Would you accept more
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
Is this quote going to come up everytime someone mentions the WTC? I've heard about 30 variations of it 500 times.
Yes, because as long as people are beating the drum to give up liberty for an illusory security, we will have lovers of liberty pointing it out.
Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies.
You'd think that the CIA could track the enemies that it created itself, such as bin Laden.
I can't believe that people are beating the drum to increase funding for the CIA, or to cut the CIA loose. Heh, they set bin Laden up to start with, and encouraged Islamic fundamentalism in the anti-Soviet cause. Now he's Blowback. And what about that fundamentalist terrorist group, the KLA, that we've funded and supported? And we want the CIA to get _more_? To do _more_? Of what? The same old thing? No, thanks. No people who truly love liberty would tolerate such a vile organization like the CIA on its own shores.
Somehow I don't think that "evil capitalists" like us could improve their image with terrorists by throwing money at them.
Why not? We subverted communists with prosperity. Look here for a discussion of a quote from Deng Xioping: "To get rich is glorious."
Re:Iraq is a lot flatter than Afghanistan
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
and you know what that means!
Iraq is flush with Oil. You can bet the US would love to turn Iraq into a US colony/protectorate, and the oil companies can get a nice, steady, cheap supply. And the US population wouldn't mind a bit: we'd get cheap gas, and we'd eliminate a one-time Hitler-of-the-Day (aka Hussein).
What's scary is not the censorship thing (because, after all, they _own_ the stations and have the liberty to determine what shall or shall not be played on their stations), but the hysteria thing.
I'm willing to fight and die for America, but if its captains gamble away our real and precious right to freedom on a longshot of safety against madmen, well, then it just isn't America anymore.
Here's the guarantee: freedom/liberty will be reduced. Plain and simple. The state will utilize the latest crisis to its own benefit (i.e., growth). That is the central thesis of Crisis and Leviathan. Of course, the state has to bamboozle us with high-minded principles, such as "we're doing this to secure your freedom".
Then we lost America a long time ago. Maybe it was back when they interned American citizens of Japanese decent. Or maybe it was when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Or maybe it was when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
It was 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, putting in place the foundation for a large Centralized State. The Ariticles of Confederation (which incidentally, set a precedent for dissolving our compact; maybe we should try again, oh, wait, it's _been_ tried, and failed) were a pain to the Federalists/Centralizers, and they worked tirelessly to replace them. They have their wish. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
From all the time I spend on/., it was an easy transition to surfing countless news sites. The only problem I had was I couldn't moderate any opinion pieces.
Linus needs to do somthing about this!!! if it is done to the core code that Linux himself has developed then he needs to enlist the FSF to prosecute RTlinux, if it is the code of another kernel hacker then Linus needs to emplor him to do what I have said above.
Until we find who is responsible for the WTC terrorism, why don't we just bomb RTLinux?
You do understand that the original intention for the 'right to bear arms' was for militia
No, I don't understand. Because the Bill of Rights makes a clear distinction between "the people" (that's you and me) and "States". Read the Bill of Rights here and note Amendment 10 in particular. "The people" is just the people (not "the States"), and it's what's used in Amendment 2.
As much as I enjoy the freedom I retain within this country, the fact that any idiot with some ID can go pick themselves up a gun frightens me to no end.
You are free to be frightened, and to work to amend the Constitution. But you are no lover of liberty.
We tried banning alcohol and it didn't work then. We are trying to ban drugs and it isn't working now. How likely is it that a ban on guns or crypto will be effective?
Nice points. War on Alcohol. War on Drugs. Whenever the US goes on a Great Moral Crusade Against Americans With A Vice, kiss liberty goodbye and watch State power grow. We also had a War on Poverty, which was a dismal failure. Now we are hearing the drums for a War on Terrorism. It will be yet another failure.
P.S. You can't possibly imagine that the U.S. has the most violent society on the planet. Does your planet comprise only the U.S. and Europe? Perhaps you've never heard of Africa. Or Southeast Asia. Or the Middle East. Or perhaps Central America. Broad, indefensible statements like this do little to help your case
The right to own guns in the US is basically the right to defend your life, liberty, and property. From a government, and from criminals (can be, and has been, the same thing at times). It is interesting to note that the majority of fatal violence in the last century was perpetrated by governments against their own and others' (unarmed) populations.
When people try to remove guns, they are saying you do not have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, and the US founders considered life, liberty, and property (aka "pursuit of happiness" but we can argue that last one...) INALIENABLE rights. These rights are typically taken away by the state. And they were saying, especially in the 2nd amemndment, that the people are justified in resisting the attempted removal of those rights. Since they are INALIENABLE, no government is justified in taking them away (though they do, typically with...guns!), and if a government does, the people are justified in resisting. That's the justification for our rebelling against England, and for the 2nd amemendment in our constitution.
Europeans don't see things this way. That's OK, they are permitted to live in servility if they want to. Lots of Americans don't see it that way, too, and that's a real problem for liberty.
Spare us the NRA propaganda for a moment, and look at the big picture. Not only are the Europeans not armed, they also have progressive social policies designed to reduce the educational and economic disparities amongst the citizens.
If everyone could get a good education and a decent job, why would a rational person want live a life of crime?
We are not European Socialist Drones. We are American Socialist Armed Drones. It's a big difference.
Imagine that. I bet these kids would be better off dead, don't you agree?
For an enlightening read on Down's syndrome kids, go here.
Re:Coordinated Efforts
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
OK, so let's have Congress declare war on Buy a book about modern American politics.. turn to the chapter called "I'm a completely fucking ignorant idiot who doesn't know anything about the country I live in".. and then just read it. You'll understand then. If the swelling keeps up after that, just apply ice two to three times a day or as needed.
Whew, that's a mouthful. I'd hate be from there, and say, "I'm from...."
Oh, BTW, nice civilized answer. I hope to God barbarians like you aren't determining foreign policy.
Plus, if you run OpenBSD, you get to be superior to the Linux rabble.;-)
Re:What the hell do you expect?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Nice troll. Grow up
You grow up, you warmongering jingo.
Where did I say we should support the Palestinians and bin Laden? Your assumption that lack of support for Israel is support for these folks is rather juvenile, but it's what is the norm for America these days.
Re:What the hell do you expect?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Instead of cutting loose, we need to make it clear that this attack has strengthened our resolve. We should be backing Israel 200%, and helping them search and destroy the terrorist cells in the West Bank. Palestine should not exist as of this moment.
Insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. Terrorism in the USA: get used to it, I guess. At least we can now empathize with our Israeli brethren.
Slashdot Mirror
And voluntarily giving them up means their servility is heartfelt. The will for liberty is dead.
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
Yes, because as long as people are beating the drum to give up liberty for an illusory security, we will have lovers of liberty pointing it out.
Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
You'd think that the CIA could track the enemies that it created itself, such as bin Laden.
I can't believe that people are beating the drum to increase funding for the CIA, or to cut the CIA loose. Heh, they set bin Laden up to start with, and encouraged Islamic fundamentalism in the anti-Soviet cause. Now he's Blowback. And what about that fundamentalist terrorist group, the KLA, that we've funded and supported? And we want the CIA to get _more_? To do _more_? Of what? The same old thing? No, thanks. No people who truly love liberty would tolerate such a vile organization like the CIA on its own shores.
The State will always use a crisis to increase its power, size, interference, control. This is old hat.
Why not? We subverted communists with prosperity. Look here for a discussion of a quote from Deng Xioping: "To get rich is glorious."
Iraq is flush with Oil. You can bet the US would love to turn Iraq into a US colony/protectorate, and the oil companies can get a nice, steady, cheap supply. And the US population wouldn't mind a bit: we'd get cheap gas, and we'd eliminate a one-time Hitler-of-the-Day (aka Hussein).
What's scary is not the censorship thing (because, after all, they _own_ the stations and have the liberty to determine what shall or shall not be played on their stations), but the hysteria thing.
Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating.
Variant: those who know history will find new ways to make mistakes.
Here's the guarantee: freedom/liberty will be reduced. Plain and simple. The state will utilize the latest crisis to its own benefit (i.e., growth). That is the central thesis of Crisis and Leviathan. Of course, the state has to bamboozle us with high-minded principles, such as "we're doing this to secure your freedom".
Fair to whom? The state, maybe...
It was 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, putting in place the foundation for a large Centralized State. The Ariticles of Confederation (which incidentally, set a precedent for dissolving our compact; maybe we should try again, oh, wait, it's _been_ tried, and failed) were a pain to the Federalists/Centralizers, and they worked tirelessly to replace them. They have their wish. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
From all the time I spend on /., it was an easy transition to surfing countless news sites. The only problem I had was I couldn't moderate any opinion pieces.
Have you played Bobby Fischer on ICC, too?
Until we find who is responsible for the WTC terrorism, why don't we just bomb RTLinux?
No, I don't understand. Because the Bill of Rights makes a clear distinction between "the people" (that's you and me) and "States". Read the Bill of Rights here and note Amendment 10 in particular. "The people" is just the people (not "the States"), and it's what's used in Amendment 2.
You are free to be frightened, and to work to amend the Constitution. But you are no lover of liberty.
Nice points. War on Alcohol. War on Drugs. Whenever the US goes on a Great Moral Crusade Against Americans With A Vice, kiss liberty goodbye and watch State power grow. We also had a War on Poverty, which was a dismal failure. Now we are hearing the drums for a War on Terrorism. It will be yet another failure.
The right to own guns in the US is basically the right to defend your life, liberty, and property. From a government, and from criminals (can be, and has been, the same thing at times). It is interesting to note that the majority of fatal violence in the last century was perpetrated by governments against their own and others' (unarmed) populations.
When people try to remove guns, they are saying you do not have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, and the US founders considered life, liberty, and property (aka "pursuit of happiness" but we can argue that last one...) INALIENABLE rights. These rights are typically taken away by the state. And they were saying, especially in the 2nd amemndment, that the people are justified in resisting the attempted removal of those rights. Since they are INALIENABLE, no government is justified in taking them away (though they do, typically with...guns!), and if a government does, the people are justified in resisting. That's the justification for our rebelling against England, and for the 2nd amemendment in our constitution.
Europeans don't see things this way. That's OK, they are permitted to live in servility if they want to. Lots of Americans don't see it that way, too, and that's a real problem for liberty.
If everyone could get a good education and a decent job, why would a rational person want live a life of crime?
We are not European Socialist Drones. We are American Socialist Armed Drones. It's a big difference.
For an enlightening read on Down's syndrome kids, go here.
Whew, that's a mouthful. I'd hate be from there, and say, "I'm from
Oh, BTW, nice civilized answer. I hope to God barbarians like you aren't determining foreign policy.
Plus, if you run OpenBSD, you get to be superior to the Linux rabble.
You grow up, you warmongering jingo.
Where did I say we should support the Palestinians and bin Laden? Your assumption that lack of support for Israel is support for these folks is rather juvenile, but it's what is the norm for America these days.
Insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. Terrorism in the USA: get used to it, I guess. At least we can now empathize with our Israeli brethren.