that are perceived as corrupting other, less dedicated and strong willed Islamic people.

So yes, there are some out there that hate the very culture we enjoy (strong willed and independent women free to make their own choices, freedom to worship however a person wishes (Within reason), being able to speak out against whatever we desire, and choosing to ignore any religious statement if you so wanted), hate the freedoms given to us (as it conflicts with what they believe is their god's spoke stance on how women should be treated and people should act), and believe we are a taint on this earth to be eradicated. They don't plan to stop...ever. The very idea would mean they would need to give up their doctrine and allow in the very freedoms and ideas that they believe is destroying their people already. It would mean that they were not strong enough people to stand up against (And beat back or eradicate) the stain - the taint - of our culture. That would mean they were not strong enough to defend their god's will, and heathens have beaten them. It's a mix between hatred, fear, believe and righteousness. It's one ideal saying that everyone belongs and all religions and beliefs are accepted, while another believes that their religion is the only true one and the rest of the world is immoral, corrupt and decedent.

It's not a war we can win. Ideals is what wars have been fought over in the middle east for centuries. Do you see that fighting between the tribes has stopped? No, they still fight it out, even today.

So yes, some do hate our freedoms. Some do wish every American would be dead. Then again, some radical Christians believe very much the same about Islamic people. Mainly it is because of our foreign policies and actions abroad however, some do believe we are evil.

Some..not all. Remember the *only* nation to speak out in support of the 9/11 attack was Iraq. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lybia and even Afghanistan spoke out against the attacks. In Iran, thousands participated in candlelit vigils, while a minute's silence was held at Tehran's football stadium. Most common people in the world just want to live their lives and let others live theirs. I don't care how they live, and they don't mind how I live. The extremest do, however. (Also, stating that we should turn the middle east into a 'glass parking lot' is nieve and irrational. Do you believe the US should be turned into a glass parking lot every time some idiot botches something in Iraq or some idiot american commits a crime overseas and creates a big stir?)

I say, we should all understand and accept each other, allowing everyone to live how they wish to live. Take it as you will.

I think the fact that 40 people filed lawsuits proves that this isn't for surveilling terrorists and foreigners.

Bush thinks he is some master bullshit salesman - if he tries to sell the same bullshit enough, people will buy it.

i am not a facist but some times liberty must temporarily be sacrificed or limited to ensure security and honeslty now, world war ii, and the civil war are the only wars where civil liberties are temporarily less security

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" -Thomas Jefferson

These two brilliant men said it all ...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" -Thomas Jefferson

These two brilliant men said it all ...

Granted, Jefferson did say that all men were created equal while owning slaves, so he wasn't the posterchild for consistency.

I'm too lazy to read the article.

*looks over at camera*:eek:

Too lazy.

:D

That won't help you when the knock on door at 3am happens though.

Liberty can never be sacrificed. If I have to choose between liberty or security, I will always choose the former, without hesitation.

Seconded.

Granted, Jefferson did say that all men were created equal while owning slaves, so he wasn't the posterchild for consistency.

That would be a slippery-slope, in my opinion, but yes he did indeed own slaves.

The Constitution states that "Slaves" are to be considered 3/5ths a man, for census purposes of course. This helps relate to the mentality of the time, in general, towards African slaves. Look up and read the "Slave Clause" in the Constitution for a more accurate description; I believe it is the 5th or 6th Article.

Anywho, no I'm not saying he or anyone who held that belief was right, nor am I excusing anything. Simply that you can't look at one piece of the picture and pretend to know what the whole painting looks like.

Jefferson was given all his slaves from his father and most people don't know that Jefferson died $150,000 in debt, which is the reason he kept his slaves, until his death bed, in which he freed all but four if I'm not mistaken. And he refused to free those four slaves because, as was the law in Virginia at the time, all freed slaves were forbidden to live in the state. He knew they would have a difficult task ahead of them, so he kept them in the family, to live at Monticello, hoping that the laws would change in their lifetime to better suit them. Jefferson also introduced legislation into the General Assembly, when he was a legislator there, to abolish the institution of slavery in Virginia. Of course Virginia would have no part of that and shot it down, but Jefferson continued to champion the rights of slaves while serving in the G.A..

Fuck, not again!
Gotta get everything done while there's sympathy in all the right places.
:mad:

That would be a slippery-slope, in my opinion, but yes he did indeed own slaves.

The Constitution states that "Slaves" are to be considered 3/5ths a man, for census purposes of course. This helps relate to the mentality of the time, in general, towards African slaves. Look up and read the "Slave Clause" in the Constitution for a more accurate description; I believe it is the 5th or 6th Article.

Anywho, no I'm not saying he or anyone who held that belief was right, nor am I excusing anything. Simply that you can't look at one piece of the picture and pretend to know what the whole painting looks like.

Jefferson was given all his slaves from his father and most people don't know that Jefferson died $150,000 in debt, which is the reason he kept his slaves, until his death bed, in which he freed all but four if I'm not mistaken. And he refused to free those four slaves because, as was the law in Virginia at the time, all freed slaves were forbidden to live in the state. He knew they would have a difficult task ahead of them, so he kept them in the family, to live at Monticello, hoping that the laws would change in their lifetime to better suit them. Jefferson also introduced legislation into the General Assembly, when he was a legislator there, to abolish the institution of slavery in Virginia. Of course Virginia would have no part of that and shot it down, but Jefferson continued to champion the rights of slaves while serving in the G.A..

Well, there goes my argument like a bird versus a mortar. Didn't know that about Jefferson, though. Kind of changes my opinion of him back to a positive one.

"You don't lose your rights when you leave American soil," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an interview. Wyden wrote the provision into the bill when it was still being considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. "In the digital age, an American's rights shouldn't depend on their physical geography."

Oh noes! I hope forums just like this are immune to such drivel.