Slashdot Mirror

Reading the source document PATRIOT Act instead of reading something about the PATRIOT Act written by an organization seeking funds for more Brie & Strawberry parties.

Reading the source document EO 9066 and visiting Manzanar everytime they cruise so quickly by it on their way to Mammoth or Tahoe to smoke dope, drink mundane beer and surf the slopes.

Reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn's account of the Soviet Gulag

(McCarthy && HUAC) != any americans shot, tortured, exiled, imprisoned, etc

(McCarthy && HUAC) != Cuban Isle of Pines

BTW, if there is another 9/11 then I have no doubt that it will get much worse than the Holocaust ... Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack ... I hope the innocent vicitims caught in the net will have exercised their Second Amendment Rights. Will you be their beside them VIOLENTLY DEFENDING their rights or will you bleat like a sheep thinking they deserve to be herded into Camps because they happen to be the same ethnic group as the terrorists and they also compete for your script kiddy programmer job.

No illusions about the outcome of the VIOLENT DEFENSE of rights ... read about the Warsaw Ghetto

Get a sense of history and some perspective. Also use Google to both look up and READ the source documentation

When the 'big bad' PATRIOT Act gets as bad as FDR's
Executive Order 9066 which resulted in concentration camps on US Soil give me a ring. Just hope the ACLU took some time from there Brie & Strawberry party with MoveOn to defend our gun rights (The Second Amendment Defends The First Amendment)

When the 'big bad' PATRIOT Act gets as bad as The Holocaust give me a ring. Just hope the ACLU took some time from there Brie & Strawberry party with MoveOn to defend our gun rights (The Second Amendment Defends The First Amendment)

Sending my check(s) to The Electronic Frontier Foundation not the hypocritical ACLU.

The law required almost 1,000,000 signatures, and they got twice as many. At last count, I heard they had 1.7 million. If they did get 1.75 million, out of "a state of 35+ million", that would be 5%.

Last I heard, it cost them $1.8 Million to get the signatures they needed.

Adolf Hitler's government certainly wasn't "instable"... until the United States kicked his ass.

No, but the government that elected his party to power was, which, I believe, was the point of the argument you are failing to discredit.

It's been a testbed for liberalism for several years...

The political method you call liberalism has as little resemblance to actual Liberalim as the current Republican philosophy does to acual conservatism.

try to find something in California that didn't go the way of the Left. Try to prove me wrong.

The "deregulation" of the electrical energy market that left only the few municipally owned power systems lit during the California energy crisis. If you like, I'm sure that I can find more for you.

Because it makes it easier for people to get along and not kill each other so much if they aren't always bickering over "my god can kick your god's ass!" type stuff.

So you would think. But it's not so. Man is just evil, regardless.

For all the "religion is the cause of all wars" tripe you hear, most wars supposedly caused by religion are really clashes of culture, or more genuinely over resources and land. Religion is usually just the patina dressed up to justify it for the proles.

That's what it had started with. 70 years ago, in May 1933, books were burning all over Germany. The Nazi regime tried to wipe out "un-German" culture before starting to wipe out "un-Aryan" people.

Just imagine they had had a restrictions management system enabling them to cleanse not only bookstores, public libraries, museums, etc. but also all the private bookshelves with the push of a button.

For more information on Nazi book burnings see http://www.ushmm.org/.

Don't miss the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing tour (watch them print U.S. currency). Sorry, no free samples. For some reason they built the U.S. Holocaust Museum right next door.

Yesterday news also hit of bioethicist Dan Brock advocating mandatory abortion for disabled people such as blind and mentally ill.

This is not a new concept, but is one that is growing in feasability and global support.

What does this have to do with cloning and stem cell research? Well they all have the same amoral drive: creating a "better" human race through science without any moral guidelines. As we see on this board, many people ridicule those of us with moral presuppositions as "non-scientific", "ignorant", etc. Above, though, we see an extreme example of this.

Fast-forward now 10 or 20 years. Science has guaranteed a "perfect" child to anybody who can afford one. A minority of rich people get smarter, stronger, better-looking, and richer, in contrast to those who still suffer with gross things like blindness and the worst- mental inferiority. It wasn't enough to genetically engineer perfect children. The question now is "Why hold on to that last moral presupposition that we shouldn't kill scientifically inferior people?" You may think me an extremist, but it's happened before.

That is the question that should be answered today. If you truely believe in removing morals from science, be logically consistent with it: advocate a super-human race and the death of all inferior people. If you believe in moral presuppositions, though, realize what unchecked research in cloning, embryionic stem cells, and science in general will lead to. Either way, the question is: what criteria do you use to value human life? You may have about a year to decide.

There are alternatives, such as adult stem cells, which have potential as well and sidestep ethical concerns.

Sounds to me like Robert Heinlein is a fucking moron. Right up their with Hilter and other fascist dictators.

Generally speaking, fascist dictators like their subjects disarmed. Makes them easier to round up and slaughter, you know.

I wonder how americans think about the worlds top amount of dead children due to traffic overspeed in germany.

Americans tend to be more concerned about the more active roles Germany takes in killing its citizens.

This doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you believe that people have a right to bear arms or not. If people have that right, taking it away would be wrong.

The reality is, when the situation comes up that people need to bear arms (the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto) almost no one will oppose them having them. The argument that people will usually make is "well, we aren't Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. If you think we are then you are insane, and trivializing the tragedy of the Holocaust." (Oh, and the new argument which is "Well, they ended up losing anyway," which is the argument that "people would never be able to resist the U. S. armed forces for long if the government turned into a dictatorship, so that's not a good argument.")

I think really it comes down to a matter of faith in the State. People who believe that various individual freedoms stand in the way of paradise on earth through central planning will always favor gun control. I mean, what was crime like under the totalitarians? I don't know what street crime was like, but the crimes committed by agents of the State dwarf the imagination in their enormity.

On the other hand, it is true. In many cases when people attempt to resist a modern mechanized army, they end up ground into the dust. Which is better, to willingly go to a relocation camp, or resist through force of arms? It's not an easy question. What would have happened if the Japanese-Americans who ended up imprisoned at Manzanar had resisted, en masse, the unjust imprisonment and theft of their property at the hands of the State? Would they have been massacred, or would the executive order have been rescinded?

I don't trust the State. I think its agents are corrupt. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The indication I got from a lot of the reports I read is that it's not just promotion of articles relating to the Nazi Party but the exhibition, display or sale of any items relating to Nazism.

Under this law, if taken to it's logical conclusion, the entirity of the matertial collected by places such as the Holocaust Museum and projects like Survivors of the Shoah would be illegal to display. Without such displays it is difficult to teach about the holocaust (people need solid objects to back up the words) and so knowledge will die. To paraphase a rather well know saying "Those who do not learn history are doomed to see the repitition of it's atrocities."

Stephen

To read more, goto the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's page on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising which is coincidently located in Washington, DC.

Question for the thinking readers of Slashdot: How many of those mothers in DC will visit this memorial to those murdered by a very "civilized" society that had accidentally been taken over by a madman?

Please also visit one of many American concentration camps (e.g. Manzanar) or do a Yahoo! search.

Perhaps some high school students in Colorado should have remembered their Dune ... "fear is a mind killer" and rushed the two jerks. The high school students who survived are little better than those who survived another far worse terror sixty years ago ... SHEEP (and I don't mean the electric variety)

"Maintain a questioning attitude"