Government Spying

[Northgate]

Question?

Is it so far outside of the imagination to wonder if the current administration can/has spied on other presidential/senatorial/congressional campaigns? And is it really that far of a stretch to assume that the administration could funnel obtained information to opposition campaigns and/or the RNC?

Was John Kerry's campaign spied upon? The Bush administration pretty much has a blank check to spy on...pretty much anyone.

Do you really want Hillary Clinton to have these powers?

[mydo]

Question?



Do you really want Hillary Clinton to have these powers?

You mean those powers again?


How old is the US? How old is abuse of power?

[Northgate]

Let's not argue semantics. Let's argue the points I proposed above.

Do the American people, particularly Conservatives, want Hillary Clinton to have the expanded presidential powers that Bush and Cheney have fought so hard for? Or any Democratic president for that matter?

I suspect they do not.

[AsLan^]

This was a pretty good documentary Spin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114512/)

I remember something about Clinton using government resources to gather intelligence for his campaign. No reason to think that isn't par for the course.

That documentary is available somewhere on the internets, not sure where right now but if nobody else can find it I can try and locate it when I get home.

[tonton]

Let's not argue semantics. Let's argue the points I proposed above.

Do the American people, particularly Conservatives, want Hillary Clinton to have the expanded presidential powers that Bush and Cheney have fought so hard for? Or any Democratic president for that matter?

I suspect they do not.

Honestly I don't want Hilary or anyone to have these powers. But I'd rather have Hilary have them than another neocon. I know Hilary is a conservative Democrat. I'm not happy with that. I'd rather see a liberal Republican like Arnie in the White house, with those powers, than her. But I'd rather see her than any of the Ultracon Republican Candidates currently in the running.

And on that subject, let's reverse those "expanded presidential powers" immediately. And not let the neocons, or the Democrats get them back. If Bush in his eleventh hour supported action to do just that, with guarantees that in the future neither Republicans nor Democrats could see such powers again, I would definitely support such an action.

[Jubelum]

Ultracon Republican Candidates currently in the running.


:lol: Abortion, anyone? Gun control, anyone?

If this is "Ultracon" than you must be left of Marx. They're mostly nowhere near "neocon", much less "ultracon" :smokey:

You obviously have your "cons" con-fused. ;)

[tonton]

:lol: Abortion, anyone? Gun control, anyone?

If this is "Ultracon" than you must be left of Marx. They're mostly nowhere near "neocon", much less "ultracon" :smokey:

You obviously have your "cons" con-fused. ;)

Are those seriously the only issues you see?

[Jubelum]

Are those seriously the only issues you see?

Nice try... overall rather weak, but a good attempt.

Only issues? Not at all, but if you are going to call someone, a whole group of people "Ultra Con" then you should at least understand that they are taking MUCH more liberal positions than anything mainstream neo-conservatives consider OK. It's no secret the problem that the non neo-con average conservatives are having with finding a candidate. Within the right, this current slate is running much to the left of the neocons and is differentiating themselves as such, not as more being conservative than the neocons.

Seems to me that "ultracon" (as if that term means anything) would be far far to the right. This current slate of stool pigeons is simply NOT an "ultra conservative" group of people. Maybe in tonton world, which I cannot really speak intelligently about, because I cannot fathom such a system.

[tonton]

Nice try... overall rather weak, but a good attempt.

Only issues? Not at all, but if you are going to call someone, a whole group of people "Ultra Con" then you should at least understand that they are taking MUCH more liberal positions than anything mainstream neo-conservatives consider OK. It's no secret the problem that the non neo-con average conservatives are having with finding a candidate. Within the right, this current slate is running much to the left of the neocons and is differentiating themselves as such, not as more being conservative than the neocons.

Seems to me that "ultracon" (as if that term means anything) would be far far to the right. This current slate of stool pigeons is simply NOT an "ultra conservative" group of people. Maybe in tonton world, which I cannot really speak intelligently about, because I cannot fathom such a system.

Just look at alist of the world's most successfully balanced economies (i.e. highest standard of living for the people in the lowest classes), and you'll see plenty examples of such a system.

[Jubelum]

Regarding government spying, it simply does not matter who we elect when it comes to government intrusion and expanding control over people's lives. We do not hold them responsible for their abridgment of our rights, we trade liberty for security and get neither, and we fight with each other over who is "guarding civil rights." Sorry, folks, BOTH parties have a pathetic track record regarding respect for civil liberties.

Clinton used the government in a heavy-handed way. Bush brought us the PATRIOT flustercluck. We could go into COINTELPRO and all the rest- no one is willing to stand up- they are lazy, too busy trying to pay their tax/inflation load, too afraid of the government, or simply missed the day their rights were taught in public schools.

[Jubelum]

Just look at alist of the world's most successfully balanced economies (i.e. highest standard of living for the people in the lowest classes), and you'll see plenty examples of such a system.

OK, I get it... your equality of result versus the American equality of opportunity. We are supposed to have the latter in this system. But whatever- I do not believe in absolute "equality" in the socialist mold, because it removes the motivation for achievement. We just disagree. It's a huge ball of wax, so we should really go start a thread about the virtues of "equality" and socialism if you'd like to talk about that.

Have anything to add to the "con" discussion, or are we done there?

[tonton]

OK, I get it... your equality of result versus the American equality of opportunity. We are supposed to have the latter in this system. But whatever- I do not believe in absolute "equality" in the socialist mold, because it removes the motivation for achievement. We just disagree. It's a huge ball of wax, so we should really go start a thread about the virtues of "equality" and socialism if you'd like to talk about that.

Have anything to add to the "con" discussion, or are we done there?

I don't believe in socialism in a vacuum. I believe in socialism within a capitalist framework, which is not how any failed socialist system operated. I think the richest and most successful Swedes, Danes and Finns are every bit as happy as the richest Americans. Under such a system the motivation for productivity still exists. If it did not we would not have Nokia, Ericsson, Ikea, etc.

This is not about motivation for you. It's about "beating the other guy". It's about "It's not fair!" You seem to think that since you believe you work harder or are smarter than the next guy, by right you should be happier. You believe that someone who doesn't work hard enough has no right to be happy. It doesn't work that way.

Socialism is all about "I'm happy and I'm even happier if you're happy too."

You're clearly not happy if a lazy person is happy. You want to see those you deem "not worthy" suffer. You think that making such people suffer will motivate them.

Unfortunately, there are people who need assistance who are not simply "lazy". And if you take away the assistance for the needy based on the idea that they could work harder, you make those who CANNOT work harder suffer as well.

And it's a simple, unfortunate fact that someone has to pay for social programs. But that's better than the alternative, which is people starving, slums expanding and crime going through the roof, which affects us all.

[tonton]

You got me on the "con" thing. But I still feel that the Republican party has been moving right for a long time, and that the existing candidates are much farther right than the average candidate in the pre-Reagan era.

Every single major war was started by a dictator or a right-leaning regime. Even "pre-emptive defensive" action was always started by the right. That leads me to believe that the right is wrong.

Vietnam was entered and escalated by Democrats, but as clearly a result of McCarthyism, a very right-wing trend.

[Jubelum]

Wow.. where to start with this.. mess.


This is not about motivation for you. It's about "beating the other guy". It's about "It's not fair!" You seem to think that since you believe you work harder or are smarter than the next guy, by right you should be happier. You believe that someone who doesn't work hard enough has no right to be happy. It doesn't work that way.

Wrong. I believe that someone who works harder and smarter should not be forced to give up, to the extent we have today, the rewards that he has earned by working harder and smarter. You are off your rocker with the "has not right to be happy" BS. They have a right to be happy, just like everyone else. They do NOT, however, have the right to enjoy luxuries and "happiness" that has been a "forced gift" from others who are just as able as they are. You think it's about "beating the other guy" for me but again, you are wrong- it is about the people who work hard having more than those that do not work as hard. Why can't you lefties get over that inherent unfairness? Again and again, one emotional plea after another obfuscates the fact that when you punish people for achievement, you have less of it.

And BTW, it is the PURSUIT of happiness, not the government guarantee of it.

What happens when the "winners" no longer care about being winners because they can get the same benefits wether they apply themselves or not? No matter how many times it fails, the left continues to deny the Tragedy of the Commons.

You're clearly not happy if a lazy person is happy. You want to see those you deem "not worthy" suffer. You think that making such people suffer will motivate them.

I am thrilled when ANYONE is happy. More power to them, if they are satisfied with their lifestyle, and happy with being lazy, great. But they cross a line with me when they want to enjoy a lifestyle that I am working hard for, without working for it themselves. I don't hate anyone. I dislike people's sense of entitlement to what others earn... an ethic that you're pushing quite hard here.

Unfortunately, there are people who need assistance who are not simply "lazy". And if you take away the assistance for the needy based on the idea that they could work harder, you make those who CANNOT work harder suffer as well.

The Trifecta of Wrong. Go back through my posts on this issue, and read explicitly where I talk about people who cannot, because of age or disability, take care of themselves. Then read in the same passages about my support for a social safety net for those people who simply cannot make their own living. You see, this is where you guys have to spin the hell out of things- this is not about providing for people who cannot survive for cause... it's about creating a system by which millions are paying homage to the government, and your political party leaders, for their handout.

[tonton]

The Trifecta of Wrong. Go back through my posts on this issue, and read explicitly where I talk about people who cannot, because of age or disability, take care of themselves. Then read in the same passages about my support for a social safety net for those people who simply cannot make their own living. You see, this is where you guys have to spin the hell out of things- this is not about providing for people who cannot survive for cause... it's about creating a system by which millions are paying homage to the government, and your political party leaders, for their handout.

Sometimes disability is psychological, in a way that cannot be diagnosed. Who is going to pay for the bureaucracy that has to determine who is disabled and who is not? If that bureaucracy costs more than the programs themselves, don't you think it's a waste?

Do we really need to pay for "safeguards against abuse" if it's cheaper simply to help everyone?

Scenario:

Option A) 5% of your income goes to social programs, but some people are able to "cheat" the system.

Option B) 4% of your income goes to social programs, but 2% of your income goes toward the cost of preventing abuse.

Which do you prefer?

[Jubelum]

... and while we are at it, do you concede that smarter people are generally more well-off than people who are not as smart? Do you have a remedy for the "smart gap"? Perhaps a tax on IQ? How do we deal with the fact that some people have better business sense, make better decisions, defer gratification, save, etc?

It's simple. We redistribute the wealth that smart people, and a few lucky sperm, acquire. That's the plan for fixing the "smart gap"- we take from the successful (no matter how hard they had to work to achieve it) to give to those who are not successful for whatever reason.

It's that old, never-admitted axiom among the left that the more you tax something, the less of it you get. That goes for cigarettes, trade, capital investments, and smart, motivated individual taxpayers.

[Jubelum]

Sometimes disability is psychological, in a way that cannot be diagnosed. Who is going to pay for the bureaucracy that has to determine who is disabled and who is not? If that bureaucracy costs more than the programs themselves, don't you think it's a waste?

Do we really need to pay for "safeguards against abuse" if it's cheaper simply to help everyone?

Scenario:

Option A) 5% of your taxes go to social programs, but some people are able to "cheat" the system.

Option B) 4% of your taxes go to social programs, but 2% of your taxes go toward the cost of preventing abuse.

Which do you prefer?

Pardon me, but since when was the left concerned about the size of the bureaucracy? Never mind.

I'd say that ten times that much goes to social programs, but I'll go with the scenario on principle.

I agree with you that we should not throw good money after bad chasing abuse... but that being said, we DO need to have a system that makes the need for government assistance verifiable. I reject the idea that chasing fraud will ever cost more than the program itself- chasing fraud is part of the program. The government is terrible at catching fraud. Just look at the US Embassy in Iraq.

The solution to fraud is severe penalties to those who abuse the good-will of their government/fellow citizens. Systems can be made more efficient and require more verification with little added burden to the government.

[tonton]

What happens when the "winners" no longer care about being winners because they can get the same benefits wether they apply themselves or not? No matter how many times it fails, the left continues to deny the Tragedy of the Commons.

Someone else steps in to the "winners'" role because they want a yacht. You can't get a yacht with Social security cheques. Another person wants a Ferarri. Another one wants to start a home for battered wives. Another one wants to live on Park Avenue. Another one is simply ambitious.

Do you honestly believe that there will be no one left to care?

The way this works is that although everyone is provided for, those that work harder still get MORE than those who don't.

[tonton]

I'd say that ten times that much goes to social programs, but I'll go with the scenario on principle.

I said taxes when I meant income. I'll fix it in my post.

[Jubelum]

The way this works is that although everyone is provided for, those that work harder still get MORE than those who don't.

I do not think that in this eternal search for "equality" and "fairness" that there will be a point at which those with more will not be the demonized targets, and those with less will not be the victims.

We have different beliefs... you believe that once we "provide for everyone" that we'll leave it all alone, and let those who can still become wealthy be wealthy. I believe that it will not stop there, because of the fact that the "unfairness" will still exist, and will be a focus of the same old class warfare lines we've heard since Marx and Engels.

Today, you can get free food, free rent, free medical care, and free education in the United States if you are poor for ANY reason- even if you are an able-bodied genius that does not want to work. People are being "provided for." And still there is a call for more. More. MORE.

I'm just tired of that safety net, provided by the good people of the United States, being used as a hammock for generations of people who can provide for themselves, but make the choice not to. We should, and do, take care of our elderly and disabled.

If it is "from each according to..." then we should also apply the last half- "to each, according to his NEED" - not want, desire, or preference.

[tonton]

... and while we are at it, do you concede that smarter people are generally more well-off than people who are not as smart? Do you have a remedy for the "smart gap"? Perhaps a tax on IQ? How do we deal with the fact that some people have better business sense, make better decisions, defer gratification, save, etc?

It's simple. We redistribute the wealth that smart people, and a few lucky sperm, acquire. That's the plan for fixing the "smart gap"- we take from the successful (no matter how hard they had to work to achieve it) to give to those who are not successful for whatever reason.

It's that old, never-admitted axiom among the left that the more you tax something, the less of it you get. That goes for cigarettes, trade, capital investments, and smart, motivated individual taxpayers.

I don't want to level the playing field. I want to eliminate poverty, while still allowing those who strive to achieve more to do so. I do think that having a system in place that attempts to achieve this goal is a good thing.

[AsLan^]

Here's that link I was talking about... Spin (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353)

We also had a great thread for that welfare discussion too! Social Security, Welfare, Retirement, etc. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=76295)

[Jubelum]

I don't want to level the playing field. I want to eliminate poverty, while still allowing those who strive to achieve more to do so. I do think that having a system in place that attempts to achieve this goal is a good thing.

Seems like we might have some <gasp> common ground here. I believe that the government needs to do more to help people LEARN to fish, rather than enable them through direct giveaways for years on end.

The government should resurrect the decimated vocational training programs to help the poor learn a trade that allows them to make their own living.

The government should allow tax deductions for educational spending for everyone, across the board. Full deductions.

We need to focus on how to help those who are poor enter the middle class, without succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction of just giving them guaranteed income for years. We should, and do, help people "get on their feet." I don't think many people oppose that.

I think we need to look at the reasons that people are poor, and seek to empower them to improve their lot, through job training, life skills training, etc. A government check, in and of itself, does not help anyone get better at anything but cashing checks. Checks that the middle class is getting tired of writing.

[tonton]

We have different beliefs... you believe that once we "provide for everyone" that we'll leave it all alone, and let those who can still become wealthy be wealthy. I believe that it will not stop there, because of the fact that the "unfairness" will still exist, and will be a focus of the same old class warfare lines we've heard since Marx and Engels.

If we're going to have class warfare, then we're going to have class warfare. Libertarian ideals do nothing to solve that problem.

But while I think resentment of the rich will never be eliminated, it will definitely be reduced if the poorest people are able to feed their families and maintain a happy marriage and keep their kids out of gangs, and even send them to college although they may not be honor students.

Just because we will never see a perfect society doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a better one.

[tonton]

Seems like we might have some <gasp> common ground here. I believe that the government needs to do more to help people LEARN to fish, rather than enable them through direct giveaways for years on end.
Agreed. Student loans. Government scholarships. More spending on k-12 education as well. Maybe even a National University program similar to State systems. I believe nothing can "teach them to fish" better than spending more on schools.

The government should resurrect the decimated vocational training programs to help the poor learn a trade that allows them to make their own living.
Agreed.

The government should allow tax deductions for educational spending for everyone, across the board. Full deductions.
Agreed.

We need to focus on how to help those who are poor enter the middle class, without succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction of just giving them guaranteed income for years. We should, and do, help people "get on their feet." I don't think many people oppose that.
Agreed.

I think we need to look at the reasons that people are poor, and seek to empower them to improve their lot, through job training, life skills training, etc. A government check, in and of itself, does not help anyone get better at anything but cashing checks. Checks that the middle class is getting tired of writing.
Agreed to an extent.

But all we've been talking about in this latest exchange is spending. Where do we get the money to pay for these tax deductions? Where do we get the money to pay for the vocational training programs?

[tonton]

And no matter how educated the populace, we still need people to work at McDonalds and wash people's cars. To eliminate poverty, we need these jobs to be able to provide a reasonable living. Without a minimum wage, that would be impossible.

Also, one of the reasons we have a variable tax system is to reduce the "money=power" effect that means that the rich have the power to cut workers' wages and give themselves raises -- and they take advantage of that power. Look at the Waltons.

[Jubelum]

But all we've been talking about in this latest exchange is spending. Where do we get the money to pay for these tax deductions? Where do we get the money to pay for the vocational training programs?

I dunno, fewer bombers? :D <Jubelum, quite loaded on Amarula, falls from chair in convulsions>

Seriously, we do need a big top-down review of the waste and allocations in the Federal budget. There is already enough money in DC if we would just allocate it in a better way. We do not need billions more in taxation to make some serious progress. It's time to reduce spending in many areas and use that money on empowering people- not building Bridges to Nowhere.

I wonder how much money we could save if we had a Federal Prop 187? ;)

[@_@ Artman]

This was a pretty good documentary Spin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114512/)

I remember something about Clinton using government resources to gather intelligence for his campaign. No reason to think that isn't par for the course.

I think you might have to watch Spin again. Actually Clinton discovered live, raw and unedited satellite feeds of his opponents and used that information to his advantage. He hardly had any method of gathering intelligence, being a governor of Arkansas. Still, if you put on the tin-foil hat...there was that airfield in Mena, Arkansas (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html) and there was also Ross Perot (http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm#bush).

That documentary is available somewhere on the internets, not sure where right now but if nobody else can find it I can try and locate it when I get home.

Found an MP4 download on Archive.org (http://ia300126.us.archive.org/3/items/ill-art/spin.mp4)

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings ... all » of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.

[southside grabowski]

Let's not argue semantics. Let's argue the points I proposed above.

Do the American people, particularly Conservatives, want Hillary Clinton to have the expanded presidential powers that Bush and Cheney have fought so hard for? Or any Democratic president for that matter?

I suspect they do not.

Interesting question. No doubt most in favor of much of what the Admin has done would be terrified of Hill having the same powers. It is so important to realize that you are not giving powers to the person; you are giving powers to the office.

[southside grabowski]

And no matter how educated the populace, we still need people to work at McDonalds and wash people's cars. To eliminate poverty, we need these jobs to be able to provide a reasonable living. Without a minimum wage, that would be impossible.

Also, one of the reasons we have a variable tax system is to reduce the "money=power" effect that means that the rich have the power to cut workers' wages and give themselves raises -- and they take advantage of that power. Look at the Waltons.

The loss of the manufacturing industry has completely changed the American workforce. Those without higher education/trades once made good livings working in factories. The factories are gone now and those people are working in fast food/discount store positions. Theses jobs were never intended to support families. Now they must. You can ship jobs to China and you can replace workers with technology, but the people don't go away. This is a huge problem. Then enter the illegals...

[@_@ Artman]

I thought this was about government spying...:err:

[Northgate]

I thought this was about government spying...:err:

This was supposed to be discussion about government spying and whether or not those powers could be abused and whether or not Republicans truly wants this power intact when Bush leaves office?

It has instead become a derailed discussion between tonton and Jubelum.

[@_@ Artman]

Democrats might just have some guts after all!

Presidential wire-tapping blocked, Congress refuses to grant immunity to telcos! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071010/pl_nm/usa_security_democrats_dc)

Bullshit.

In order to cave in, you need to establish a weak front first...or else there's nothing to cave in. This is their weak front. They will cave in soon enough as the Republicans bash them. The administration probably asked them to block the bill after Cheney realized they had forgotten to include Blackwater in their immunity group. The Democrats will proceed to cave immediately after the president's demands have been met in full.

Also...one year blanket warrants from a secret court? That's not guts, that's just a better disguised tank job by Democratic politicians addicted to corporate campaign contributions.

What a mess this government is in. Sad.

[SpamSandwich]

I don't want to level the playing field. I want to eliminate poverty, while still allowing those who strive to achieve more to do so. I do think that having a system in place that attempts to achieve this goal is a good thing.

Poverty will always be a part of the human experience. The reasons for poverty are as varied as the number of people walking the earth.

[SpamSandwich]

If we're going to have class warfare, then we're going to have class warfare. Libertarian ideals do nothing to solve that problem.

But while I think resentment of the rich will never be eliminated, it will definitely be reduced if the poorest people are able to feed their families and maintain a happy marriage and keep their kids out of gangs, and even send them to college although they may not be honor students.

Just because we will never see a perfect society doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a better one.

What is your opinion on "illegal drugs"?

What about the fact that vastly more poor people are convicted on drug related criminal offenses?

What do you think would happen to drug gangs, the overpopulated jails, courts and the growth of Team America police forces if these so-called illegal drugs were made legal?

[SpamSandwich]

And no matter how educated the populace, we still need people to work at McDonalds and wash people's cars. To eliminate poverty, we need these jobs to be able to provide a reasonable living. Without a minimum wage, that would be impossible.

Also, one of the reasons we have a variable tax system is to reduce the "money=power" effect that means that the rich have the power to cut workers' wages and give themselves raises -- and they take advantage of that power. Look at the Waltons.

1- Poverty can be reduced, not eliminated.

2- Without a minimum wage, the workforce would dramatically expand and the cost of goods would fall

3- The rich will ALWAYS have it better than us poor folks. The only way around it is to get rich. Try a career in sales... the great leveler.

[@_@ Artman]

Oh well, I tried to stay on topic...:mad:

[Northgate]

Oh well, I tried to stay on topic...:mad:

Sigh.

If I were a betting man I would place bets on a sudden change of heart from Republicans in congress and you'll suddenly see a surge of Republican sponsored bills that will try to rescind most if not all the expanded presidential powers granted to Bush. They'll such arguments as "Bush already won the war on terror so we don't need them anymore" or "these FISA powers were only supposed to be temporary", stuff like that.

And if the Democrats don't capitulate immediately...well...you know the drill.

For the record I think Hillary should fix things back to where they were before Cheney's power grab while in her first year in office (assuming she's the nominee and actually survives her swift-boated general election).

[ThinkingDifferent]

Nixon used the IRS against his competitors so I see no why a modern day politician wouldn't.

[@_@ Artman]

NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11,
Convicted Qwest CEO Claims (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html)

Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?

That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges.


Sweet gravy cheeses. I know the invasion of Iraq was gonna happen with or without 9/11, but the domestic surveillance? That's whole new levels of evil.

FUNNY THING, IF THIS IS TRUE IT SURE DIDN'T HELP THEM STOP THE TWIN TOWERS ATTACKS DID IT?


:mad:

[Northgate]

NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11,
Convicted Qwest CEO Claims (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html)




Sweet gravy cheeses. I know the invasion of Iraq was gonna happen with or without 9/11, but the domestic surveillance? That's whole new levels of evil.

FUNNY THING, IF THIS IS TRUE IT SURE DIDN'T HELP THEM STOP THE TWIN TOWERS ATTACKS DID IT?


:mad:

Please. They looked the other way.

[iPoster]

I'm in agreement with the comments that Government spying has been going on for a long, long time. Just with more vigor during certain administrations than others.

The government's been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the forties. They've infected everything. They get into your bank statements, computer files, email, listen to your phone calls... Every wire, every airwave. The more technology used, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you.

I know that's from a movie, but there is some basis of reality in it. ECHELON, anyone?

[@_@ Artman]

Please. They looked the other way.

Using one conspiracy to discount another. Good one. Whether they were linked or not is of no concern to you...whatever.

Sammi Jo! You around here today? I noticed something on the Interweb...

First of all everyone should know that on 9-11 there were mock anti-terrorist exercises going on that day that were remarkably similar to what occurred that day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001). Also in London on the day of the bombings there was a mock anti-terrorist exercise run be a private security firm the mirrored the events of that day too (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&articleId=821).

On October 15th to October 20th there will be another major exercise performed... (http://resistrevolt.com/2007/10/04/5-day-martial-law-drill-fact-sheet-from-usnorthcom/)

The United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08. The exercise which is slated to run from October 15th to October 20th is described as a way to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises. The exercise is simply a test case scenario for the implementation of martial law.

Although the description of the exercise is disturbing, USNORTHCOM also announced that they are more prepared for a natural disaster and a terrorist attack after they used their response to Hurricane Katrina as a test laboratory. During Hurricane Katrina, authorities violated the constitutional rights of citizens by stealing people's firearms and even relocating people against their will. These announcements are incredibly disturbing on a number of levels as the nature of Vigilant Shield 08 and the admission that Hurricane Katrina was used as a test laboratory shows that the government is actively preparing the military and government institutions for martial law.

Below is the full press release from USNORTHCOM describing Vigilant Shield 08. Also check out the Vigilant Shield 08 fact sheet by clicking here (http://www.northcom.mil/News/2007/VS-08_fact_sheet.pdf) (PDF).


All I want to say is that it was nice knowing you all and I hope to contact you in somehow or way after the relocation and internment is complete. Or until I form the ARTMAN VIGILANT RESISTANCE with Jubelum and bring down the fascist regime.

Best of Luck...:smokey:

[Jubelum]

All I want to say is that it was nice knowing you all and I hope to contact you in somehow or way after the relocation and internment is complete. Or until I form the ARTMAN VIGILANT RESISTANCE with Jubelum and bring down the fascist regime.

Best of Luck...:smokey:

Reminds me of one of my favourite passages from Hot Shots!:

Recon reports Indians on the warpath in your area. Over.
- Ain't no Indians around here. Over.

Do not take literally. Repeat. Do not take literally.

The vultures are circling the carcass. Repeat.
The vultures are circling the carcass. Over.
- I see a couple of gulls, but I don't...

The pit bull is out of the cage.
The crips are raiding the store.

You know, I have encountered an interesting element within the gun community- liberals who are afraid that Bush is going to declare martial law and round up dissidents by force. It must be SO hard for these people to have their lifelong-ignorance demolished by the spectre of such a reality. Even formerly anti-gun liberal women are deciding to take charge of their own self-defense, which creates some interesting internal feminist conversations within their own minds to be sure.

There is something magical that happens there- when, on a few occassions, a new gun owner tells his old gun-hating friends about the individual RKBA. It's kind of like the first time a new college grad comes to work for me and sees on their first paycheck EXACTLY what all the crap they pushed in college really means in the real world. "Um, uh, where is the rest of the money _I_ WORKED FOR." That's a satisfaction that cannot be equalled. It makes me proud. :D

It takes a perception that their own rights are not safe with government, regardless of how much they love government, to get them to understand the purpose of the Second Amendment... and that purpose ain't duck hunting with John Kerry. I have taught at least 20% Democrats this year- the highest percentage since I have been teaching. Most of them used to be anti-gun crusaders, but have come to a knowledge of Truth. ;)

[@_@ Artman]

It takes a perception that their own rights are not safe with government, regardless of how much they love government, to get them to understand the purpose of the Second Amendment... and that purpose ain't duck hunting with John Kerry.

Or quail hunting with Dick Cheney.

http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/1/Dick-Cheney-Hunting-Shooting-Accident.jpg

Anyway I hope we succeed in the take-down of these fascist, neo-con clowns and raise this flag (http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html)...

http://www.barefootsworld.net/graphics/civilflag.gif

for victory! :D