Why would there be no way to profit off of an addictive drug that comes from a processed agricultural product? It doesn't seem to have stopped companies from making money off of tobacco, and it's not really good for anything else.
I don't know about the addictive part. Habit-forming? Probably. But that's not what TFA is about. It's about hemp, which is a slightly different thing than marijuana, which is what you refer to by talking about a drug.
However *hemp*, grown for fiber etc, has very little psychoactive substances. Smoking hemp gets you a cough and lung damage, but little in the way of a "buzz".
Anyways, the key with tobacco being a better tax source is because raising, harvesting, and curing tobacco properly is difficult, heavily-regulated, and expensive. The taxing and regulating infrastructure for tobacco is also already in place.
On the other hand, growing hemp/marijuana is relatively easy, simple, and cheap, and can be done indoors in the case of marijuana. Little or no taxing and regulating infrastructure is in place, especially at the Federal level.
There's also the issue of the US prison system, the privately run prisons in particular, that would be in danger of financial collapse if the huge steady influx of marijuana users busted for possession/paraphernalia and small-time dealers/distributors were to stop, never mind if a large percentage of the current population convicted and sentenced for possession and small-time dealing/distribution etc were to be released.
This results in tobacco being much easier, cheaper, and more attractive for the government to tax and regulate.
Combined with lobbying and campaign contributions from a number of various interests, from social conservative groups to cotton, wool, and other textile and materials-related commercial interests, and let's not forget "big pharma" protecting it's market for a wide range of profitable pharmaceuticals, there is a huge combined pressure to keep hemp and marijuana illegal in the US.
No if a right is not enumerated in the constitution than government has every right to restrict that right.
The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution seems to disagree.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But then, there are a large number of people who believe that the government should not be hog-tied by Constitutional restrictions to it's power.
They call themselves "Progressives", as in progressing past the restrictions on government power in the Constitution.
Modded "Troll"???
That was a purely factual and historically accurate post, meant to be informative and to point out a Constitutional conflict with the statement made by the AC who I quoted and replied to.
As to the definition of "Progressivism", I'll let one of the icons of the Progressive movement define it's views relating to the Constitution in his own words:
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws." -- Woodrow Wilson
Facts and accurate history are a troll now? Sheesh! Put your big-boy pants on!
Please enlighten me. What "violent threats" did he post?
Posting violent threats IS against the law, and not only was he never charged, a judge disagrees with your characterization as he had Raub immediately released and chastised the government. It's not like the Rutherford Institute lawyers had to mount some lengthy defense, their main function was simply to force the government to present a reason for Raub's detention to a judge, which should have happened before he was abducted by the FBI, Secret Service, and police and held illegally.
Yeah, he's a 9/11 "truther", but last I knew, that wasn't illegal, otherwise Van Jones should have been arrested, as he was a member of a "truther" group as well.
I don't agree with much of what Raub seems to believe, but that doesn't mean the guy is guilty of any crimes. He doesn't even own any weapons. His posts contained no direct or specific threats, no suicidal talk, he suffered no loss of function, no inability to perform his daily routine, none of that pesky criteria that traditionally indicates mental illness. It would seem that the government is less concerned about real evidence of mental illness and more concerned with anti-government sentiment (which they consider to be one in the same).
Facebook users don't care, and get angry when you try to eduucate them. They think I'm crazy,, but mostly I post inane rubbish just to keep the data miners off kilter.. Spam away!
Just don't post anti-big-government opinions and Canadian rap song lyrics if you're a military veteran, or you could get the "Soviet dissident" treatment, and get thrown into a mental ward without warrant or due process.
Thankfully for Raub, someone caught his detainment on video and it went viral. What if nobody had taken video? Would he still be doing the "Thorazine shuffle" and drooling on himself in a tranq'ed-out stupor in some mental ward doing a real-world remake of Jack Nicholson's role in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?
I see that there's nothing I could possibly say or do that would or could convince you to step outside your comfort zone. You want to know the outcome in advance before taking any action.
That's the game plan of cowards and losers. Between cowardice, apathy, and ignorance, you and those that think as you do have doomed your selves by your own choice.
Don't worry. Go back to sleep. Others will create history and the world going forward for you.
It just may not be the kind of history you want, and it may well not include you continuing to live.
But then, who ever heard of sheep having an active part in determining what their future is like?
What, you think securing you and your children's freedom would be easy or painless?
Of course not, that's why I'm waiting to see YOU offer yourself to difficulty and pain first.
Instead of telling other people the "easy (sorta) fix" of not applying for a license, I'm waiting for you (or anyone) to come out and say "and that's why I tore up my license and will not be renewing (and still drive, and refuse to pay the fines, etc)"
How do you know I haven't?
The "I'm waiting for you to go first" types afraid to stick out from the herd like frightened sheep are one of the biggest reasons we find ourselves with the corrupt, crony-capitalist government we have, and why our individual rights are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate. They know sheep are too frightened to challenge them.
...do you think they'd be able to really do much about it short of following in Syria's footsteps and start lobbing bombs and artillery shells into residential neighborhoods and gunning down civilians indiscriminately in the streets?
Exactly. If people follow your "easy fix" plan, your country will follow Syria's footsteps, and I wager that many people don't wish to see your/their country turn into another Syria.
The US government is *already* on and well-down the path to becoming another Syria regardless of anything else save a miracle, with regards to suppressing the population. The longer people wait to speak out and act, the worse for the people it will be. The US Gov. has already set the groundwork for 30,000 domestic drones, have placed orders for ~750 million rounds of.40 cal hollow-point ammo (unusable by the military for war by Geneva Convention) for domestic agencies that suddenly have expanded enforcement/security capabilities and personnel. What does the NOAA need large amounts of hollow-point ammunition for? Are they planning on shooting the oceans and the atmosphere if they don't behave?
When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
And when people fear other people, there is no trust.
You seem to think that freedom is important, and that you need the majority of people to fight for it. Yet... you're too afraid to trust other people, earlier you said the"sheep" will "continue to baa".
You don't trust people to be smart enough to wake up and join you, so why would they join you? If you don't trust people, people aren't going to trust you either.
People already fear other people, incited and encouraged in their fears by the government that desires a divided populace for easier control.
I have no problem trusting people that have shown that they understand the problem and demonstrate a willingness to do what it takes to secure their freedoms. I do not trust the sheep that continue to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to even acknowledge the problems or their source, a too-large, bloated, and corrupt government that has forgotten that it only survives at OUR pleasure, not theirs.
By calling sheep sheep, I hope to possibly shake a few out of their iTrance, and hopefully get them to set down the "ooo, shiny!" for a few minutes to look around at what's been happening since they went to sleep. More and more people *are* waking up.
The trouble is already on the way, one way or another, and not just in the US. The entire world is heading straight for a global collapse, and soon. It will make the US "Great Depression" of the 1930s look mild. The ones that will open their eyes, prepare, speak up, and take action are the ones that will have the best chance at surviving what's coming, and will be the ones that are left in charge when the dust settles.
I'd much rather die on my own two feet than survive on my knees before tyranny, thus betraying, making meaningless, a
Yes, and thank you for holding watch on the last front of the fight to retain our liberties, upon these internet forums. It is here that the future of American freedom will be decided. If only I was so brave you would not have to go it alone.
What, you think all I do is post on the 'net?
Yeah, that's all I do.
Yup, that's it, you've caught me out. It's not like there are political grassroots groups I could join, political organizations I could donate to, or protests I could attend.
I'm simply not afraid to say what I think. That's one of those rapidly-disappearing constitutional rights that tens of thousands have died to protect and preserve. It's not like they died so people could actually use it or anything, right?
It's not like I'm using my First Amendment rights for something helpful and uplifting to society like calling for killing "crackas and they babies" or calling for people to "throw bombs through the windows of cracka-baby nurseries" like the upstanding citizens of the NBPP, so I probably should STFU, eh?
Just refuse to apply for state ID or driver's licenses.
Yup, and lose your ability to drive, vote, have access to government buildings and services...
No, everyone drives anyway, voting is nearly meaningless anymore if all you're choosing between is (D) and (R) clones, and you learn to do without government services. What, you think securing you and your children's freedom would be easy or painless?
If 100's of thousands or millions of drivers refuse to apply for licenses and drive anyway, are they going to shut down the streets and roads? Arrest a large proportion of the entire state's population?
Nah, they'll just turn it into another revenue-generation mechanism and continue pounding our collective asses, just from a different angle.
You don't pay the fines. If the majority of people, or even a significant percentage, simply decided en-mass to ignore obtaining a driver's license, and ignored tickets/fines for doing so, do you think they'd be able to really do much about it short of following in Syria's footsteps and start lobbing bombs and artillery shells into residential neighborhoods and gunning down civilians indiscriminately in the streets?
Yet the sheep continue to baa for more and rush to hand over ever more of their freedom, give the terrorists in government ever more power to enslave them, and fork over ever more of the people's wealth to pay for the chains.
Strat
Yup, it's truly sickening. Also a good part of the reason I always want to punch anyone who pops off with "you get the government you deserve." No, motherfucker, I get stuck the government you deserve, 'cuz you (collectively speaking) are a bunch of self-centered pussies, too scared of your own shadow to stand up for yourself and your neighbors.
We certainly agree here.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the Spirit of Resistance." - Thomas Jefferson
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
And for Psion who replied to my OP above:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
going to be smiling big time when i get my next ID.
Easy fix (sort of).
Just refuse to apply for state ID or driver's licenses. If 100's of thousands or millions of drivers refuse to apply for licenses and drive anyway, are they going to shut down the streets and roads? Arrest a large proportion of the entire state's population?
Where does your state store the facial recognition data? Would Molotov cocktails in the facial data storage drive racks affect facial recognition data integrity?
I'm sick and tired of this emerging police state. You're *far* more likely to be struck by lightning or be attacked by sharks than to be killed by a terrorist attack.
The only terrorist threat that's worth US citizens worrying about is the terrorist government of the US. Yet the sheep continue to baa for more and rush to hand over ever more of their freedom, give the terrorists in government ever more power to enslave them, and fork over ever more of the people's wealth to pay for the chains.
Seems like there are a lot of judges and other politicians and unions across the nation that don't want the voter's will carried out when it doesn't go their way.
Sure, the competition if fierce. So YOU got to step up your game and meet the challenge....or do you expect some sort of welfare handout where your rights and freedoms will just fall from the sky?
In Wisconsin the people did step up. Over and over. Competition is one thing, but using completely unethical methods to cheat and game the system to negate the will of the people is another. Like legislators abandoning their duty, fleeing the state, and going into hiding to prevent a vote. They should face automatic impeachment and censure with a special election held to replace them for violating their oaths of office.
Are you agnostic about dragons, unicorns, werewolves and vampires? Do these supernatural human fabrications seem like they may really be there if we just look in the right places?
Yes, I'm agnostic about those things, although I tend to lean quite strongly toward doubt in their existence. Some may, like many old stories, be based around some actual facts. I don't carry holy water around or load my firearms with silver bullets, but I do not completely and utterly dismiss even the remote possibility the stories may contain or be based on some facts.
However, mu original point stands. Atheists are members of a religion no different than any other because they accept an article of faith without proof, and the same rules regarding religion and the government and schools should apply to Atheists as they do to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc etc.
It's "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion".
Apparently the unions with their people "on the ground", bags of cash, and their purchased elected officials in several states disagree with your viewpoint, and are free to set things up how they like.
FTFY
And s I already pointed out in another thread, your second reason for them being outlawed is seriously flawed.
How is it "seriously flawed" that unions have a long history of backing politicians in exchange for favorable treatment at the expense of the taxpayer? Have you been asleep for the last six decades or more, or have you never learned any history except what people with an agenda have told you?
Elected officials in several states just took away a lot of power from Teachers/Police/Fire unions.
Yes, for the first time in a long time. And it was so alarming and unexpected, the unions outside of Wisconsin threw massive amounts of money and resources into the fight precisely to prevent this setting a new precedent.
Have you seen Detroit recently? I'm not far away and get to see the damage unions and the corrupt politicians.they own have inflicted. I've watched it happen first-hand over the last 50+ years. I hate it. My aunt and her family used to live there in what was once a nice lower-middle-income suburban neighborhood that now has packs of feral dogs out in daylight and the occasional black or brown bear wandering through. That's not exaggeration. There are YT videos.
The rest of the state isn't all that much better, with several large municipalities having state-appointed emergency financial managers taking over all authority for spending and the budget because the corruption and union favoritism and cronyism have bankrupted them.
Want things to go the other way? Convince other voters to vote your way.
How many times does it take? Seems like there are a lot of judges and other politicians and unions across the nation that don't want the voter's will carried out when it doesn't go their way. How far do they go in fighting the decision of the voters before you can say they want to disenfranchise the voters by making their vote meaningless? How many injunctions? How many failed recalls? How many legislators on the lamb in another state to avoid losing a vote?
Then move to a 'Right to Work' state. There are plenty of them where you don't have to join a union if you don't want to.
All states should be right-to-work states. Being forced to pay protection money to hold a job is the type of thing the Mob does. Mandatory union membership has no place in today's world of massive amounts of government labor laws and regulations protecting worker safety and rights. Whether or not labor unions helped bring about those protections doesn't matter. The protections are there now, and public sector labor unions are without purpose other than to soak the taxpayer and gain political power & influence for their leaders.
Public sector unions should be outlawed. Both because they place essential services provided by government at risk from strikes, and because the taxpayers who pay the union wages & benefits have no say in how much the unions get, it's between the union and the politician they helped elect. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, without the sheep being allowed a vote. It's corruption incarnate.
Look at your calendar. What anniversary just passed?
These attacks were far to well coordinated and planned for them to be simply an unusually-bad outbreak of the typical muslim-outrage insta-riot over a rather shoddy YT video.
Besides, look at the date on the video. That video had been up for a couple of months with maybe 10 views.
The video story is a distraction thrown up to cover the fact that the US is being attacked because the radicals sense the US leadership is weak. Our government pushes the video excuse to cover their own incompetence and weakness.
Posse Comitatus does not forbid the use of soldiers on U.S. territory. It forbids local officials from the using the soldiers. See the wikipedia article that you linked (but were too lazy to read): "the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement... it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute." In other words Presidents Obama and Bush violated nothing when they used the army on U.S. soil to stop riots.
Before you scold me, I did and do realize what the Act means.
I apologize if perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been in favor of brevity, but I was trying to describe a possible authoritarian takeover, and those grabbing control not having to quite visibly roll in troops would help to keep people from becoming alarmed and mounting a defense until much later, perhaps too late for them, by simply turning the police into de-facto soldiers. Most people would still not believe it for a good while after it was well underway precisely because they have seen no military convoys rolling in.
Not until they find themselves being herded into trucks for the trip to detention/re-education camps...or to an open field to stand in front of large open pits with pallets of 100lb lime sacks sitting to either side.
Police forces have to do something with all that grant money they get from the DHS. Their chosen course for a damn long time now has been to play paramilitary. Once they had all the neat toys, they had to create a justification for having them, so they started using them for routine things.
This is why I find complaints of slippery slope fallacy to be way overstated. Not enough people read history.
Amen on people not reading history, or only skimming the "revised" versions provided to public schools.
It's not all the state and local police at fault here for the militarization of the civilian police, essentially turning them into an occupying military.
The Feds only recently temporarily suspended the DoD/Pentagon "1033" program that from 1994 until very recently supplied full military weapons and equipment including tanks with.50-cal machinegun turrets, armored personnel carriers, LAWS anti-tank rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Blackhawks, Hueys, and on and on. All the local agency had to pay was the shipping charges, and of course the insurance and operation/maintenance costs. What could possibly go wrong, eh?
Here's a couple of links to stories. Google has tons more.
I guess one way to get around that clunky old Constitution and that inconvenient Posse Comitatus Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ) is to not obviously bring IN troops, but to simply turn the existing law enforcement apparatus already around us into the military.
No convoys of soldiers rolling into neighborhoods, everyone just suddenly wakes up one day and the local police are now wearing combat equipment and patrolling in armored vehicles and you need a pass to clear the checkpoint to travel to your job. Oh, DHS recently posted a bid for tens of thousands of prefab bulletproof portable checkpoint guard shacks.
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Except that it's a safe bet that civilian drones will be heavily licensed, regulated, limited in their lawful abilities/features, and restricted like firearms are now. Likely even more heavily-regulated than firearms. The government, with it's current attitude, would never allow civilians the legal ability to use drones as in your example.
The official in your example would inform law enforcement, and they in turn would send a SWAT team to your house and arrest you after identifying and tracking you with a LE drone and using the drone's various sensors/scanners to check for any weapons/explosives in your home, who else is there, and where each of you are within the residence and monitoring/recording any conversations inside.
Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved
A deity is not a requisite of religion. Faith in the unprovable is.
Atheists actually DO belong to a religion, a religion equal to any they abhor, for they too accept an article of faith which cannot be proven: that having not (yet?) found objective evidence for a thing means it categorically must not and cannot exist.
By that same criteria, if you lived in the 1500s then radio waves and X-rays "did not exist", since there did not yet exist the technology to detect, generate, or receive (in the case of radio) them.
At least agnostics are humble and logical enough to acknowledge that they don't know what they don't have a means to test or verify.
They did "dig into", to use Barrett's term, Palin's kids though. Including using a Downs Syndrome baby and her daughter's pregnancy to attack her. But that's different, right?
Seriously, Barrett Brown isn't only a douchebag, he's a fucking moron..
And I'd likely agree. It doesn't make what he said OR what he said he'd do illegal though. I guess he should have played it safe and called for bombs to be tossed through the windows of "cracka-baby" nurseries, or put out a cash bounty dead-or-alive like the NBPP has done. We know that must be OK, otherwise they would have been arrested. Right?
Is it now illegal to search public records for incriminating data and evidence of wrongdoing on those in government and the FBI/law enforcement, who may be committing illegal acts and carrying out vendettas under color of authority, and point it out to others?
When was that law passed? Can you cite a legal reference, precedent, and/or the law that makes it illegal to gather publicly-available information on those in government and law enforcement?
When you promise to do something to an FBI agent's children you'd better expect the wrath of hell to descend (ascend?) upon you.
Yeah, screw the laws and individual rights! Screw equal protection under law! He's challenging their authori-taaay!!!
GET HIM!!
And, to make it even worse, he's using the same tactics they use and are not prosecuted for! Only THEY are allowed to do certain legal things!!
BURN THE HERETIC!!
Is that the kind of government you want? What about if the other side uses the same tactic on someone you like and agree with when they hold power?
Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible
it's funny how in the effort to fight a perceived abuse of authority, we find thugs ready to endorse a worse kind of abuse
murder
because of traffic light cameras
The traffic light cameras are just a small part of a larger pattern of authoritarian abuse government-wide. They are just one minor drop of an example in an ocean of government abuses and trampling of rights...TSA junk-gropes and VIPR teams, warrantless wiretapping and searches, indefinite detention without charge/NDAA/PATRIOT Act, etc etc, on and on.
If changes can be made peacefully, that's the first and best choice. If government continues to ignore the will of the people despite all peaceful attempts, the people are left with but one last resort.
what an asshole
I could stop being an asshole, you can't stop being cattle.
And if you have your way, like cattle, you'll be led to the government-run slaughterhouse along with the others like you, all shocked at what's happening, but still defending your butchers. It's happened repeatedly through history, yet some people like you are apparently incapable of learning from history.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would there be no way to profit off of an addictive drug that comes from a processed agricultural product? It doesn't seem to have stopped companies from making money off of tobacco, and it's not really good for anything else.
I don't know about the addictive part. Habit-forming? Probably. But that's not what TFA is about. It's about hemp, which is a slightly different thing than marijuana, which is what you refer to by talking about a drug.
However *hemp*, grown for fiber etc, has very little psychoactive substances. Smoking hemp gets you a cough and lung damage, but little in the way of a "buzz".
Anyways, the key with tobacco being a better tax source is because raising, harvesting, and curing tobacco properly is difficult, heavily-regulated, and expensive. The taxing and regulating infrastructure for tobacco is also already in place.
On the other hand, growing hemp/marijuana is relatively easy, simple, and cheap, and can be done indoors in the case of marijuana. Little or no taxing and regulating infrastructure is in place, especially at the Federal level.
There's also the issue of the US prison system, the privately run prisons in particular, that would be in danger of financial collapse if the huge steady influx of marijuana users busted for possession/paraphernalia and small-time dealers/distributors were to stop, never mind if a large percentage of the current population convicted and sentenced for possession and small-time dealing/distribution etc were to be released.
This results in tobacco being much easier, cheaper, and more attractive for the government to tax and regulate.
Combined with lobbying and campaign contributions from a number of various interests, from social conservative groups to cotton, wool, and other textile and materials-related commercial interests, and let's not forget "big pharma" protecting it's market for a wide range of profitable pharmaceuticals, there is a huge combined pressure to keep hemp and marijuana illegal in the US.
Like always, follow the money.
Strat
the proper response is to sit down and work out compromises everyone can live with.
There are some things upon which there can be no compromise.
Just as an example, not implying anything here...
Can I put my dick in your mouth? No?
Compromise with me. Just the tip?
Still no?
You must be unreasonable as you refuse to even consider a compromise!
Strat
Modded "Troll"???
That was a purely factual and historically accurate post, meant to be informative and to point out a Constitutional conflict with the statement made by the AC who I quoted and replied to.
As to the definition of "Progressivism", I'll let one of the icons of the Progressive movement define it's views relating to the Constitution in his own words:
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws." -- Woodrow Wilson
Facts and accurate history are a troll now? Sheesh! Put your big-boy pants on!
Strat
No if a right is not enumerated in the constitution than government has every right to restrict that right.
The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution seems to disagree.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But then, there are a large number of people who believe that the government should not be hog-tied by Constitutional restrictions to it's power.
They call themselves "Progressives", as in progressing past the restrictions on government power in the Constitution.
Strat
He posted many violent threats
Please enlighten me. What "violent threats" did he post?
Posting violent threats IS against the law, and not only was he never charged, a judge disagrees with your characterization as he had Raub immediately released and chastised the government. It's not like the Rutherford Institute lawyers had to mount some lengthy defense, their main function was simply to force the government to present a reason for Raub's detention to a judge, which should have happened before he was abducted by the FBI, Secret Service, and police and held illegally.
Yeah, he's a 9/11 "truther", but last I knew, that wasn't illegal, otherwise Van Jones should have been arrested, as he was a member of a "truther" group as well.
I don't agree with much of what Raub seems to believe, but that doesn't mean the guy is guilty of any crimes. He doesn't even own any weapons. His posts contained no direct or specific threats, no suicidal talk, he suffered no loss of function, no inability to perform his daily routine, none of that pesky criteria that traditionally indicates mental illness. It would seem that the government is less concerned about real evidence of mental illness and more concerned with anti-government sentiment (which they consider to be one in the same).
Strat
Facebook users don't care, and get angry when you try to eduucate them. They think I'm crazy,, but mostly I post inane rubbish just to keep the data miners off kilter.. Spam away!
Just don't post anti-big-government opinions and Canadian rap song lyrics if you're a military veteran, or you could get the "Soviet dissident" treatment, and get thrown into a mental ward without warrant or due process.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/29/former-marine-facebook-sue-fbi
Thankfully for Raub, someone caught his detainment on video and it went viral. What if nobody had taken video? Would he still be doing the "Thorazine shuffle" and drooling on himself in a tranq'ed-out stupor in some mental ward doing a real-world remake of Jack Nicholson's role in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?
Scary times we live in.
Strat
I see that there's nothing I could possibly say or do that would or could convince you to step outside your comfort zone. You want to know the outcome in advance before taking any action.
That's the game plan of cowards and losers. Between cowardice, apathy, and ignorance, you and those that think as you do have doomed your selves by your own choice.
Don't worry. Go back to sleep. Others will create history and the world going forward for you.
It just may not be the kind of history you want, and it may well not include you continuing to live.
But then, who ever heard of sheep having an active part in determining what their future is like?
Baa, Mr. A. Coward, baa!
Strat
How do you know I haven't?
The "I'm waiting for you to go first" types afraid to stick out from the herd like frightened sheep are one of the biggest reasons we find ourselves with the corrupt, crony-capitalist government we have, and why our individual rights are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate. They know sheep are too frightened to challenge them.
The US government is *already* on and well-down the path to becoming another Syria regardless of anything else save a miracle, with regards to suppressing the population. The longer people wait to speak out and act, the worse for the people it will be. The US Gov. has already set the groundwork for 30,000 domestic drones, have placed orders for ~750 million rounds of .40 cal hollow-point ammo (unusable by the military for war by Geneva Convention) for domestic agencies that suddenly have expanded enforcement/security capabilities and personnel. What does the NOAA need large amounts of hollow-point ammunition for? Are they planning on shooting the oceans and the atmosphere if they don't behave?
People already fear other people, incited and encouraged in their fears by the government that desires a divided populace for easier control.
I have no problem trusting people that have shown that they understand the problem and demonstrate a willingness to do what it takes to secure their freedoms. I do not trust the sheep that continue to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to even acknowledge the problems or their source, a too-large, bloated, and corrupt government that has forgotten that it only survives at OUR pleasure, not theirs.
By calling sheep sheep, I hope to possibly shake a few out of their iTrance, and hopefully get them to set down the "ooo, shiny!" for a few minutes to look around at what's been happening since they went to sleep. More and more people *are* waking up.
The trouble is already on the way, one way or another, and not just in the US. The entire world is heading straight for a global collapse, and soon. It will make the US "Great Depression" of the 1930s look mild. The ones that will open their eyes, prepare, speak up, and take action are the ones that will have the best chance at surviving what's coming, and will be the ones that are left in charge when the dust settles.
I'd much rather die on my own two feet than survive on my knees before tyranny, thus betraying, making meaningless, a
Yes, and thank you for holding watch on the last front of the fight to retain our liberties, upon these internet forums. It is here that the future of American freedom will be decided. If only I was so brave you would not have to go it alone.
What, you think all I do is post on the 'net?
Yeah, that's all I do.
Yup, that's it, you've caught me out. It's not like there are political grassroots groups I could join, political organizations I could donate to, or protests I could attend.
I'm simply not afraid to say what I think. That's one of those rapidly-disappearing constitutional rights that tens of thousands have died to protect and preserve. It's not like they died so people could actually use it or anything, right?
It's not like I'm using my First Amendment rights for something helpful and uplifting to society like calling for killing "crackas and they babies" or calling for people to "throw bombs through the windows of cracka-baby nurseries" like the upstanding citizens of the NBPP, so I probably should STFU, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcfymOvoUo
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panther-leader-kill-white-babies-by-bombing-nurseries
Sheesh! Some people's kids! :/
Strat
No, everyone drives anyway, voting is nearly meaningless anymore if all you're choosing between is (D) and (R) clones, and you learn to do without government services. What, you think securing you and your children's freedom would be easy or painless?
You don't pay the fines. If the majority of people, or even a significant percentage, simply decided en-mass to ignore obtaining a driver's license, and ignored tickets/fines for doing so, do you think they'd be able to really do much about it short of following in Syria's footsteps and start lobbing bombs and artillery shells into residential neighborhoods and gunning down civilians indiscriminately in the streets?
We certainly agree here.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the Spirit of Resistance." - Thomas Jefferson
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
And for Psion who replied to my OP above:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
Okay ... I'm getting up and moving to a seat a little farther away from BlueStrat.
What's that? No, no, I don't know that guy. Never saw him before in my life.
Let me translate Psion's post for those who didn't quite catch the full meaning:
Baa!
HTH HAND
Strat
going to be smiling big time when i get my next ID.
Easy fix (sort of).
Just refuse to apply for state ID or driver's licenses. If 100's of thousands or millions of drivers refuse to apply for licenses and drive anyway, are they going to shut down the streets and roads? Arrest a large proportion of the entire state's population?
Where does your state store the facial recognition data? Would Molotov cocktails in the facial data storage drive racks affect facial recognition data integrity?
I'm sick and tired of this emerging police state. You're *far* more likely to be struck by lightning or be attacked by sharks than to be killed by a terrorist attack.
The only terrorist threat that's worth US citizens worrying about is the terrorist government of the US. Yet the sheep continue to baa for more and rush to hand over ever more of their freedom, give the terrorists in government ever more power to enslave them, and fork over ever more of the people's wealth to pay for the chains.
Strat
In Wisconsin the people did step up. Over and over. Competition is one thing, but using completely unethical methods to cheat and game the system to negate the will of the people is another. Like legislators abandoning their duty, fleeing the state, and going into hiding to prevent a vote. They should face automatic impeachment and censure with a special election held to replace them for violating their oaths of office.
Strat
How many legislators on the lam in another state to avoid losing a vote?
Gah!
Stupid auto-correct!
Are you agnostic about dragons, unicorns, werewolves and vampires? Do these supernatural human fabrications seem like they may really be there if we just look in the right places?
Yes, I'm agnostic about those things, although I tend to lean quite strongly toward doubt in their existence. Some may, like many old stories, be based around some actual facts. I don't carry holy water around or load my firearms with silver bullets, but I do not completely and utterly dismiss even the remote possibility the stories may contain or be based on some facts.
However, mu original point stands. Atheists are members of a religion no different than any other because they accept an article of faith without proof, and the same rules regarding religion and the government and schools should apply to Atheists as they do to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc etc.
It's "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion".
Strat
Apparently the unions with their people "on the ground", bags of cash, and their purchased elected officials in several states disagree with your viewpoint, and are free to set things up how they like.
FTFY
And s I already pointed out in another thread, your second reason for them being outlawed is seriously flawed.
How is it "seriously flawed" that unions have a long history of backing politicians in exchange for favorable treatment at the expense of the taxpayer? Have you been asleep for the last six decades or more, or have you never learned any history except what people with an agenda have told you?
Elected officials in several states just took away a lot of power from Teachers/Police/Fire unions.
Yes, for the first time in a long time. And it was so alarming and unexpected, the unions outside of Wisconsin threw massive amounts of money and resources into the fight precisely to prevent this setting a new precedent.
Have you seen Detroit recently? I'm not far away and get to see the damage unions and the corrupt politicians.they own have inflicted. I've watched it happen first-hand over the last 50+ years. I hate it. My aunt and her family used to live there in what was once a nice lower-middle-income suburban neighborhood that now has packs of feral dogs out in daylight and the occasional black or brown bear wandering through. That's not exaggeration. There are YT videos.
The rest of the state isn't all that much better, with several large municipalities having state-appointed emergency financial managers taking over all authority for spending and the budget because the corruption and union favoritism and cronyism have bankrupted them.
Want things to go the other way? Convince other voters to vote your way.
How many times does it take? Seems like there are a lot of judges and other politicians and unions across the nation that don't want the voter's will carried out when it doesn't go their way. How far do they go in fighting the decision of the voters before you can say they want to disenfranchise the voters by making their vote meaningless? How many injunctions? How many failed recalls? How many legislators on the lamb in another state to avoid losing a vote?
Strat
Then move to a 'Right to Work' state. There are plenty of them where you don't have to join a union if you don't want to.
All states should be right-to-work states. Being forced to pay protection money to hold a job is the type of thing the Mob does. Mandatory union membership has no place in today's world of massive amounts of government labor laws and regulations protecting worker safety and rights. Whether or not labor unions helped bring about those protections doesn't matter. The protections are there now, and public sector labor unions are without purpose other than to soak the taxpayer and gain political power & influence for their leaders.
Public sector unions should be outlawed. Both because they place essential services provided by government at risk from strikes, and because the taxpayers who pay the union wages & benefits have no say in how much the unions get, it's between the union and the politician they helped elect. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, without the sheep being allowed a vote. It's corruption incarnate.
Strat
I would like to see what exactly caused these riots. Link please?
Sure. Here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Look at your calendar. What anniversary just passed?
These attacks were far to well coordinated and planned for them to be simply an unusually-bad outbreak of the typical muslim-outrage insta-riot over a rather shoddy YT video.
Besides, look at the date on the video. That video had been up for a couple of months with maybe 10 views.
The video story is a distraction thrown up to cover the fact that the US is being attacked because the radicals sense the US leadership is weak. Our government pushes the video excuse to cover their own incompetence and weakness.
Strat
Posse Comitatus does not forbid the use of soldiers on U.S. territory. It forbids local officials from the using the soldiers. See the wikipedia article that you linked (but were too lazy to read): "the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement... it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute." In other words Presidents Obama and Bush violated nothing when they used the army on U.S. soil to stop riots.
Before you scold me, I did and do realize what the Act means.
I apologize if perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been in favor of brevity, but I was trying to describe a possible authoritarian takeover, and those grabbing control not having to quite visibly roll in troops would help to keep people from becoming alarmed and mounting a defense until much later, perhaps too late for them, by simply turning the police into de-facto soldiers. Most people would still not believe it for a good while after it was well underway precisely because they have seen no military convoys rolling in.
Not until they find themselves being herded into trucks for the trip to detention/re-education camps...or to an open field to stand in front of large open pits with pallets of 100lb lime sacks sitting to either side.
Strat
Police forces have to do something with all that grant money they get from the DHS. Their chosen course for a damn long time now has been to play paramilitary. Once they had all the neat toys, they had to create a justification for having them, so they started using them for routine things.
This is why I find complaints of slippery slope fallacy to be way overstated. Not enough people read history.
Amen on people not reading history, or only skimming the "revised" versions provided to public schools.
It's not all the state and local police at fault here for the militarization of the civilian police, essentially turning them into an occupying military.
The Feds only recently temporarily suspended the DoD/Pentagon "1033" program that from 1994 until very recently supplied full military weapons and equipment including tanks with .50-cal machinegun turrets, armored personnel carriers, LAWS anti-tank rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Blackhawks, Hueys, and on and on. All the local agency had to pay was the shipping charges, and of course the insurance and operation/maintenance costs. What could possibly go wrong, eh?
Here's a couple of links to stories. Google has tons more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/pentagon-suspends-weapons-program-cops-military_n_1585328.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/14/ariz-sheriff-ordered-to-return-military-goods/57781594/1
And finally, an interesting look: http://www.dps.mo.gov/dir/programs/cjle/dod.asp
I guess one way to get around that clunky old Constitution and that inconvenient Posse Comitatus Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ) is to not obviously bring IN troops, but to simply turn the existing law enforcement apparatus already around us into the military.
No convoys of soldiers rolling into neighborhoods, everyone just suddenly wakes up one day and the local police are now wearing combat equipment and patrolling in armored vehicles and you need a pass to clear the checkpoint to travel to your job. Oh, DHS recently posted a bid for tens of thousands of prefab bulletproof portable checkpoint guard shacks.
Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Strat
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Except that it's a safe bet that civilian drones will be heavily licensed, regulated, limited in their lawful abilities/features, and restricted like firearms are now. Likely even more heavily-regulated than firearms. The government, with it's current attitude, would never allow civilians the legal ability to use drones as in your example.
The official in your example would inform law enforcement, and they in turn would send a SWAT team to your house and arrest you after identifying and tracking you with a LE drone and using the drone's various sensors/scanners to check for any weapons/explosives in your home, who else is there, and where each of you are within the residence and monitoring/recording any conversations inside.
Strat
That's the dumbest thing I've read all week.
Atheism is not a religion. It's a simple belief: that no god exists.
A "belief" in something with no proof and likely unprovable?
I see.
I also believe you are a moron. That doesn't make me a disciple of the Church of BlueStrat is a Moron.
Religion is more complicated than that. It's a faith (believe in a god but not given any proof), a code to live by (like the 10 Commandments).
You believe in something as an article of faith without proof.
And yet, you don't see that as a basic tenant of religion, except when others call what they believe in as an article of faith "God".
Yet, according to you, *I'm* a moron?
OK there, Zippy. Whatever you say. [snicker]
Strat
Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved
A deity is not a requisite of religion. Faith in the unprovable is.
Atheists actually DO belong to a religion, a religion equal to any they abhor, for they too accept an article of faith which cannot be proven: that having not (yet?) found objective evidence for a thing means it categorically must not and cannot exist.
By that same criteria, if you lived in the 1500s then radio waves and X-rays "did not exist", since there did not yet exist the technology to detect, generate, or receive (in the case of radio) them.
At least agnostics are humble and logical enough to acknowledge that they don't know what they don't have a means to test or verify.
Strat
Nice strawman - no one threatened Palin's kids.
They did "dig into", to use Barrett's term, Palin's kids though. Including using a Downs Syndrome baby and her daughter's pregnancy to attack her. But that's different, right?
Seriously, Barrett Brown isn't only a douchebag, he's a fucking moron ..
And I'd likely agree. It doesn't make what he said OR what he said he'd do illegal though. I guess he should have played it safe and called for bombs to be tossed through the windows of "cracka-baby" nurseries, or put out a cash bounty dead-or-alive like the NBPP has done. We know that must be OK, otherwise they would have been arrested. Right?
Is it now illegal to search public records for incriminating data and evidence of wrongdoing on those in government and the FBI/law enforcement, who may be committing illegal acts and carrying out vendettas under color of authority, and point it out to others?
When was that law passed? Can you cite a legal reference, precedent, and/or the law that makes it illegal to gather publicly-available information on those in government and law enforcement?
When you promise to do something to an FBI agent's children you'd better expect the wrath of hell to descend (ascend?) upon you.
Yeah, screw the laws and individual rights! Screw equal protection under law! He's challenging their authori-taaay!!!
GET HIM!!
And, to make it even worse, he's using the same tactics they use and are not prosecuted for! Only THEY are allowed to do certain legal things!!
BURN THE HERETIC!!
Is that the kind of government you want? What about if the other side uses the same tactic on someone you like and agree with when they hold power?
Strat
The traffic light cameras are just a small part of a larger pattern of authoritarian abuse government-wide. They are just one minor drop of an example in an ocean of government abuses and trampling of rights...TSA junk-gropes and VIPR teams, warrantless wiretapping and searches, indefinite detention without charge/NDAA/PATRIOT Act, etc etc, on and on.
If changes can be made peacefully, that's the first and best choice. If government continues to ignore the will of the people despite all peaceful attempts, the people are left with but one last resort.
what an asshole
I could stop being an asshole, you can't stop being cattle.
And if you have your way, like cattle, you'll be led to the government-run slaughterhouse along with the others like you, all shocked at what's happening, but still defending your butchers. It's happened repeatedly through history, yet some people like you are apparently incapable of learning from history.
Strat