Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of jumping headlong to violence, maybe you should have also read my post that followed the one you quoted where I said:
Nobody needs to get violent. There still is this thing called a ballot box. Anyone who has voted for an incumbent official no matter where or when is part of the problem. Don't hang the unresponsive officials, but just vote them out and let them get a real job in the private economy, if they can find one.
I agree that if it is possible to vote them out without resorting to violence, that's the best option.
Problem is, the officials understand this as well and have used their powers of office to protect themselves through gerrymandering, vote tabulation fraud, and bused-in voters etc to undermine and negate the people's ability to remove them from office in many cases.
Coupled with a judiciary that is unable and/or unwilling to prosecute these officials and their lackeys even when confronted with video evidence (if it hasn't been confiscated and destroyed), that accounts for soap, ballot, and jury boxes.
That leaves the people with only one box left. And they're working on removing that option as quickly as they can.
Gosh, it looks almost like you were attempting to take my comments out of context, as I clearly stated I preferred the non-violent route if possible.
Please stop. I don't even particularly like you, and it's still painful to watch you continue to embarrass yourself like this.
Oh, and you *still* haven't answered or refuted this:
are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?
Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.
Are you saying they should be arrested?
Can you or are you willing to answer honestly without attempting to distract from the question I asked, as you've been doing so far?
Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs
now i understand why you defend this guy. you're both vicious thugs
maybe the valid conditions for violent revolution against the government is way over here, and your mental triggers for imaging we've met those conditions is way over there
think about. or start issuing threats. your call, wackjob
Not being a fucking sheep =/= wackjob.
And if you're going to quote me, quote the whole thing.
The sad part is, these people, will pass blame for their actions onto the government, rather than taking responsibility for what they've done, and feel completely justified in doing so. The response to this will be the government putting up more cameras...
Well, the blame IS largely on the government, as often these camera programs are slipped in "under the radar", so to speak, as most city/county councils/governments are aware that in many cases most of the constituents are against them. Also to blame are judges that are fine with witnesses that can't be cross-examined (the camera) used to "prove" guilt.
Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs and accepting them as legal proof of guilt, if they refuse to listen to their constituents when they object to Big Brother style surveillance? The camera system makers/contractors and the Feds are throwing a lot of gold at these officials to adopt camera surveillance and enforcement systems, so lacking gold, maybe the populace should throw hot lead instead?
Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew that government, despite their best efforts to keep it in check, would grab more and more power and confiscate ever more of the people's wealth. They envisioned the citizens rising up using the 2nd Amendment and forcibly "downsizing" the government every few decades. According to TJ and his buddies, we've been slacking at decorating the trees in the town square and downtown D.C. with government officials swinging by their necks at the end of a rope.
I issued no threats. I asked questions. See the little squiggle with the dot at the bottom at the end of the sentences? That's what they call a "question mark". Might want to make a note.
I prefer a nice porterhouse steak. You seem to prefer the taste of bootleather. Not on my watch. My father didn't risk his life and get wounded in WW2 to have the nation he fought for turn into some authoritarian hellhole where the people must fear their government.
Here's another vocabulary word for you; "timid".
As in:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know
carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid
You use that word "lucid"...
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
I posted a factual reply. The government, both political parties, and political activists and groups/organizations across the spectrum use the tactics Barrett described against their opponents and enemies. You can't deny that's true. We hear the stories in the news almost daily.
All you can do is call names? What, are you 10 years old?
In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.
"So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."
Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"
are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?
Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.
Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.
Doesn't matter.
You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.
And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.
Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.
Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.
in many cases most of the constituents are against them.
Of course most people are against them. These cameras are impartial, and cause white, middle class lawbreakers to pay fines. Most of these people prefer the police to focus on teenagers and black people.
Wow, do you actually believe that or is the threshold-control on my sarcasm-detector set too high?
These cameras hurt the working-poor the most. A $50-$250 fine doesn't hurt the middle class family when the adults think nothing of, say, blowing that much at the local casino in a weekend, or even in a night.
It does hurt the working-poor who are barely surviving paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay rent, eat, and keep a vehicle on the road to get to work with, as a $50-$250 fine (or even more in some places) can mean loss/impounding of their vehicle (or at least their ability to drive it legally), losing their job, becoming homeless, etc in a cascading effect. I've done volunteer work at homeless shelters. I've watched it happen to a lot of people.
The talk about how there are so many families one paycheck away from homelessness started when?...the '80s with Reagan?
How many more do you think there are these days? Do you think the margin they're existing on has gotten wider or narrower?
There's also a basic flaw with traffic laws and regulations that have a fixed fine amount with no means of having them automatically adjust for average income of the community. A fine set forth in a law that seemed reasonable for the community, say for example, during an economic boom (assuming that community saw an average increase in it's population's income) would become cruel and unusual during an economic depression/recession when the average income has fallen dramatically.
Nobody needs to get violent. There still is this thing called a ballot box. Anyone who has voted for an incumbent official no matter where or when is part of the problem. Don't hang the unresponsive officials, but just vote them out and let them get a real job in the private economy, if they can find one.
I agree that if it is possible to vote them out without resorting to violence, that's the best option.
Problem is, the officials understand this as well and have used their powers of office to protect themselves through gerrymandering, vote tabulation fraud, and bused-in voters etc to undermine and negate the people's ability to remove them from office in many cases.
Coupled with a judiciary that is unable and/or unwilling to prosecute these officials and their lackeys even when confronted with video evidence (if it hasn't been confiscated and destroyed), that accounts for soap, ballot, and jury boxes.
That leaves the people with only one box left. And they're working on removing that option as quickly as they can.
The sad part is, these people, will pass blame for their actions onto the government, rather than taking responsibility for what they've done, and feel completely justified in doing so. The response to this will be the government putting up more cameras...
Well, the blame IS largely on the government, as often these camera programs are slipped in "under the radar", so to speak, as most city/county councils/governments are aware that in many cases most of the constituents are against them. Also to blame are judges that are fine with witnesses that can't be cross-examined (the camera) used to "prove" guilt.
Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs and accepting them as legal proof of guilt, if they refuse to listen to their constituents when they object to Big Brother style surveillance? The camera system makers/contractors and the Feds are throwing a lot of gold at these officials to adopt camera surveillance and enforcement systems, so lacking gold, maybe the populace should throw hot lead instead?
Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew that government, despite their best efforts to keep it in check, would grab more and more power and confiscate ever more of the people's wealth. They envisioned the citizens rising up using the 2nd Amendment and forcibly "downsizing" the government every few decades. According to TJ and his buddies, we've been slacking at decorating the trees in the town square and downtown D.C. with government officials swinging by their necks at the end of a rope.
I don't really follow your logic. Supporting rights to reproductive control (including, but by no means limited to, abortion) as Planned Parenthood does is not "love for all things eugenics/abortion-related". Margeret Sanger, for example, had some slightly disturbing views on eugenics, but was soundly against the Nazi method of doing it,
Sanger started PP for the purpose of limiting the populations of certain "undesirable" ethnic groups through abortion, sterilization, and contraception...a form of eugenics. This is history-fact.
Her views on immigration (tied to her eugenics views) were pretty soundly on the side of modern US "Conservatives"
Bullshit. Democrats were the party of racism and segregation for decades. It was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act to be passed (a number of times, as Democrats blocked several previous attempts) over staunch Democratic opposition, until finally public pressure caused them to cave.
As for "collective-good-over-individual-good" regarding healthcare, I'm baffled as to the logic behind that statement. Socialized healthcare systems are precisely about individual good as opposed to collective good (although they tend to promote collective good as well through vaccinations and so forth).
C'mon, it's called "socialized medicine" for a reason! Are you truly that dense? Also, under the ACA there are committees/boards that oversee distributing healthcare resources based on curves that calculate whether the cost of some particular service/procedure/medication/etc is worth the government spending based on age/health/future earnings and tax curves and calculations that are meant precisely to maximize the collective good and make it a higher priority than the individual good.
The every man for himself and let the weak die off (or banish them from the tribe/outright kill them) attitude is the collective good approach (a naive one, of course).
More bullshit. Nobody is/was denied treatment at hospitals. Hospitals have been required to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay for decades. The ACA still leaves some 23 million without coverage and we're already seeing premium costs to patients skyrocket.
several of our esteemed politicians have schedule 1 form. I shit ye not.
No idea what a "schedule 1 form" is there from over on this side of the pond. Some kind of special exemptions from the rules and laws everyone else must follow, as a guess? I know our current POTUS likes handing out special exemptions from the laws the rest of us must obey to his political allies, campaign contributors, and others in some kind of political favor with this administration.
Before making a claim to anything happening "regardless of it's [sic] truth", you may want to post something true (or at least not batshit insane) and compare for reference.
Well, let's see.
eugenics/abortion-related (Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger) and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated. ("spread the wealth", "collective salvation", "collective gov-run healthcare" etc etc)
So they don't support any of those ideas in parentheses?
Somebody should alert the DNC. They must be confused, according to the 2012 DNC official party platform.
First Rule of Slashdot: You can say any nasty, horrible, untrue, and vile thing you want complete with ad hominems about conservatives, libertarians, and Christians and get modded up, but say anything negative about the Left regardless of it's truth and you're modded down.
I expected no less when I posted my original comment.
Fortunately I've got plenty of positive Karma to burn.
Yes, and possessing prima facie proof of a severe crime is perfectly legal in any other case (e.g. rape, or, say, aggravated murder).
[Politician] "Hurr durr, why do you love child abusers and hate children? We must be willing to give up any or all of our freedoms and privacy if it could theoretically, potentially, in our (NOT your) opinion, have the slightest chance to save even *one* child from suffering!!"
I'd like to see Anonymous obtain and release the internet browsing/download records for the politicians who propose such things.
Methinks some are waayyy *too* concerned about this subject, knowutImean?
How can something be fought if it is illegal to describe it? How do you get people onside, if you can't describe what they are supposed to be opposing. Saying "Trust me" doesn't really cut it.
It's quaint that you think government cares about getting people "onside" (onboard?).
Apparently you never got the memo.
They dictate, the serfs obey.
"Comprehension (or approval) is not a requisite of cooperation."
It's like how the laws on the barn wall from the book "Animal Farm" slowly morphed.
I wish governments on both sides of the pond would stop viewing books like Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, etc etc as instruction manuals. It would save us the trouble of having to hang the bastards every few generations or so.
It is proven that birth leads in 100% of cases to death, hence, we will defeat death itself by this move.
Please do not let the religious fundamentalists know about it.
Sounds more like something from the moonbat PC Progressive-Left than religious-fundy stuff to be perfectly honest, given their love for all things eugenics/abortion-related and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated.
Of course, you can use the search function to narrow the search to just.40 caliber HP or widen it to include terms like "tactical", etc to see even more stuff that's being bought for non-military domestic use in unprecedented quantities for not being in a major world war, especially regarding the DHS & TSA, and other domestic governmental departments.
You can figuratively stick your fingers in your ears if you want if it makes you feel better, but it's apparent that, even leaving out speculative etc contract proposals and requests for quotes, at least it's apparent the government expects something big domestically is going to happen sometime relatively soon.
None of the possibilities can be good for US citizens.
Horribly unbalanced laws are easy. You americans can force attention by abusing this law in a planned denial of service attack.
Set up a group that issues takedowns against the sites of: * Your political parties * Your politicians * Governmental sites * Major content providers and their retailers
The politicians will not enjoy this, not in the middle of an election campaign. And the content providers might notice some lost sales when their advertising is taken down for bogus infringement.
Then the system will change. Ideally the dmca goes, more realistically there will be punishment for frivolous takedowns. But that is enough, one can then punish trigger-happy dmca abusers in the future.
And if the punishments are too mild at first - set up a company for another round of targeted takedowns. When the punishments come, this company goes bankrupt and no one really gets punished. Repeat until the law improves sufficiently.
This will only work for a short time until they catch on. Then they can simply use the provisions in the USA-PATRIOT Act, the various Executive Orders, and the revised NDAA to treat those responsible as "illegal/enemy combatants" and have them secretly killed or abducted and imprisoned indefinitely.
"In Soviet..."
ummm:-/
Ah, screw it!
It's gotten so bad those jokes are more tragedy than comedy anymore.
If you try to arrest us, we'll keep coming in until we're all incarcerated. Then YOU will have to pay for feeding us."
"Arrest" you? "Incarcerate" you? "Feed" you?
Your naivete is charming.
Perhaps you missed all the recent news items about all those government agencies that are stocking-up on huge quantities of ammunition? They know what's coming. Hell, they're helping it along.
No, they'll just shoot all of you and then bury you and your friends in an unmarked mass grave.
Wouldn't it be easier to just add EVERYONE to the terror list?
Maybe that's exactly the idea
"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' - Ayn Rand 1957)
It seems like the government is treating 'Atlas Shrugged' like they are treating '1984'.
Strat, you don't need to sign your posts. Your username appears in the header of each post. If you do want to sign your post, please use a sig, because my settings have the sigs turned off.
Thanks, I'll see about adding my sig along with signing my posts in the text area, just to annoy you.
Strat
Modern Progressivism & Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
Stop splitting hairs, there are very few democracies in the world if you are going to stick to Pluto's definition.
Words and their meanings matter. They are what carry ideas from one mind to another. Without definite and common word meanings there can be no meaningful or productive dialog possible, because ideas are not communicated accurately. Much propaganda and political rhetoric used to deceive and distract depends on taking advantage of and promoting such distortion in communication between people.
There are many that advocate for and believe that a democracy is the best system of government, and others that seek to remove any hint of democracy in government, and they both use the ambiguousness of the term 'democracy' in popular culture, as you've done, to muddy the waters of discussion and debate in order to further their ideology.
It's important that it's clear that there are no nations that are democracies and that democracies quickly degenerate to chaos/collapse, and then typically transition quickly to tyranny and dictatorship. Democracies are essentially mob-rule and tyranny of the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of jumping headlong to violence, maybe you should have also read my post that followed the one you quoted where I said:
Gosh, it looks almost like you were attempting to take my comments out of context, as I clearly stated I preferred the non-violent route if possible.
Please stop. I don't even particularly like you, and it's still painful to watch you continue to embarrass yourself like this.
Strat
i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson
Apparently someone needs to. That soldier must be spinning in his grave.
Strat
Oh, and you *still* haven't answered or refuted this:
Can you or are you willing to answer honestly without attempting to distract from the question I asked, as you've been doing so far?
Strat
Not being a fucking sheep =/= wackjob.
And if you're going to quote me, quote the whole thing.
I issued no threats. I asked questions. See the little squiggle with the dot at the bottom at the end of the sentences? That's what they call a "question mark". Might want to make a note.
I prefer a nice porterhouse steak. You seem to prefer the taste of bootleather. Not on my watch. My father didn't risk his life and get wounded in WW2 to have the nation he fought for turn into some authoritarian hellhole where the people must fear their government.
Here's another vocabulary word for you; "timid".
As in:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know
carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid
You use that word "lucid"...
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
I posted a factual reply. The government, both political parties, and political activists and groups/organizations across the spectrum use the tactics Barrett described against their opponents and enemies. You can't deny that's true. We hear the stories in the news almost daily.
All you can do is call names? What, are you 10 years old?
Strat
Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.
Are you saying they should be arrested?
Strat
he threatened an fbi agent
it's really not that complicated
Here's the YT video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOW7GOrXNZI
Strat
Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.
Doesn't matter.
You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.
And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.
Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.
Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.
Strat
Wow, do you actually believe that or is the threshold-control on my sarcasm-detector set too high?
These cameras hurt the working-poor the most. A $50-$250 fine doesn't hurt the middle class family when the adults think nothing of, say, blowing that much at the local casino in a weekend, or even in a night.
It does hurt the working-poor who are barely surviving paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay rent, eat, and keep a vehicle on the road to get to work with, as a $50-$250 fine (or even more in some places) can mean loss/impounding of their vehicle (or at least their ability to drive it legally), losing their job, becoming homeless, etc in a cascading effect. I've done volunteer work at homeless shelters. I've watched it happen to a lot of people.
The talk about how there are so many families one paycheck away from homelessness started when?...the '80s with Reagan?
How many more do you think there are these days? Do you think the margin they're existing on has gotten wider or narrower?
There's also a basic flaw with traffic laws and regulations that have a fixed fine amount with no means of having them automatically adjust for average income of the community. A fine set forth in a law that seemed reasonable for the community, say for example, during an economic boom (assuming that community saw an average increase in it's population's income) would become cruel and unusual during an economic depression/recession when the average income has fallen dramatically.
Strat
Nobody needs to get violent. There still is this thing called a ballot box. Anyone who has voted for an incumbent official no matter where or when is part of the problem. Don't hang the unresponsive officials, but just vote them out and let them get a real job in the private economy, if they can find one.
I agree that if it is possible to vote them out without resorting to violence, that's the best option.
Problem is, the officials understand this as well and have used their powers of office to protect themselves through gerrymandering, vote tabulation fraud, and bused-in voters etc to undermine and negate the people's ability to remove them from office in many cases.
Coupled with a judiciary that is unable and/or unwilling to prosecute these officials and their lackeys even when confronted with video evidence (if it hasn't been confiscated and destroyed), that accounts for soap, ballot, and jury boxes.
That leaves the people with only one box left. And they're working on removing that option as quickly as they can.
Strat
The sad part is, these people, will pass blame for their actions onto the government, rather than taking responsibility for what they've done, and feel completely justified in doing so. The response to this will be the government putting up more cameras...
Well, the blame IS largely on the government, as often these camera programs are slipped in "under the radar", so to speak, as most city/county councils/governments are aware that in many cases most of the constituents are against them. Also to blame are judges that are fine with witnesses that can't be cross-examined (the camera) used to "prove" guilt.
Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs and accepting them as legal proof of guilt, if they refuse to listen to their constituents when they object to Big Brother style surveillance? The camera system makers/contractors and the Feds are throwing a lot of gold at these officials to adopt camera surveillance and enforcement systems, so lacking gold, maybe the populace should throw hot lead instead?
Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew that government, despite their best efforts to keep it in check, would grab more and more power and confiscate ever more of the people's wealth. They envisioned the citizens rising up using the 2nd Amendment and forcibly "downsizing" the government every few decades. According to TJ and his buddies, we've been slacking at decorating the trees in the town square and downtown D.C. with government officials swinging by their necks at the end of a rope.
Just sayin'...
Strat
I don't really follow your logic. Supporting rights to reproductive control (including, but by no means limited to, abortion) as Planned Parenthood does is not "love for all things eugenics/abortion-related". Margeret Sanger, for example, had some slightly disturbing views on eugenics, but was soundly against the Nazi method of doing it,
Sanger started PP for the purpose of limiting the populations of certain "undesirable" ethnic groups through abortion, sterilization, and contraception...a form of eugenics. This is history-fact.
Her views on immigration (tied to her eugenics views) were pretty soundly on the side of modern US "Conservatives"
Bullshit. Democrats were the party of racism and segregation for decades. It was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act to be passed (a number of times, as Democrats blocked several previous attempts) over staunch Democratic opposition, until finally public pressure caused them to cave.
As for "collective-good-over-individual-good" regarding healthcare, I'm baffled as to the logic behind that statement. Socialized healthcare systems are precisely about individual good as opposed to collective good (although they tend to promote collective good as well through vaccinations and so forth).
C'mon, it's called "socialized medicine" for a reason! Are you truly that dense? Also, under the ACA there are committees/boards that oversee distributing healthcare resources based on curves that calculate whether the cost of some particular service/procedure/medication/etc is worth the government spending based on age/health/future earnings and tax curves and calculations that are meant precisely to maximize the collective good and make it a higher priority than the individual good.
The every man for himself and let the weak die off (or banish them from the tribe/outright kill them) attitude is the collective good approach (a naive one, of course).
More bullshit. Nobody is/was denied treatment at hospitals. Hospitals have been required to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay for decades. The ACA still leaves some 23 million without coverage and we're already seeing premium costs to patients skyrocket.
Strat
several of our esteemed politicians have schedule 1 form. I shit ye not.
No idea what a "schedule 1 form" is there from over on this side of the pond. Some kind of special exemptions from the rules and laws everyone else must follow, as a guess? I know our current POTUS likes handing out special exemptions from the laws the rest of us must obey to his political allies, campaign contributors, and others in some kind of political favor with this administration.
Strat
Before making a claim to anything happening "regardless of it's [sic] truth", you may want to post something true (or at least not batshit insane) and compare for reference.
Well, let's see.
eugenics/abortion-related (Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger) and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated. ("spread the wealth", "collective salvation", "collective gov-run healthcare" etc etc)
So they don't support any of those ideas in parentheses?
Somebody should alert the DNC. They must be confused, according to the 2012 DNC official party platform.
Strat
"-1 Troll"
First Rule of Slashdot: You can say any nasty, horrible, untrue, and vile thing you want complete with ad hominems about conservatives, libertarians, and Christians and get modded up, but say anything negative about the Left regardless of it's truth and you're modded down.
I expected no less when I posted my original comment.
Fortunately I've got plenty of positive Karma to burn.
Strat
Yes, and possessing prima facie proof of a severe crime is perfectly legal in any other case (e.g. rape, or, say, aggravated murder).
[Politician] "Hurr durr, why do you love child abusers and hate children? We must be willing to give up any or all of our freedoms and privacy if it could theoretically, potentially, in our (NOT your) opinion, have the slightest chance to save even *one* child from suffering!!"
I'd like to see Anonymous obtain and release the internet browsing/download records for the politicians who propose such things.
Methinks some are waayyy *too* concerned about this subject, knowutImean?
Strat
How can something be fought if it is illegal to describe it? How do you get people onside, if you can't describe what they are supposed to be opposing. Saying "Trust me" doesn't really cut it.
It's quaint that you think government cares about getting people "onside" (onboard?).
Apparently you never got the memo.
They dictate, the serfs obey.
"Comprehension (or approval) is not a requisite of cooperation."
It's like how the laws on the barn wall from the book "Animal Farm" slowly morphed.
I wish governments on both sides of the pond would stop viewing books like Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, etc etc as instruction manuals. It would save us the trouble of having to hang the bastards every few generations or so.
Strat
Sounds more like something from the moonbat PC Progressive-Left than religious-fundy stuff to be perfectly honest, given their love for all things eugenics/abortion-related and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated.
Strat
Something else for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3drUSuaT9Xg
You mean that Social Security Administration ammunition story last week?
No.
That's a drop in the bucket.
Take a look for yourself at what DHS has/is contracted/taking bids for. Search results shown covers 12-'08 to 09-'12.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=agency&mode=form&tab=notices&id=44bca752df5e7239418a48165240f419
Of course, you can use the search function to narrow the search to just .40 caliber HP or widen it to include terms like "tactical", etc to see even more stuff that's being bought for non-military domestic use in unprecedented quantities for not being in a major world war, especially regarding the DHS & TSA, and other domestic governmental departments.
You can figuratively stick your fingers in your ears if you want if it makes you feel better, but it's apparent that, even leaving out speculative etc contract proposals and requests for quotes, at least it's apparent the government expects something big domestically is going to happen sometime relatively soon.
None of the possibilities can be good for US citizens.
Strat
Horribly unbalanced laws are easy. You americans can force attention by abusing this law in a planned denial of service attack.
Set up a group that issues takedowns against the sites of:
* Your political parties
* Your politicians
* Governmental sites
* Major content providers and their retailers
The politicians will not enjoy this, not in the middle of an election campaign. And the content providers might notice some lost sales when their advertising is taken down for bogus infringement.
Then the system will change. Ideally the dmca goes, more realistically there will be punishment for frivolous takedowns. But that is enough, one can then punish trigger-happy dmca abusers in the future.
And if the punishments are too mild at first - set up a company for another round of targeted takedowns. When the punishments come, this company goes bankrupt and no one really gets punished. Repeat until the law improves sufficiently.
This will only work for a short time until they catch on. Then they can simply use the provisions in the USA-PATRIOT Act, the various Executive Orders, and the revised NDAA to treat those responsible as "illegal/enemy combatants" and have them secretly killed or abducted and imprisoned indefinitely.
"In Soviet..."
ummm :-/
Ah, screw it!
It's gotten so bad those jokes are more tragedy than comedy anymore.
Strat
If you try to arrest us, we'll keep coming in until we're all incarcerated. Then YOU will have to pay for feeding us."
"Arrest" you? "Incarcerate" you? "Feed" you?
Your naivete is charming.
Perhaps you missed all the recent news items about all those government agencies that are stocking-up on huge quantities of ammunition? They know what's coming. Hell, they're helping it along.
No, they'll just shoot all of you and then bury you and your friends in an unmarked mass grave.
Strat
"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' - Ayn Rand 1957)
It seems like the government is treating 'Atlas Shrugged' like they are treating '1984'.
As instruction manuals, not warnings.
Strat
Strat, you don't need to sign your posts. Your username appears in the header of each post.
If you do want to sign your post, please use a sig, because my settings have the sigs turned off.
Thanks, I'll see about adding my sig along with signing my posts in the text area, just to annoy you.
Strat
Modern Progressivism & Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
Stop splitting hairs, there are very few democracies in the world if you are going to stick to Pluto's definition.
Words and their meanings matter. They are what carry ideas from one mind to another. Without definite and common word meanings there can be no meaningful or productive dialog possible, because ideas are not communicated accurately. Much propaganda and political rhetoric used to deceive and distract depends on taking advantage of and promoting such distortion in communication between people.
There are many that advocate for and believe that a democracy is the best system of government, and others that seek to remove any hint of democracy in government, and they both use the ambiguousness of the term 'democracy' in popular culture, as you've done, to muddy the waters of discussion and debate in order to further their ideology.
It's important that it's clear that there are no nations that are democracies and that democracies quickly degenerate to chaos/collapse, and then typically transition quickly to tyranny and dictatorship. Democracies are essentially mob-rule and tyranny of the majority.
Strat