Post #95,444
4/9/03 4:18:42 PM
|
Sure it did.
>We< have a choice. And I'm sure we'll exersize our demin in about 18 months.
I happen to be very tired of the veiled Hitler references being made against the US. Its not even close.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #95,446
4/9/03 4:20:53 PM
|
Define__'close'
|
Post #95,535
4/9/03 8:09:23 PM
|
No mustache and different salute. :)
|
Post #95,537
4/9/03 8:14:42 PM
|
And one has/had stragtegeric command of a language.
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - IT Grand-Master for President | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|2004, the year Microsoft develops for Linux ] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
The DHS [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Cyberer-Stratergery]. The ultimate in Cyber. |
|
Post #95,450
4/9/03 4:31:42 PM
|
No, not yet.
In fact, I doubt that Bush actually could turn us into a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis in the next 2-3 years.
What I am concerned with is the increasingly slippery slope (re: PATRIOT act, PATRIOT II, the current "let's remove the sunset provision) of the restriction of rights on citizens of the U.S. - and that nobody seems to see it as a real problem.
That's scaring the SHIT out of me, because the trend seems to be leading towards ever tighter restrictions on the populace in the name of "security."
Do me a favor sometime, and read "The Transparent Society" by David Brin - and then ask yourself which future we're heading for.
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."
Sounds like everything is going according to plan.
|
Post #95,539
4/9/03 8:19:30 PM
|
You don't understand the Fascist mentality.
Fascism isn't about gassing Jews.
But our current crop of Fascists like to claim it is because they don't WANT to be known as Fascists (because of the bad images from WW2).
So, even though YOU can see the loss of individual rights as a slide from a Democracy to a Fascist state.....
They won't even acknowledge that those rights were ever "really" rights.
If they weren't "rights", then you didn't lose any rights when the government expanded its authority.
The USofA will NEVER be a Fascist state because:
#1. We will NEVER adopt German as our language.
#2. We will NEVER adopt the Nazi salute.
#3. Our leaders will NEVER wear that stupid mustache.
#4. We will NEVER gas Jews (unless they are convicted of 'terrorism' by a secret military tribunal and sentenced to death).
#5. Our troops do NOT goose-step when they march.
In other words, do NOT expect any rational discussion because the Fascists today can't think beyond the icons of the Nazis.
|
Post #95,560
4/9/03 9:09:18 PM
|
Interesting, the neocons are all converted communists
going from communism to national socialism is not that far apart. Looking at what they demand the state do and the populace obey is stuff that would have got them penitentiary time not that long ago.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #95,732
4/10/03 10:55:31 AM
|
No comment, beep?
I'm not looking for mega-rightshift - just wondering what you think of the situation.
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."
Sounds like everything is going according to plan.
|
Post #95,781
4/10/03 1:36:50 PM
|
I simply think it is still too close to 9/11...
...for a rational expectation that things should return to "normal".
Patriot, II et al are knee-jerk reactions to a terrible situation...and the more egregious parts of them that remove civil liberties and due process will, in time, be struck down by the Court or removed.
While our "Lord" would have you think that everyone is 2 seconds removed from having the men in black uniforms and jack boots show up at your door, the reality is quite different and the challenges to these new rules are mounting.
These discussions always center around what "rights" we are losing...and alot of the time the "rights" being discussed are completely unrelated to anything we were guaranteed. For instance. The "right" to fly on an airplane. (The woman who's "rights" were violated when she was denied access through security).
Privacy is key...and I'm hoping that some of the expanded investigatory powers are rescinded (in other words...I hope this attempt to make Patriot "evergreen" fail). However, make sure your expectation of privacy remains reasonable...and for at least the near term expect that privacy to come at the cost of suspicion.
Is it not human nature to be more aware of strangers just after being sucker punched by one?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #95,790
4/10/03 1:56:04 PM
|
Oddly enough, I'm for the opposite...
We're on an inflection point of history IMO - and privacy is going to be a dead and buried concept, one way or the other. The ability to pervasively snoop another person's history is becoming so easy that it will happen one way or the other. If we pass laws against it, then only criminals and the powerful (often one and the same) will do this snooping.
So we have a choice. We can either give up our privacy, and demand that everybody else give up theirs, or we can pretend that we still have our privacy while the Powerful (government, businesses, the wealthy) use their resources to spy on us, make our decisions for us, manipulate us, etc.
When I decry acts like the Patriot act + sequels, I'm decrying them because they limit the powers contained therin to a single entity, which becomes corruptible.
Hell, I can't explain this without the book in front of me, so get thee to a library, and check out David Brin's "The Transparent Society." I keep coming back to this book, but it's because he made such a powerful argument for the end of privacy in order to preserve our real freedoms (speech, association, property, etc.) that I just can't argue with it.
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."
Sounds like everything is going according to plan.
|
Post #95,793
4/10/03 2:03:53 PM
|
Will read it.
And we're not that far apart. I don't think there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in financial transactions or in "public" records (private or not...if they are not controlled and stored by YOU, they're public). These things are gone. Consolidation of their analysis into one organization is dangerous but inevitable. It remains our job to ensure that the danger is never realized.
There should be, however, an expecation of privacy in communications and when "in home". Violation of that privacy is still somewhat allowed under Patriot...and these are the items I'd like to see go away on schedule.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #95,475
4/9/03 6:04:07 PM
|
We do? I thought the USSC was in charge.
What happened? Did the abdicate?
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
