Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)
- Thread starter brighamr
- Start date
- Status
samtechlan
Member
Colin Powell, another Republican starting to sound more like Ron Paul.
If this was a boxing fight they would have to call it and declare Paul the winner by TKO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece
From The Sunday TimesJuly 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.
“It should come as no secret to anyone that there are discussions about what is a postsurge strategy,” said Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, last week.
The surge’s lack of demonstrable success is creating fissures in the Republican party as well as putting enormous pressure on the Democratic presidential candidates to favour a rapid pull-out, which Gates fears could leave Iraq in chaos.
New Mexico senator Pete Domenici became the third Republican senator in recent weeks to break ranks openly with Bush on the war. “We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” he said. “I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path home.”
Speculation is growing that Gates will demonstrate his commitment to withdrawing US forces by moving a combat brigade of up to 3,000 troops out of Iraq as early as October and continuing to reduce their numbers month by month from their current strength of 160,000 to presurge levels of around 130,000 by the summer of 2008.
Gates believes American troop withdrawals are essential to building a cross-party consensus for retaining a presence in Iraq after Bush’s term in office expires. As a former director of the CIA who saw out the cold war in the early 1990s, he hopes to win the same bipartisan support for Iraq that President Harry Truman secured against the Soviet Union after the second world war.
The policy is likely to appeal to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who hopes to begin withdrawing more British troops from southern Iraq by the end of August.
A senior defence source said it would be possible to reduce the number of American forces to roughly 50,000-70,000 by election day in November 2008. “You are going to have to have some people left behind to provide stability and security for the country and take on the terrorists,” the source said.
The figures are similar to those floated by aides to Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, although she has been upping the rhetoric against remaining in Iraq in an effort to capture the support of party activists.
According to Powell, the US cannot “blow a whistle one morning” and have all American forces just leave. The former secretary of state has twice met Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, to advise him on foreign policy. Despite his antiwar stance, Obama supports a phased withdrawal that could leave a “significantly reduced force” in Iraq for “an extended period”.
Defence experts believe it will be impossible to maintain the surge’s high troop levels beyond February at the latest, given the need to rotate and refresh troops. Powell, who served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the early 1990s, said in Aspen that America’s volunteer army was already overstretched. He predicted that Bush would be forced to “face the situation on the ground” and alter course by the end of this year.
Supporters of the surge believe this could send a disastrous signal to the Iraqis. “If we pull out, if we stop this operation now, we will hand Al-Qaeda a terrific victory,” said Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute and an early advocate of the policy.
“The Iraqi government, right now, is a terrific ally in the war on terror. There have been more Iraqis killed fighting Al-Qaeda than in any other nation of the world. The question is, are we going to stand by them?”
The same political fault line runs through the White House between Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office and the State Department ? now run by Condoleezza Rice, Powell’s successor ? as it did at the start of the Iraq war. Bush has not yet thrown his weight definitively behind one side or the other, but the key difference this time is that the defence secretary is one of the “realists”.
According to Powell: “We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be.” He believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic “surge” and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.
Al-Qaeda, Powell asserted, was only 10% of the problem in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, its prime minister, lacked the political will to establish an effective government. After a promising start to the surge at the beginning of the year, 453 unidentified corpses were found on the streets of Baghdad last month, 41% more than the 321 bodies found in January, according to unofficial Iraqi health ministry statistics.
The military gains could prove as fleeting in Anbar as Baghdad. American officers in Iraq believe Al-Qaeda strengthened its hold on the Sunni-dominated region in 2005, when responsibility for security was shifted prematurely to Iraqi forces that were led by Shi’ites and proved incapable of providing protection.
Powell believes that a reduction in US forces will have to be accompanied by talks with Syria and Iran. “You have to talk to the people you dislike most in this dangerous world.”
The general and former joint chiefs of staff added: “Shi’ites will ultimately prevail because they are 60% of the population and their militias can be pretty violent. They will prevail also because they are determined not to be ruled again by the Sunnis.
“The Sunnis are struggling for power and survival and it’s going to be resolved by a test of arms. It’s going to be very ugly.”
If this was a boxing fight they would have to call it and declare Paul the winner by TKO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece
From The Sunday TimesJuly 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.
“It should come as no secret to anyone that there are discussions about what is a postsurge strategy,” said Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, last week.
The surge’s lack of demonstrable success is creating fissures in the Republican party as well as putting enormous pressure on the Democratic presidential candidates to favour a rapid pull-out, which Gates fears could leave Iraq in chaos.
New Mexico senator Pete Domenici became the third Republican senator in recent weeks to break ranks openly with Bush on the war. “We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” he said. “I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path home.”
Speculation is growing that Gates will demonstrate his commitment to withdrawing US forces by moving a combat brigade of up to 3,000 troops out of Iraq as early as October and continuing to reduce their numbers month by month from their current strength of 160,000 to presurge levels of around 130,000 by the summer of 2008.
Gates believes American troop withdrawals are essential to building a cross-party consensus for retaining a presence in Iraq after Bush’s term in office expires. As a former director of the CIA who saw out the cold war in the early 1990s, he hopes to win the same bipartisan support for Iraq that President Harry Truman secured against the Soviet Union after the second world war.
The policy is likely to appeal to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who hopes to begin withdrawing more British troops from southern Iraq by the end of August.
A senior defence source said it would be possible to reduce the number of American forces to roughly 50,000-70,000 by election day in November 2008. “You are going to have to have some people left behind to provide stability and security for the country and take on the terrorists,” the source said.
The figures are similar to those floated by aides to Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, although she has been upping the rhetoric against remaining in Iraq in an effort to capture the support of party activists.
According to Powell, the US cannot “blow a whistle one morning” and have all American forces just leave. The former secretary of state has twice met Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, to advise him on foreign policy. Despite his antiwar stance, Obama supports a phased withdrawal that could leave a “significantly reduced force” in Iraq for “an extended period”.
Defence experts believe it will be impossible to maintain the surge’s high troop levels beyond February at the latest, given the need to rotate and refresh troops. Powell, who served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the early 1990s, said in Aspen that America’s volunteer army was already overstretched. He predicted that Bush would be forced to “face the situation on the ground” and alter course by the end of this year.
Supporters of the surge believe this could send a disastrous signal to the Iraqis. “If we pull out, if we stop this operation now, we will hand Al-Qaeda a terrific victory,” said Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute and an early advocate of the policy.
“The Iraqi government, right now, is a terrific ally in the war on terror. There have been more Iraqis killed fighting Al-Qaeda than in any other nation of the world. The question is, are we going to stand by them?”
The same political fault line runs through the White House between Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office and the State Department ? now run by Condoleezza Rice, Powell’s successor ? as it did at the start of the Iraq war. Bush has not yet thrown his weight definitively behind one side or the other, but the key difference this time is that the defence secretary is one of the “realists”.
According to Powell: “We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be.” He believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic “surge” and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.
Al-Qaeda, Powell asserted, was only 10% of the problem in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, its prime minister, lacked the political will to establish an effective government. After a promising start to the surge at the beginning of the year, 453 unidentified corpses were found on the streets of Baghdad last month, 41% more than the 321 bodies found in January, according to unofficial Iraqi health ministry statistics.
The military gains could prove as fleeting in Anbar as Baghdad. American officers in Iraq believe Al-Qaeda strengthened its hold on the Sunni-dominated region in 2005, when responsibility for security was shifted prematurely to Iraqi forces that were led by Shi’ites and proved incapable of providing protection.
Powell believes that a reduction in US forces will have to be accompanied by talks with Syria and Iran. “You have to talk to the people you dislike most in this dangerous world.”
The general and former joint chiefs of staff added: “Shi’ites will ultimately prevail because they are 60% of the population and their militias can be pretty violent. They will prevail also because they are determined not to be ruled again by the Sunnis.
“The Sunnis are struggling for power and survival and it’s going to be resolved by a test of arms. It’s going to be very ugly.”
Marshall
Member
I hate taxes too.
Thank you. That's the best compliment you could give me. I've answered all your questions ad nauseum. I've patiently provided detailed answers to your questions and given reasonable arguments as to another school of thought that differs from yours. Your frustration obviously comes from three areas. Not being able to get me where you want me through your rewording and paraphrasing of questions and comments, your lack of ability to "convert me" and your inability to come close to giving me any good examples of why I should I should support our Government fighting terrorist with one hand tied behind it's back. Your "I hate the Patriot Act, I hate the Patriot Act, bla, bla bla, is obvious. But I haven't heard anything reasonable or specific from you yet regarding how it's negatively effecting you and I. All I hear are scare tactics with no beef in them. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Yet, it's still above us. If I were you, I would be frustrated too.
Then I guess the Govt isn't "in your business" are they?
I have no problem filling out a single form to help private companies check Terrorist Watch Lists, thus enhancing the odds of keeping a known Terrorist from buying a house next door to mine. But far be it from silly old me to suggest that might be a good thing, what with it being so damn intrusive and all.
You know, the above reply says I have nothing to show as an example of how the Patriot Act negative effects me, I just don't like it. However, it's the best argument anyone has given yet, most honest and, is one I can respect. That is your right and by GOD you have that right. You don't have to answer sh*t, to me or anyone else. Thank you.
Likewise, I don't have to answer sh*t either. But I have been, to all of you, the best I can. Yes, I have an opinion on this, it's mine and it's as good as anyones even though it differs from some of yours. Mine still remains unchanged, but it doesn't mean it can't be changed. I just haven't been shown or been given good enough reasons, in my opinion, to have me tie our Governments hands in fighting Terrorist, a whole world of Islam that will stop at nothing to kill us, try to royally frick up our economy, cause total chaos and try to destroy this nation via many different avenues and methods. I love my liberties, my freedoms and my country. Realistically, I don't see the Patriot Act doing more harm than good. I can't get anyone to show me the harm it's doing either, other than pissing some people off. I could be completely wrong, and so could you that oppose it.
There's two schools of thought that this boils down to, as far as I can see.
One is, if this country is being bombed, having mass killings and murders by terrorist, becomes a nation that is watching different versions of 9-11 happen and becomes crippled and somewhat immobilized, things that could possibly have been prevented by better surveillance, etc; we would be best suited to let the Govt have the ability to do their job better.
The other school of thought is, any freedoms or any liberties, no matter what they are, shouldn't be infringed upon, regardless of the cost to this nation and the lives of it's citizens because they are not as valuable as the prevention of any infringement of liberties or rights.
Frankly, I could argue both sides effectively and passionately. At this time, I happen to fall into camp number one. To this point, I haven't been shown anything that is hurting us, in the lack of liberty arena, so school of thought number one carries more weight and importance to me.
General Geoff
Member
I can't go out and purchase a machine gun at my local gunshop.
I can't drive my car without wearing a seatbelt.
I can't cross state borders without disarming.
I can't take photographs of public monuments without being harrassed by the cops.
I can be arrested and detained, without a warrant, probable cause, or charges, indefinitely, under suspicion of being a terrorist.
The list goes on...
samtechlan
Member
It is a false dichotomy. A nation can have civil liberties and security at the same time. History shows that overbroad, sweeping legislation brought on by fear mongering during a crisis is a crude tool to deal with security. Look at what we did to thousands of innocent Japanese Americans during WWII when we interned whole communities. The govt engaged in wholesale violations of constitutional rights with little gain to the war effort or national security.
It is dissapointing that some many conservatives who spoke eloquently when Clinton and Janet Reno tried to infringe civil liberties in the wake of Okalhoma City using reasoning remarkably similar to what we hear today from Bush and the Alberto Gonzalez's of the world, are silent today. I guess the old saying about whose ox getting gored is not only true but, to some, the more important question is who is doing the goring. If it is Clinton it's horrible; Bush, well maybe not so bad.
I would also ask conservatives to ponder whether a future anti-gun, Dem administration will use the increased powers of govt. brought to you courtesy of George W. Bush to go after gunowners and to gut 2nd A rights. You already hear echoes of this in the antis when they go after the gun show "loopholes" and .50 caliber rifles. After all we all know that Al Queda is just itching to buy some of those fearsome .50 caliber rifles at your friendly neighborhood gun show, don't we?
Why here are the Brady folks pushing this very point:
Key quote: "Foreign terrorists also find gun shows in the United States to be inviting marketplaces to supply themselves with guns"
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=second
GUN SHOWS:
ARMS BAZAARS FOR TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS
Every year there are more than 4,000 gun shows in every region of the country.[1] These arms bazaars provide a haven for terrorists, criminals, and illegal gun dealers who want to take advantage of a loophole in existing federal law and buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis. Since the Brady Law went into effect in 1994, the criminal background checks it requires have prevented more than 1,000,000 attempted gun purchases by felons, fugitives, domestic violence abusers, and other prohibited persons. Requiring these background checks on all gun sales at gun shows will ensure that prohibited purchasers who cannot buy guns at gun shops will not be able to turn to gun shows for their supply.
Marshall
Member
The following was the same before the Patriot Act:
I can't go out and purchase a machine gun at my local gunshop.
I can't drive my car without wearing a seatbelt.
I can't cross state borders without disarming.
I can't take photographs of public monuments without being harrassed by the cops.
No, not at all. We have both now.
Yes, that would suck. But I submit to you, Patriot Act or not, the Brady Bunch is going to try anything and everything to do away with guns, regardless. In fact, since the Patriot Act, I have seen gun laws and CCW become more liberal and prolific. Not because of it of course, but so far is sure hasn't hampered them. At least not that I see.
madmike
Member
Direct quote from DU. "Negative liberties" are when you do something that might offend someone else. Only "positive liberties" are good.
Ah, the doublespeak of the statist.
Prior restraint. How American. Oh, wait, it's not.
So, if I call the FBI and say you "pose a significant risk of committing" a terror act, you'd be JUST FINE with them dragging you in for questioning as your patriotic duty? After all, as Mr Orwell observed, only the guilty have anything to worry about, right?
"Because of liberals, gay Mexican terrorists sneak across our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women!"
Marshall
Member
In regard to subway random searches.........
That's all you can come up with? A question set up to try to identify me with being Anti-Fourth Amendment. Come on now.
I suppose not disagreeing with baggage checks and screenings at airports makes everyone Anti-Fourth Amendment too? I know I hate it with a passion, might be reasonable though.
The word unreasonable comes to mind. Seems it might be reasonable to do in this day and age. Maybe it's not? Maybe it is? You tell me.
That's all you can come up with? A question set up to try to identify me with being Anti-Fourth Amendment. Come on now.
I suppose not disagreeing with baggage checks and screenings at airports makes everyone Anti-Fourth Amendment too? I know I hate it with a passion, might be reasonable though.
The word unreasonable comes to mind. Seems it might be reasonable to do in this day and age. Maybe it's not? Maybe it is? You tell me.
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
The problem with bag searches is that it leads to a slippery slope. Today we search airline passengers, tomorrow we search subways, and then we move on to checkpoints on highways, random searches on public sidewalks, etc.
Another problem is that the searches on subways are random and at the officer's discretion. This can lead to abuse and harrassment.
The men who started our country wanted a limited federal government. They went to great lengths to design a system that limits federal authority. That was a good idea then, and is a good idea now. The Constitution establishes the basis which the federal government can detain and search people, and those criteria are not being fulfilled under the system currently used to search subway passengers.
Another problem is that the searches on subways are random and at the officer's discretion. This can lead to abuse and harrassment.
The men who started our country wanted a limited federal government. They went to great lengths to design a system that limits federal authority. That was a good idea then, and is a good idea now. The Constitution establishes the basis which the federal government can detain and search people, and those criteria are not being fulfilled under the system currently used to search subway passengers.
Marshall
Member
Lone, I have no disagreement with that. Is unreasonable though to check airplane and subway passangers for bombs/explosives in this day and age? Same question goes to Tex.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think before you even consider whether or not it is unreasonable, you need to consider whether or not it is even reasonably effective. If it is not effective, then there is no reason to even do it.
In the case of subway passengers, the police are randomly screeing a statistically insignificant number of passengers. If someone with a bomb does happen to be targeted for screeing, then can just refuse the search, and leave the subway station without being detained. They can just move down to the next station, where it would be very unlikely they would be picked for screening a second time.
My opinion therefore, is that the way they are currently screening subway passengers is entirely arbitrary and ineffective, and therefore is not worth the expense it incurs, nor the potential Constitutional can-of-worms it opens. It is unreasonable if for no other reason than it is ineffective.
I believe people who are in favor of searches like these state that is Constitutional because it is a voluntary search. In other words, no one is forcing you to be searched. You can always decline, and just walk to your destination or take a taxi. The problem, again, is the slippery slope. Over time, my concern is that the searches will become more intrusive, and at some point, you will have to consent to be searched in order to move around at all. If you do believe that searches of subway passengers are reasonable, then from a logical standpoint, don't you also have to believe that searching pedestrians on sidewalks is also reasonable? I mean, a pedestrian with a bomb on a sidewalk can do as much damage as a subway passenger with a bomb. Where will it all end?
brighamr
Member
THERES 30 other places on THR you can post and talk about your personal liberty opinions, there's only one place to talk specifically about Ron Paul. PLEASE TAKE THE SIDE CONVERSATIONS TO ANOTHER THREAD OR PMS!!!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Lone_Gunman
Member
Personal liberty is the essence of the Ron Paul campaign, and there is no way to discuss one without the other. However, I am happy to limit discussion in this thread to Ron Paul...
Marshall
Member
brighamr,
Just answering questions the RP guys have been asking, O'Mighty Master of Threads. I must have missed your Mod title.
But that's fine. We have indeed moved away from RP.
What do you want to talk about, about him now, that hasn't already been discussed?
Just answering questions the RP guys have been asking, O'Mighty Master of Threads. I must have missed your Mod title.
But that's fine. We have indeed moved away from RP.
What do you want to talk about, about him now, that hasn't already been discussed?
Lone_Gunman
Member
If we aren't going to discuss his views on personal liberty, then how about his favorite color? Or which he likes best, hamburgers or hotdogs? Or boxers or briefs? Those are the really important questions anyway.
madmike
Member
Yes, but the press will handle those really important questions. We can ask the minor and irrelevant stuff about position and voting.
pcosmar
member
brighamr, I can understand your annoyance, However it does serve a purpose. The constant attacks have caused me to research the Facts and positions and solidify my support of Ron Paul.
By seeing the Pro War (any reason/any cost) Pro authoritarian/anti-Liberty position laid out in print, I can see just how important it is to work for Liberty.
By seeing the Pro War (any reason/any cost) Pro authoritarian/anti-Liberty position laid out in print, I can see just how important it is to work for Liberty.
DigitalWarrior
Member
I was at the straw poll in New Hampshire. It was important enough that MITT and RUDY had people there.
To give you an idea, the Rudy and Mitt campaigns couldn't GIVE their stuff away, and people who were SELLING Ron Paul stuff were making $$$ which they promised to give to Dr. Paul. The official campaign stuff was going fast, and the campaign manager for Dr. Paul was getting ideas and tips from a number of people.
The fact is, people who care enough to show up to these anti-tax orgs overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul.
We beat Rudy by something like 8 to 1.
DigitalWarrior
To give you an idea, the Rudy and Mitt campaigns couldn't GIVE their stuff away, and people who were SELLING Ron Paul stuff were making $$$ which they promised to give to Dr. Paul. The official campaign stuff was going fast, and the campaign manager for Dr. Paul was getting ideas and tips from a number of people.
The fact is, people who care enough to show up to these anti-tax orgs overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul.
We beat Rudy by something like 8 to 1.
DigitalWarrior
oldfart
Member
Sorry you're unhappy about the course of this thread Brighamr, but like some others here, I feel a discussion of Dr. Paul has to include a discussion of his views on liberty and that necessarily leads to a discussion such as we have.
Marshall, let me go back aways and make this point again, though in a bit different way this time: The Patriot Act is an infringement on the basic rights of all of us. It blurs the line between government powers and citizen rights. It sidesteps the issue of constitutionality. It, in and of itself, doesn't really do much to infringe on our rights to privacy but it lays the next step on the stairway to total Orwellian government control. It can be claimed that the first step was laid as the framers of the Constitution walked out of the hall and the next when Congress met, with others laid at each succeeding session. We can now look back and see that many of the laws that served as foundation for the Patriot Act were passed with entirely different intentions and for good and sufficient reasons - then.
Whatever. The Patriot Act is here now and we must deal with it. But close on its heels came a couple of other acts (the names of which I can't remember right now) that permits the President to declare anyone a terrorist and enemy combatant with no right to Habeus Corpus followed by another to eliminate Posse Commitatus.
What's next?
Make no mistake, there will be something next and it will further erode the rights we were born with but have allowed our 'masters' to strip away.
Searches as we board airplanes? Okay, as long as we're kept "safe."
Searches as we board subways? See above.
Searches as we board trains, busses, cross state lines? Again, see above.
But who's being kept safe, and at what cost? Granted, legislatures can pass laws to make some of us "feel" safe but in many cases they actually make us less safe as in the Virginia Tech regulation against concealed carry on campus. No, most of the laws, statutes and regulations passed for 'safety' are aimed at preserving the safety of our 'masters,' the legislators who seek to strip us of our freedom.
And, in the unlikely case where the dangers we're being protected from are eliminated, what will happen to these laws? You can bet the farm they won't go away with the threat, they'll be kept and used for entirely different purposes. Like RICO, which was passed to combat organized crime but is now used to keep Churches from spreading the word that homosexuality is a sin. It's also used to threaten other politically incorrect groups such as the - (ready for this?) NRA. Fortunately, the NRA is big enough that the threat is pretty empty but for other Gun Rights groups it can be effective.
In closing, let me quote someone a lot smarter than I:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H.L. Mencken
1880-1956
Marshall, let me go back aways and make this point again, though in a bit different way this time: The Patriot Act is an infringement on the basic rights of all of us. It blurs the line between government powers and citizen rights. It sidesteps the issue of constitutionality. It, in and of itself, doesn't really do much to infringe on our rights to privacy but it lays the next step on the stairway to total Orwellian government control. It can be claimed that the first step was laid as the framers of the Constitution walked out of the hall and the next when Congress met, with others laid at each succeeding session. We can now look back and see that many of the laws that served as foundation for the Patriot Act were passed with entirely different intentions and for good and sufficient reasons - then.
Whatever. The Patriot Act is here now and we must deal with it. But close on its heels came a couple of other acts (the names of which I can't remember right now) that permits the President to declare anyone a terrorist and enemy combatant with no right to Habeus Corpus followed by another to eliminate Posse Commitatus.
What's next?
Make no mistake, there will be something next and it will further erode the rights we were born with but have allowed our 'masters' to strip away.
Searches as we board airplanes? Okay, as long as we're kept "safe."
Searches as we board subways? See above.
Searches as we board trains, busses, cross state lines? Again, see above.
But who's being kept safe, and at what cost? Granted, legislatures can pass laws to make some of us "feel" safe but in many cases they actually make us less safe as in the Virginia Tech regulation against concealed carry on campus. No, most of the laws, statutes and regulations passed for 'safety' are aimed at preserving the safety of our 'masters,' the legislators who seek to strip us of our freedom.
And, in the unlikely case where the dangers we're being protected from are eliminated, what will happen to these laws? You can bet the farm they won't go away with the threat, they'll be kept and used for entirely different purposes. Like RICO, which was passed to combat organized crime but is now used to keep Churches from spreading the word that homosexuality is a sin. It's also used to threaten other politically incorrect groups such as the - (ready for this?) NRA. Fortunately, the NRA is big enough that the threat is pretty empty but for other Gun Rights groups it can be effective.
In closing, let me quote someone a lot smarter than I:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H.L. Mencken
1880-1956
Marshall
Member
LMAO,
Well, I'm sho glad to be of assistance to your hesitant, wavering, and uncertain support of Doc Paul up until now. I didn't realize his positions were so weak that my little ol internet voice could make a difference.
I know you wouldn't take a lowlife opportunity to back handedly slap a communist such as myself. Just that fact that you feel the need to try to sum-up my positions in your own negative wording is a compliment to me, and quite frankly, looks poorly on you. Thank you. samtechlan
Member
oldfart,
Excellent post. Talking about Paul without mentioning the threat to our liberties is a bit like talking about Hitler without mentioning the nature of Nazism
Excellent post. Talking about Paul without mentioning the threat to our liberties is a bit like talking about Hitler without mentioning the nature of Nazism
GTSteve03
Member
Yes, they are there indirectly by forcing other private enterprises to do their work for them. Way to dodge the question.
Look, we all know you're willing to bend over backward for the Government to keep you safe from all the big bad boogeymen out there, but answer me this:
What good is it to try and come up with a "Do Not Sell" list for possible known terrorists for housing? What is to stop them from renting a house instead or using a false identity? What is a terrorist going to use a house for anyway? I doubt the middle of the suburbs is a great spot to set up a training camp.
You're willing to let the Government put its nose into every single financial transaction on the housing market in order to prevent a terrorist from buying a house. Where do you draw the line on rights you're willing to have infringed in order to feel safe?
- Status
