Pleasant thought of the day: fatherland security

[chaim]

Whether it is impolite, improper, or incorrect, JY has just as much free speech here to criticize as Oleg does to post the poster. (Please don't get into the whole its a private board thing, I'm speaking in generalities here)

I always find it funny when Person A says something, Person B says Person A is an idiot and then Person C starts yelling free speech. If there is going to be free speech then Person B has every right to state his opinion.

Um, please point out to me where I said JY doesn't have the right to say what he said. It is the US he certainly does. And while no one, except you, brought up the private board thing- it is, Oleg certainly has the right to say only people who agree with him can post here, though it would certainly make it a far less interesting place (I wouldn't post anymore).

What I did point out was that JY's posted opinion was pretty reprehensible. You disagree with something our President and/or our government is doing and you need to leave the country?! "Obviously" if you disagree with anything our country or our Great Leader does you must hate the U.S. While in so posting he certainly implies these statements, it is the idea of "love it or leave it" (and the implication that any disagreement="hate it") that is actually un-American. In America you are allowed, no it is your duty to state when you think our country and leaders are doing something immoral and/or illegal.

As for your second paragraph:

Person A says something, Person B says Person A is an idiot and then Person C starts yelling free speech.

The more correct sequence of events is:
Person A (Oleg) says something, person B (JY) says Person A is anti-American and should leave the country for stating an opinion contrary to the current Presidental and governmental position, Person C points out how reprehensible Person B's argument is (but with absolutely no comment on his right to say it).

To repeat, certainly JY has the right to say what he did (and to address YOUR bringing up the private forum thing- yes the mods would have the right to make what he said against the rules, but only YOU brought that up). I am an Orthodox Jew, I am not a big fan of the Neo-Nazis and I support their right to exist and say what they want, certainly I wouldn't oppose someone like JY from saying something that I think is wrong-headed (and NOWHERE near the level of what the Neo-Nazis are saying). That doesn't mean I can't speak up and say he is wrong or what he said was reprehensible.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I appreciate constructive criticism.

Not going anywhere. I prefer to keep US from resembling my former homeland, the USSR.

I went to Germany briefly in late 2004. Coming back to the US -- encountering customes and TSA -- felt like being stuck on a movie set about Nazis or Soviets. When US government workers are nastier and less civil to the rest of us than those in Germany, that's a bad sign.

I am not sure that torturing enemy combatants is legal yet. I am certain that it has been discussed seriously and that some people think that would be great. I'd like to convince them to change their minds. I do know that the definition of enemy combatant and the legal ability to hold people without charges or speedy trials has been much expanded.

 

[Manedwolf]

I am not sure that torturing enemy combatants is legal yet. I am certain that it has been discussed seriously and that some people think that would be great.

The question is...if when someone is declared an enemy combatatant, they have no right to an attorney, no right to a speedy trial, etc...how DO you know what's happened to them? Or, if falsely accused...what happens to you?

 

[USSR]

USSR,
Baloney. Naturalized citizens have no right more or less than a native citizen, Oleg has the very same right to free speech as you do whether you like his message or not. If you dislike his POV or the man himself, perhaps you should reconsider your relationship on this forum, because it's hypocritical to vomit up such rubbish in telling an American to leave the country and go somewhere else because they don't happen to trust our government but then use a forum that he provides to us free of charge as a common meeting ground to discuss and educate ourselves and others on the Second Amendment and civil liberties. I'm all with being able to criticize the folks that run this or any other board, but some of the comments are way out of line and seem to stem from a lack of an argument that can stand on its own and an absence of character and integrity on the part of those making the comments.

Umm, NineseveN, you want to show me where I said anyone should not have the freedom of speech or should leave this country? And now you are suggesting that if I dislike his point of view I "should reconsider your relationship on this forum". Seems to me like you're the one who wants to limit the freedom of speech here. And for you to judge that my "comments are way out of line and seem to stem from a lack of an argument that can stand on its own and an absence of character and integrity on the part of those making the comments.", is the height of hypocrisy. I have made my argument in a concise manner, that Mr. Volk's depiction has no merit in reality (as have several other posters) and is nothing more than fear mongering. You and several others here don't like it, so now you question my character and integrity. That's a real good way to win an argument.

People can criticize this particular type of message all they want (whether it's Oleg making it or someone else), but when that criticism illustrates a void in one's understanding of this country, why it was fought for and created and why the founding documents were constructed and worded as they are and the one being criticized obviously gets it, I'd rather have one of him than 5 of the rest of you in this country any day of the week.

I will gladly pit my knowledge of American and World history against yours any day. I have traveled extensively behind the former Iron Curtain, and have seen the legacy of Socialism. Can you say the same?

As for the rest of the gripers:

Maybe all of the so-called 'loonies' should go and make our own country where we're not only free to criticize and be suspicious of federal powers, but where our founders and our documents of law encourage such things...


Oh wait, they did...you're in it. Who let you people in?

Cute. Again, I will state, I wasn't "let in", I was always here, not that it matters. Funny how you want the freedom to criticize the federal government and be suspicious of federal powers, which you already have, but you want to deny me and others the right to criticize your and Mr. Volk's point of view? Hmmm, reminds me of Animal Farm's "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others".

Don

 

[george29]

Here's the difference between conventional warfare and war-with-terror; in conventional warfare, the loser changes it's previous manner to adopt to the winners mentality, war-with-terror; the loser loses when it changes its own manner to adopt to its opponents manner. That's why keeping our rights and those of others are more important than ever. Terrorists seek to change our thinking, don't let them.

As a post script, we will only win this thing when we stop debating the meaning of everything and make our foes understand that we have as much stamina as they do. Our bickering (in the media) shows them they have a leg to stand on. A faithful Muslim doesn't debate, ever!

We need to understand that this is the real deal, and like with the Israeli-Arab conflict, is here to stay, it will never end without mushroom clouds over our enemies strongholds. This is reality, and since no politician has the guts to end it here and now (as the Israeli's didn't), it will be a part of us for generations.

 

[Manedwolf]

I have made my argument in a concise manner, that Mr. Volk's depiction has no merit in reality (as have several other posters) and is nothing more than fear mongering.

Fear mongering? Wow. Pot calling kettle black. Fear mongering. Like our Homeland Panic Color Code system? Or:

or

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Jesus.

I remember how shocked I was to see police in German airports sporting submachineguns.

Now we've gotten that low ourselves, I see?

My thinking then was "me and a 2 buddies could take that chick and that dude out unarmed and have a couple of MP5's to play with." For reference, it doesn't look much harder now.

I want my country back. Where's my crying smiley?

 

[Manedwolf]

About that shot with the SMGs, that's at Logan Airport in Boston, and no, they're not responding to anything, just walking around. A place that ironically denies their own citizens such toys, but...lets their regular state police, and yes, those are regular state police officers, not any sort of specially trained sorts...tramp around a crowded terminal with SMGs as if that'd somehow deter terrorists.

There's just something wrong with that. One, that has no deterrent value to people who are more likely to try to smuggle small items, not engage in a firefight, two, as you said, it probably wouldn't be too hard for some determined sorts to take those SMGs AWAY from them and use them instead, and three... there just isn't likely to ever BE any threat in an airport terminal that would require suppressive fire, it'd just endanger innocent bystanders, and making an airport or any other public area on American soil look like a third-world border outpost in danger of occupation is just fundamentally...wrong. On so many levels.

Fear. Fear has won. Unreasoned, illogical fear. I want my country back, too.

 

[STAGE 2]

Um, please point out to me where I said JY doesn't have the right to say what he said.

It's implied in your statement. He should have kept X to himself rather than say it because X is reprehensible (in your eyes).

The more correct sequence of events is:
Person A (Oleg) says something, person B (JY) says Person A is anti-American and should leave the country for stating an opinion contrary to the current Presidental and governmental position, Person C points out how reprehensible Person B's argument is (but with absolutely no comment on his right to say it).

Yes, but the essence of your comment still implies that he should not have said it.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

While I don't necessarily agree with Oleg's poster, I find it a useful tool to keep the Gov in line. Our Government is notorious for bending over backward to prove public opinion wrong. I offer "racial profiling" as proof. When this was being yapped about during post 9/11, I watched in horror as so many people of middle-eastern descent were joyfully ushered through with a gracious thank-you, while my wife, in her wheelchair, was practically strip-searched, causing a real problem between me and an idiotic security guard, whom, to this day I would've loved to knock down. And before anybody posts that they suppose I think the mid-easterners should have been checked over better, my answer is a resounding YES.

Call it whatever you want, but the terror attacks weren't organized or implemented by a tiny white woman in a wheelchair.

 

[NineseveN]

Umm, NineseveN, you want to show me where I said anyone should not have the freedom of speech or should leave this country? And now you are suggesting that if I dislike his point of view I "should reconsider your relationship on this forum". Seems to me like you're the one who wants to limit the freedom of speech here. And for you to judge that my "comments are way out of line and seem to stem from a lack of an argument that can stand on its own and an absence of character and integrity on the part of those making the comments.", is the height of hypocrisy. I have made my argument in a concise manner, that Mr. Volk's depiction has no merit in reality (as have several other posters) and is nothing more than fear mongering. You and several others here don't like it, so now you question my character and integrity. That's a real good way to win an argument.

First, if you go back and read your post #70, you made a comment that seemed to be in some form of support for Johnny Yuma's sentiment made in post #58 stating that Oleg should go back home because he doesn't like Oleg's exercise of his First Amendment rights, that's where my reply to you came in. If you did not mean to imply that you support constitutionally-retarded views such as espoused by Johnny Yuma, perhaps it would improve your standing in the argument to clarify that. Of course, you’d still have to square yourself away on the stupid "loony left" comment, which I also responded to in that post.

I did not tell you to leave the forum, it's not my place nor my aim, what I said, while I was under the impression that you supported JY's comments (and those like them) based on your response to me (which was in part, a response to him), was that if you truly don't like what Oleg has to say enough to label him and others that agree with him as the "loony left" and other such witty labels and would go so far as to suggest he leave this country because of his views, then it's a bit hypocritical to make a home here on a forum that he provides so that we may discuss these things. This isn't the real world, there is no First Amendment on this or any other forum, you may speak your mind, and even say ignorant things to and about the proprietor only because he allows you to. That's a position that some folks need to reconcile with. It's up to you whether or not you fit that particular mold or not.

If you're going to make snide remarks about people, suggest they leave the country because of their views or appear to support those that do such thing, then yes, my personal opinion is that this is due to one not having an argument that can stand on its own and an absence of character and integrity on the part of the insulters.

Cute. Again, I will state, I wasn't "let in", I was always here, not that it matters. Funny how you want the freedom to criticize the federal government and be suspicious of federal powers, which you already have, but you want to deny me and others the right to criticize your and Mr. Volk's point of view? Hmmm, reminds me of Animal Farm's "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others".

I don't care if you criticize whatever you want, making snide and insulting remarks such as "The loony left is WELL represented on this site" is an issue to me. Criticize does not equal insult.

I will gladly pit my knowledge of American and World history against yours any day. I have traveled extensively behind the former Iron Curtain, and have seen the legacy of Socialism. Can you say the same?p

Cute red herring there, but it's irrelevant. My point was about what our Founding Fathers were concerned with when they wrote our Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights. These are the very same things that your so-called “loony left” are concerned with, yet you insult and ridicule them and in doing so, you’re at odds with the Founding Fathers and the reason this nation was founded and why our government was created with specific limitations, checks and balances and provisions while the individual’s absolute freedom was enumerated and preserved as sacrosanct. Here, maybe they can explain it to you a little better:



"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755 (*source could be incorrect here)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" -- Patrick Henry

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787


“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” -- James Madison

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” -- James Madison

“Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!” -- Thomas Jefferson

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” -- James Madison

“The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” -- John Adams

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” -- Thomas Paine

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” -- Thomas Paine

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!" -- Alexander Hamilton

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.” -- Samuel Adams


And though not a Founding Father, this quote seems fitting…

"Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed - first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf." -- Gerry Spence, From Freedom To Slavery



I could go on…but why?


I wonder if Oleg was hoping for this amount of discussion about the subject of his work rather than the piece itself. If this was to provoke artistic critique and not critical discussion, perhaps we should engage this debate in any of the other threads currently dealing with this mess?

 

[chaim]

It's implied in your statement.

I simply (strongly) disagreed with him. So, I no more implied that he shouldn't have the right to say what he said than anyone who disagrees with someone implies they shouldn't have said what they said.

 

[White Horseradish]

The optimism of the "it can never happen here" crowd is amusing. It is also amusing how they ignore historical examples.

And I noticed that not a one of them has addressed the Padilla case brought up by Biker.

Padilla was a US citizen, arrested on US soil, held without a trial for two years. Now, would someone care to explain to me why this same thing can't happen to any other US citizen, given the precedent-based legal system here?

 

[Sistema1927]

NineseveN,

Thanks for posting the words of those "looney leftists": Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine, Webster, Henry, and Franklin. (I thought about adding Pitt to the list, but he wasn't exactly on our side.)

I am afraid that we are on a downhill slope, and that "War on Terror" will be a convenient excuse to strip us of our liberty, just as the "War on Drugs" has proven to be. True conservatives see this, the neo-cons are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing.

BTW, I predict thread lock in 3,2............

 

[junyo]

Hey junyo, are you saying that the idea of having to pay to talk to our representatives is acceptable or are you just having fun with the other guy?

A bit of both. My senator did send me a letter inviting me to a $1,200 a plate meet and greet, and I raged about it for a couple days since you shouldn't need money to talk to your representative, and I was a member of the other party at the time. Then I got over it. I like to deal in reality rather than theoreticals. In theory, it would be nice if all elected representatives lived in real neighborhoods with the people they represented, worked a real day job, and were completely incorruptable. But in the real world that would have s'loads of of pleasant consequences, from the ease of assasinating the head of state while he's cutting his grass, down to the unfortunate fact that buying power is the most tangible proof of worth in a capitalist society. As the man once said, there are a lot of people that rage at the heavens when it rains rather than opening their umbrella. i pretty much figured out that was a sucker's game when I was 12.

I do know that the definition of enemy combatant and the legal ability to hold people without charges or speedy trials has been much expanded.

Yeah, it has. Enemy combatant now embraces people who would've been called terrorrists, brigands, mercenaries, and/or spies in years past. Most of those categories are afforded almost no protection under US law or binding treaty, and most of them are subject to summary execution traditionally. Granting them a status of enemy combatant actually affords them more protection, since enemy combatants are at least entitled to some form of adjudication.

The question is...if when someone is declared an enemy combatatant, they have no right to an attorney, no right to a speedy trial, etc...how DO you know what's happened to them? Or, if falsely accused...what happens to you?

I'll say it again. I'm not going sightseeing in Fallujah, or the Afghan Tribal Lands, so I'll take my chances with being beclared an enemy combatant. In the most egregious case (and I'm not disputing that it's a dangerous precedent) Jose Padilla, he wasn't spirited away by a hit squad; his arrest was publically annouced and he had a lawyer from day one. White Horseradish, Kevin Mitnick was held without trial for 4 years, long before any War on Terror, and not as part of the War on Drugs. People who believe these things are new/outrageous/or somehow suddenly just happening are simply uninformed. Abuses always happen. You're focusing on the symptom rather than the disease. My question is, do you have more or less of a chance of disappearing without a trace/shot while resisting because of opposing the federal government or it's foreign policy or from being lippy to a cop at 2AM on some deserted rural route?

One, that has no deterrent value to people who are more likely to try to smuggle small items, not engage in a firefight, two, as you said, it probably wouldn't be too hard for some determined sorts to take those SMGs AWAY from them and use them instead, and three... there just isn't likely to ever BE any threat in an airport terminal that would require suppressive fire, it'd just endanger innocent bystanders, and making an airport or any other public area on American soil look like a third-world border outpost in danger of occupation is just fundamentally...wrong. On so many levels.

Wow, it's like I'm looking at the Brady website. Lesee, the ol' 'has no value' argument? Check. It 'would get taken away and used on them' gambit? Check. The 'it serves no useful purpose' formation. Check. The only thing missing is accusing them of being scaredy cats. Oh, wait... there it is.

So now that you've validated all the antis arguments by using them, what's next, mandatory waiting periods before the cops can pursue a suspect? A 'one arrest a month' rule?

The biggest and most unique thing that stands between us and tyranny is an armed populace. Ultimately, every right devolves to who has the power to enforce it. I might disagree with a lot of the posters in this thread, but me and my guns will be right down in front if it gets as bad as all that.

 

[NineseveN]

Sistema1927:

Pitt was a special kind of guy. Every once in a while he said something useful, but he was a bit of a...well, I better not say.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I wonder if Oleg was hoping for this amount of discussion about the subject of his work rather than the piece itself.

I find this discussion useful and enlightening. I have only so much time to keep up with the recent developments (or problems which have been in place for ages and just now came tolight). So having access to other people's research and opinions helps. I don't like producing inaccurate posters.

 

[USSR]

Nineseven,

Nice Quotathon. Oops, did I offend you with that comment? I went back to my posting that you referred to, and I'll be d@mned (oops, sorry) if I can find anything that remotely supported JY's comments. When I mean to say I support what someone else says, I don't beat around the bush, I come out and say that I support what someone said, so you're trying to read things into my statements that were never said nor implied.

Quote:
Wow, looney left? Go back home (to Oleg no less)?

NineseveN,

If the shoe fits, wear it. As an American citizen without prior citizenship in any foreign country, I am home. Having seen the results in other countries, of the kind of thinking that some of the posters here espouse, I am just trying to keep this country from going down that path.

Don

As for my "loony left" comment, get a life. If that's the worst thing you're called in this life, you're doing good. I figure if Oleg was really pissed (oops, there I go again), he would let me know personally. As it is, I figure if Oleg and I met, we would be able to have a great and friendly discussion over vodka.

Don

 

[NineseveN]

As an American citizen without prior citizenship in any foreign country, I am home.

Then one wonders what purpose that little nugget of information was supposed to serve? For one that doesn't "beat around the bush", you sure do say a whole lot of irrelevant crap that's not really pertinent to the argument.

Since you can't refute the argument brought to you, you employ even more snarky humor. Nice shuffle there.

Nothing you've said so far changes the intent or the concerns of the Founding Fathers when declaring independence and writing our Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights; you've failed to adequately address these points during the course of this discussion.

I think we're done. Have a day.

[insert infantile yet witty remark here]

 

[Oleg Volk]

Factual refutations of the assumptions behind my poster would be welcome.

 

[Manedwolf]

Factual refutations of the assumptions behind my poster would be welcome.

That's the most frightening thing. Due to the administration's pathological secrecy and repeated incidences of outright contradictory statements, there is NO possibility that anyone could put forward any definitive facts that refute that poster.

The only thing we know is that they're adamant about putting people away without trial or representation. Beyond that...all we can do is hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst. And constantly question, and insist that America maintain standards that make us America...not stoop to their level out of blind FEAR.

That's what's so terrible about it all. You have to trust that government bureacrats will never make a mistake and take you, instead...for if they do, by their wishes, your voice will be unheard and you will not be allowed to plead your case, nor will anyone defend you.

And people still think it can never happen to them.

One day they might find out differently. And it will be too late.

 

[STAGE 2]

That's the most frightening thing. Due to the administration's pathological secrecy and repeated incidences of outright contradictory statements, there is NO possibility that anyone could put forward any definitive facts that refute that poster.

Because FDR had a policy of transparency during WWII and we let the public know everything that was going on during the cold war The idea that we have to fight possibly the most ruthless, determined, and elusive enemy that plays by NO rules, and announce every decision and the rational therefore so that everyone "feels" better about it is simply ridiculous and suicidal.

As far as refuting a poster, no one here has to refute anything. Why? Well first of all, you can't prove a negative. Secondly, you and others are claiming that the world is ending as we know it, so the burden lies with you. If it is as bad as you say then examples of abuse shouldn't be that hard to find.

The only thing we know is that they're adamant about putting people away without trial or representation.

You left out that small inconsequential part..."those who have historically never had access to courts or have any constitutional right to representation".

That's what's so terrible about it all. You have to trust that government bureacrats will never make a mistake and take you, instead...for if they do, by their wishes, your voice will be unheard and you will not be allowed to plead your case, nor will anyone defend you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this problem is present in every form of government save a direct democracy. Its the dumbest idea that before Bush signed the act you are referring to, we were all safe in our beds with nothing to fear, but now that he has done so, they are all out to get us.

And people still think it can never happen to them.

Here's where I do agree with you. It can happen to anyone... I mean anyone who is in a foreign country.... ok anyone who is in a foreign country in the middle east..... yeah, there and hanging out with islamic fundamentalists.... alright, in the middle east hanging out with johnny jihad and taking up arms against US forces, but dude for those people its a really raw deal

One day they might find out differently. And it will be too late.

Maybe so, but I'm not going to cancel my cable.

 

[Skywarp]

I like seeing this kind of discussion on Gun boards. Quite a few boards have such a one sided slant to them it's mostly a bunch right wing guys high fiving each other on slamming on the one left leaning member of the board who hasnt been run off. One board ran off a long time member and all around great guy due to rampant racist statements, i'd have left too.


Discourse like this is what makes our country (native born or naturalized, it doesnt matter, an American is an American (I find nativism in a country founded by people who immigrated here then murdered and oppressed the native inhabitants amazingly stupid)) amazing.


Great poster Oleg. Personally I feel we are walking on the edge of the slope leading to a police state. People aren't willing to accept incrementalism in reguards to the 2nd amendment but are more than willing to give up civil liberties in the name of security are deluded.

 

[USSR]

Nice post, Stage 2. Oleg's most recent post was good as well.

Don

 

[NineseveN]

It’s all very simple:

Fact: The Founding Fathers did not trust governments. The created the foundation of our system based on this fact and gave the people the power, not the institution. Most of the very same things that get people called “the loony left” and other such rubbish here are things that the Founders believed, wrote and argued about. Dismissing our concerns as being simply paranoid is dismissing the foundation of this country.

It’s true that no US citizen has been hauled off into some secret prison (as far as we know), but how close must we become before people start heeding the words of the Founders like I quoted earlier in this thread?

Should one wait until penetration or orgasm before they defend against rape? Is it wrong to keep an eye on the creepy guy hanging out in the shadows in the parking lot after hours and maybe put your hand on your firearm, keys or mace? Is it wrong to tell the person to get away in a strong, commanding and loud voice, or is that too early? Does that make one paranoid?

Should one wait until the first bullet tears into their chest cavity before defending against an assault? How about the first knife wound, kick, punch or impact with a foreign object? Is it wrong or paranoid to keep an eye on the group of young men following behind you for the last 5 blocks, stopping when you stop, talking quietly amongst themselves? At what point can you make a hasty getaway, or dial 911, or turn into a store on the street without being paranoid? At what point can you dial 9-1-1 and report the suspicious activity without being loony?

Is it wrong to question the government’s every single move? Is it wrong to become suspect of a government that supports illegal wiretapping and holding someone like Jose Padilla without counsel and therefore suspending his constitutional rights? Is it wrong to question the bills singed into law that grant powers that could later be amended by future leaders and turned against our citizens with the stroke of a pen? The Founding Fathers knew how much a government should be trusted, even when it appears to be completely above board in all its dealings; very little if necessary, not at all preferably.

So do we wait until United States citizens are disappearing, being tortured, thrown into secret prisons or being help without counsel indefinitely? It may be too late then.

But if it makes you all feel better to continue to dismiss the very thing that our Founding Fathers charged us as citizens of this nation with in keeping the government in check and erring on the side of the liberty of the individual, not on the side of protecting the government, its power or its reputation as being anti-patriotic, aiding terrorists, part of some political agenda or just downright foolish, go ahead…I can suffer being called a fool from the likes of those that don’t understand the very basic concepts of why our nation was defined and built in the manner it was by patriots that lived through an oppressive government and took up arms in order to rectify the inequity in power between man and institution.



Oleg's poster doesn't make a point in saying whether or not that kind of thing is happening right now, as far as I'm concerned, it's just alerting us the creepy guy in the shadows waiting for our wives in the parking garage, or the group of young men following us while we walk down the street at night. It's far more effective to bring forth the reality of what could happen in order to solidify the importance of vigilance than it is to ignore something until it's already a problem; by then it may be irreparable. I'd rather be wrong and foolish with an eye on my government than ignorant and confined by chains or forgotten in the dirt.

Warning hikers about being in bear country and advising them to be prepared doesn’t mean that you’re paranoid or even that you necessarily hate the bear. No one here has advocated storming the White House, but we do need to be very suspicious of a powerful government; the Founding Fathers expected us to, that was the point to this grand experiment.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”