This is scary
-
Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (Alex Jones) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661[^] It's a long documentary but well worth watching.
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut case. I wouldn't trust him that much...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Oakman wrote:
I think there is a real issue about individual freedom
I think there's an even more fundamental debate to be had - what is freedom?
100% pure freedom is anarchy. Everything else is a mixture of authoritarianism and anarchy. :)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Oakman wrote:
I think there is a real issue about individual freedom
I think there's an even more fundamental debate to be had - what is freedom?
martin_hughes wrote:
I think there's an even more fundamental debate to be had - what is freedom?
Easy - freedom is the state of being responsible for your own damned welfare. The real debate is how to deal with threats from those who wish to take that freedom away. If you do not wish to increase security, than you have no choice but either initiate offesnsive miliatry operations against them, or to attempt to reach some kind of accomodation with them. Those are the only options. The notion that you cannot defend youself against an external threat because doing that would require you to (a) increase security or (b) kill people is not just stupid it is insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
martin_hughes wrote:
I think there's an even more fundamental debate to be had - what is freedom?
Easy - freedom is the state of being responsible for your own damned welfare. The real debate is how to deal with threats from those who wish to take that freedom away. If you do not wish to increase security, than you have no choice but either initiate offesnsive miliatry operations against them, or to attempt to reach some kind of accomodation with them. Those are the only options. The notion that you cannot defend youself against an external threat because doing that would require you to (a) increase security or (b) kill people is not just stupid it is insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Easy - freedom is the state of being responsible for your own damned welfare.
Not giving a damn about your own, or anyone else's welfare, is more free than your definition. The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Easy - freedom is the state of being responsible for your own damned welfare.
Not giving a damn about your own, or anyone else's welfare, is more free than your definition. The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benj Franklin
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benj Franklin
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
That statement does not apply when the threat is of muslim origin. Or so the neo-cons say...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
That statement does not apply when the threat is of muslim origin. Or so the neo-cons say...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That statement does not apply when the threat is of muslim origin. Or so the neo-cons say...
I have noticed that - and we have "Jeffersonian" Conservatives espousing the concept of having grandchildren pay for the Iraq war "I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity ... is but swindling futurity on a large scale." . . . T. Jefferson.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That statement does not apply when the threat is of muslim origin. Or so the neo-cons say...
I have noticed that - and we have "Jeffersonian" Conservatives espousing the concept of having grandchildren pay for the Iraq war "I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity ... is but swindling futurity on a large scale." . . . T. Jefferson.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
and we have "Jeffersonian" Conservatives espousing the concept of having grandchildren pay for the Iraq war
Who would that be?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benj Franklin
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benj Franklin
You do realize, don't you, that he said that in reference to what would today be considreed welfare spending - not protecting the nation from attack.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Easy - freedom is the state of being responsible for your own damned welfare.
Not giving a damn about your own, or anyone else's welfare, is more free than your definition. The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Not giving a damn about your own, or anyone else's welfare, is more free than your definition.
That would be the freedom of suicide, but yes you are correct, it would be more free.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The issue is, how much, or too little freedom, are you ready to accept? Freedom for some, may be tyranny for others. Freedom is a slippery noun...
Which is precisely why being responsible for you own welfare is the most precise definition. Being free to participate in how the tyranny essential for the survival of civilization is defined would be an important part of being responsible for oneself.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:31:33 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benj Franklin
You do realize, don't you, that he said that in reference to what would today be considreed welfare spending - not protecting the nation from attack.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that he said that in reference to what would today be considreed welfare spending - not protecting the nation from attack.
I can't imagine where you got that idea, but someone led you astray. He said it in a book which was discussing the raising and arming of a militia to defend rural colonists from attacks by Amerinds. Today that would be considered defense spending, not welfare spending.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that he said that in reference to what would today be considreed welfare spending - not protecting the nation from attack.
I can't imagine where you got that idea, but someone led you astray. He said it in a book which was discussing the raising and arming of a militia to defend rural colonists from attacks by Amerinds. Today that would be considered defense spending, not welfare spending.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
No, he said it in relation to a measure relating to raising public funds for welfare purposes.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
No, he said it in relation to a measure relating to raising public funds for welfare purposes.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
The name of the Book in which the quote is found is: "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" The quote is on the title page. It is excerpted from a letter from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1755. The book was produced as propaganda when Franklin was in London petitioning the King to get the heirs of Wm Penn to give the colonists money to buy guns for the Indians so they could defend the colonists against the Indians that the French were arming. for details see: ^
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (Alex Jones) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661[^] It's a long documentary but well worth watching.
Neat, his primary source of information is immigrant cab drivers. Wee! Isn't conspiracy theory fun. What's this moron gonna do when Bush steps down in 2008 instead of becoming the king of America?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:12:10 PM
-
The name of the Book in which the quote is found is: "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" The quote is on the title page. It is excerpted from a letter from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1755. The book was produced as propaganda when Franklin was in London petitioning the King to get the heirs of Wm Penn to give the colonists money to buy guns for the Indians so they could defend the colonists against the Indians that the French were arming. for details see: ^
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
I can't find my citation now, but in any case I will quote both Jefferson: A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and Lincoln: I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. on the same subject. Further, how does Franklin trying to secure arms for frontier defense correlate in any way to you misquoting him in order to undermine our current efforts at self defense? Franklin was clearly not saying that efforts to defend the frontier represented a sacrifice of liberty, quite the opposite.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut case. I wouldn't trust him that much...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut case.
So is AndyKEnZ...
-
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut case. I wouldn't trust him that much...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Yeah, you know you're off your rocker when you think Mikey Moore isn't nutty enough.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I can't find my citation now, but in any case I will quote both Jefferson: A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and Lincoln: I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. on the same subject. Further, how does Franklin trying to secure arms for frontier defense correlate in any way to you misquoting him in order to undermine our current efforts at self defense? Franklin was clearly not saying that efforts to defend the frontier represented a sacrifice of liberty, quite the opposite.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can't find my citation now
Shall I remind you a week from now? And the week after that?... :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
I've never understood why Jefferson felt he was justifying the Louisiana Purchase with this construction. What danger was he saving the U.S. from? Of course all we have to do is compare his use of slaves as bed-warmers with his "all men are equal" pronouncements to realise how far from his practice was his preachment. A man so skilled in doublethink would have no problem believing he was saving the country by violating the constitution.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
Lincoln's claim that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, of which this is part, is on the face of it, true. On the other hand it is quite clear that the Declaration of Independence is a suicide pact in word and in deed: "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can't find my citation now
Shall I remind you a week from now? And the week after that?... :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
I've never understood why Jefferson felt he was justifying the Louisiana Purchase with this construction. What danger was he saving the U.S. from? Of course all we have to do is compare his use of slaves as bed-warmers with his "all men are equal" pronouncements to realise how far from his practice was his preachment. A man so skilled in doublethink would have no problem believing he was saving the country by violating the constitution.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
Lincoln's claim that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, of which this is part, is on the face of it, true. On the other hand it is quite clear that the Declaration of Independence is a suicide pact in word and in deed: "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the
Oakman wrote:
Of course most neocons seem quite anxious to fight for their country - to the last drop of everyone else's blood.
I'm less interested in physical sacrifice than in emotional sacrifice. It's easy to pick up a gun to fight a battle (well - ok - easier to gut react than to slow down and think; fighting a war actually takes alot of courage); it's much, much harder to accept your limitations, accept that some problems have unpleasant solutions, and learn to deal with the world as it is. To give a concrete example, we're often told that the infringement on our rights during wartime is necessary; that removing the right of habeas corpus from accused prisoners is somehow necessary; that wiretapping American citizens is a freedom we have to give up for the greater good. I'd find it interesting to actually uphold our principles and the freedoms our forebears fought for, despite the fact that it makes our lives harder. Yeah, it makes law enforcement's job harder. Yes, it ties one hand behind our back while our enemies are free to use both to pummel us. But it also will always and forever give us the high moral ground. And IF and WHEN our enemies are actually willing to listen, they might actually believe the things we say and come to understand and agree with us, instead of planning to stab us in the back.
Oakman wrote:
Thinking about issues is still OK isn't it - even in your vision of America?
Apparently, thinking about issues is only for sissies and homosexuals. REAL Americans do whatever their government tells them to do. Or so the conservative right in America has recently seemed to believe. Sad part is, 10 years ago I would have said I was a conservative. Not anymore. I believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, principals that have long since been abandoned by the conservative right. Now I don't know what the hell to call myself, because I sure as hell don't want a nanny state either.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
Of course most neocons seem quite anxious to fight for their country - to the last drop of everyone else's blood.
I'm less interested in physical sacrifice than in emotional sacrifice. It's easy to pick up a gun to fight a battle (well - ok - easier to gut react than to slow down and think; fighting a war actually takes alot of courage); it's much, much harder to accept your limitations, accept that some problems have unpleasant solutions, and learn to deal with the world as it is. To give a concrete example, we're often told that the infringement on our rights during wartime is necessary; that removing the right of habeas corpus from accused prisoners is somehow necessary; that wiretapping American citizens is a freedom we have to give up for the greater good. I'd find it interesting to actually uphold our principles and the freedoms our forebears fought for, despite the fact that it makes our lives harder. Yeah, it makes law enforcement's job harder. Yes, it ties one hand behind our back while our enemies are free to use both to pummel us. But it also will always and forever give us the high moral ground. And IF and WHEN our enemies are actually willing to listen, they might actually believe the things we say and come to understand and agree with us, instead of planning to stab us in the back.
Oakman wrote:
Thinking about issues is still OK isn't it - even in your vision of America?
Apparently, thinking about issues is only for sissies and homosexuals. REAL Americans do whatever their government tells them to do. Or so the conservative right in America has recently seemed to believe. Sad part is, 10 years ago I would have said I was a conservative. Not anymore. I believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, principals that have long since been abandoned by the conservative right. Now I don't know what the hell to call myself, because I sure as hell don't want a nanny state either.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick Sears wrote:
To give a concrete example, we're often told that the infringement on our rights during wartime is necessary; that removing the right of habeas corpus from accused prisoners is somehow necessary; that wiretapping American citizens is a freedom we have to give up for the greater good
My niece and her husband both lawyer for the DOJ. I asked them to justify not whether there might not be times when we needed to wiretap suspected terrorists (American or not) but rather, the claim that we just had to do it without the judicial oversite required by the law of the land. Neither could do so to their own satisfaction, let alone mine.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, principals that have long since been abandoned by the conservative right. Now I don't know what the hell to call myself
How about, "an American?" Seems to me that the Consies and the Libs have both forgotten what that used to stand for.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.