Originally posted by WyrdeOne
...........................

I've been interviewed and questioned by the FBI and I handled it with civility and grace. Others might not handle the situation as tactfully as I did. I think the agents were intimidated by my size and refrained from pushing too hard. I showed them respect, even when I questioned their career choice, and they were smart enough to be respectful back. I feel bad for some of the kids who get hassled and don't know how to turn it around.

First....why in the world would the FBI go after your kids...sorry but it does not work like that.

Second...why would the FBI question you at all?... There has to be more than this, or you are exagerating what actually happened...

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
...........................
Lets tell the whole World the TRUTH about what is actually going on in the World & come up with Practical Solutions for Problems! Most of all lets exercise our First Amendment Rights to Free Speech & let NO-ONE Intimidate or Silence us!

Ok....what truth are you talking about? and i see you exercising your right of free speech...so who is intimidating you or trying to silence you?.....

Originally posted by Muaddib

First....why in the world would the FBI go after your kids...sorry but it does not work like that.

Second...why would the FBI question you at all?... There has to be more than this, or you are exagerating what actually happened...

In the case of a national disaster, school children could be removed from school and taken to safehouses without their parents permission. they could be held there for an unlimited amount of time under current law, and there are no provisions legal or procedural to keep them safe from those who are supposed to be keeping them safe. Get me?

FEMA can bust down the door to your kids school, order everyone outside, load them on a bus, and drive them to a designated relocation center - for example in the event of a biological attack or nuclear attack.

The FBI questioned me in relation to the dissapearance of one of my friends. I'm not exagerating, and there is more to this. You can read all about it in my autobiography.

Quote: "so who is intimidating you or trying to silence you?"

Muaddib - what Planet do you live on? Have you been living in America for the last 4 years? Have you tried to Publicly speak against Bush Administration Policies that you dis-agree with (do you even dis-agree with any Bush Policies). Give this a try & let me know what happens! Lets see how long it takes for the Machine to come down on you!

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Sofi asks,

NAFTA's terms stipulate that governments MUST negotiate directly with international corporations. ...Who do you think is representing your interests at the negotiating table?

to which i respond,

governments must negotiate with corporations FOR WHAT? what are these negotiations for? What interests of mine are they negotiatin over?

Sofi, This huge gaping hole in your position IS important in order to even KNOW if this is really a problem, or just some trumped up anti gov rhetoric.....
How can you condem the reason this was done and its effectivness if we dont know more about the issue? Then to try and link an extrapolation of this alleged problem to being a cause that the PatAct is bad seems like a leap of judgment based upon....what?
Again Sofi, i will agree with you that the Pat Act and the rammifications need to be questioned, but it seems that some of the charges against it are fear based and not because of actual abuses. Yes i know were talking the potentials here...

WyrdeOne applies HIS motives to others here,

In the case of a national disaster, school children could be removed from school and taken to safehouses without their parents permission. they could be held there for an unlimited amount of time under current law, and there are no provisions legal or procedural to keep them safe from those who are supposed to be keeping them safe. Get me?

FEMA can bust down the door to your kids school, order everyone outside, load them on a bus, and drive them to a designated relocation center - for example in the event of a biological attack or nuclear attack.

So in the case of a disaster, the feds have a plan to evacuate children to a safer location, both to protect the kids and keep parents from rushing back into a disaster zone.....you have a problem with this?
The true motive behind this is not some sinister plot to extort the populace thru use of kids, its to protect them and others. YES this means that some form of control WILL be instituted because from experiance we KNOW people will risk their lives to rush back into a burning building, sometimes not to save a kid but to get something stupid....like for example not allowing people back into the hurricane zone untill it was determined to be as safe as possible and to keep looters out.

Wyrde one assumes the worst in people here,

there are no provisions legal or procedural to keep them safe from those who are supposed to be keeping them safe.

You mean ASIDE from the normal laws against abuse of kids, assault, murder, etc etc? You assume that other American citizens, who will be responding thru the various agencies are ALL in on this gov alleged scheme? That these citizens dont really care about their fellow citizens and would voulentarily mistreat them?
One look at how people came together after 9-11 or even the blackouts, would lead me to believe that citizens in general arent as sinister as you make them out to be, weather they work in these agencies or not.

Id rather know the feds evaced my kid than know there is no plans for their safety and it becomes he with the biggest SUV and the power to back it up goes into a dangerous place and does whatever THEY think is ok to get thier kid, including (in the mentioned bio attack), become a carrier and continue to spread the bug to other areas outside the primary attack zone.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one in this type of scenario.

Originally posted by CazMedia
WyrdeOne applies HIS motives to others here

What are you trying to say with this? Out with it.

Originally posted by CazMedia
You mean ASIDE from the normal laws against abuse of kids, assault, murder, etc etc?

It's my understanding that martial law suspends all other provisions of law. There are most certainly millions of good, thoughtful people in this world. I just don't want my kids under the power of the exception to the rule. I've met too many bad cops, too many sick EMTs, too many pederasts in uniform. I don't want my kids being taken care of by anyone but me. Simple.

If they close the road I'll drive through the woods. In short, do whatever you think is right, and so will all the concerned parents. I see what you're getting at, and you're right to some extent, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. I can't agree with you in fact though, too many people are going to break the law if the law is contradictory to a parent's first instinct.

It isn't a good idea to get between a bear and her cubs. Yaknow?

Wyrde,
What im saying is that your trying to apply your fear and mistrust (understanding parental concerns) of potential abuse of this gov plan to condem the entire plan as well as all of those citizens that will be involved in crisis managment. This is ofcourse before the fact as well.
You seem to be starting with the French system of justice here...guilt before innosence.

Im not saying dont ask questions and try to fine tune things, but at this point im more worried about the civil chaos and disorder than i am about some plan to try and maintain it.

Quote: "Live simply and resist by walking away from what the Television wants us to do and how it says we should live. Screw that! Live the way YOU want to live and on YOUR terms. Turn off the TV. Liberate yourself... It’s a magic trick. Self sufficiency is the best kind of unemployment insurance. It got the Walton family through the great depression...

The whole dastardly Corporatist Business Plan *falls apart* if you
*don’t buy into it*."

Exactly - I agree 100%!

Originally posted by Alexodin


“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Alexodin, you seem to have a wonderful quote for every occasion.

And ah yes, the tyrants and murderers do fall. A good thing to remember, always, but sometimes hard to do.



.

Originally posted by soficrow
Alexodin, you seem to have a wonderful quote for every occasion.
And ah yes, the tyrants and murderers do fall. A good thing to remember, always, but sometimes hard to do.

Great quote, but the problem as I see it lies in this question: who topples them? One man's tyrant topples another man's tyrant. Is it really so much an end to tyranny as a reallocation of it? The move from government under Saddam to government under the proxies of Bush is a good example.

The quesiton of tyranny is paradoxical because one must be at some level either idealistic or cynical. To be idealistic is to think that you are doing good when you do what is often little more than trading one tyrant for another. To be cynical is to refuse that one can even attempt to help.
In my opinion, all rule is by force, even if there is a God, his rule would also be by force. Nobody really rule unless they can enforce that rule. Democracy for example is basically a tyranny of the majority (actually in a republic its not quite even by the majority- just by those selected by the majority.) It doesn't seem right to leave a wrong in place, but unless that wrong is extreme it is not necessarily possible to improve upon that wrong. Technically speaking "right" may really be more a matter of lesser wrongs.

So does love always topple tyranny, or do gentler tyrants do that?

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "so who is intimidating you or trying to silence you?"

Muaddib - what Planet do you live on? Have you been living in America for the last 4 years? Have you tried to Publicly speak against Bush Administration Policies that you dis-agree with (do you even dis-agree with any Bush Policies).
.....................

Yes, i have, i have never been intimidated, and I have lived in the US for the past 4 years.. I agree with a lot of issues with president Bush, one thing i do not completly agree with is what is happening currently to the environment, although i also know that some groups are using this as a tool of political propaganda, and that's where the trouble lies. In this day-and-age people use any excuse and issue, whether it is true or not, to try to further their own agenda, and it is a shame really but it is a fact of life.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

So does love always topple tyranny, or do gentler tyrants do that?

As I taught my daughter, "Don't fight. But if you can't avoid it, fight to win." Gentleness in battle is suicide.

OTH - Love topples tyranny like the wind and waves wear rock. It takes time, repetition and patience. Sometimes, generations.

There was a list of alternatives to civil war and revolution here a few months ago. One item was legal recourse - no longer an option thanks to new legislation. I'll need to dig up the list and see how many other options are cut off at the pass.


.

The Vagabond: “So does love always topple tyranny, or do gentler tyrants do that?”

I think this question is as magnificent as it is expansive. There certainly is no simple answer but I think yes gentler tyrants replace ogres. Part of the answer lies in the wisdom of The Vagabond’s post. To be cynical is to maintain that it is not even worth it to try to improve mankind’s lot in life.


But beyond that I see much of history as a series of failed attempts to create utopia as in the Garden of Eden. As flawed as the Constitution may be I believe it constitutes the sum total of civilization’s efforts at creating panacea. While it is possible to quibble whether Plato’s Republic is a better plan the exercise would be purely academic like looking at a map of a beautiful city that might be built one day. Can we do better? Sure. Worse? Sure. But progress like evolution is inevitable. Though it may take millennia there is hope.

Political fortunes of left and right rise and fall like the tides. Currently the pendulum is at or near the far right bounds of its stroke. It will swing back. Revolution is, after all, just one turn of the crank and upon completion of its bout a new one is soon required. The end result of all this back and forth is progress. Sometimes, as in the dark ages, all enlightened progress is rolled back and people fall into a crevasse of ignorance and darkness. But this condition does not affect the entire world and is not a permanent condition even for those so afflicted.

The hope of mankind is that we move onward and upward though our steps are burdened by the ignorance of our ancestors we depend on their knowledge, and though our brothers and sisters make trouble for us by tugging at our heavy load we will rise to summit inevitably. Is this a stone of Sisyphus? Perhaps at one time but not now. The knowledge of the atom which currently rules our entire physical world with a heavy hand spurs our divinity or heralds our demise. If an atomic stone is rolled by the like of Sisyphus it would mean game over.


Here’s a thought I’ll toss out as a target for bombing missions by atheists:

Often when I see people behaving in a manner in which I do not understand I look to the animal kingdom to see if such behavior exists in nature. If the curious behavior exists in nature I try to discern why. Nature must find advantage in the behavior and I can discount that people engage in the same purely out of vacuous social tradition.

I see among the apes a hierarchical structure to their troops. The same for the Vatican and so many of our governmental and corporate and social structures are hierarchies; it’s as if we hairless monkeys are naturally inclined to line up in a pecking order. What if instead of a Hitler on the throne we place a deity like Buddha or Christ or Krishna? I mean if one of these guys comes back. Perhaps the natural order is a dictatorship and all we lack is the divine dictator?

I hear atheistic fighter planes coming in. It’s just a thought guys pull up pull up!

Originally posted by Alexodin

I see among the apes a hierarchical structure to their troops. The same for the Vatican and so many of our governmental and corporate and social structures are hierarchies; it’s as if we hairless monkeys are naturally inclined to line up in a pecking order. What if instead of a Hitler on the throne we place a deity like Buddha or Christ or Krishna? I mean if one of these guys comes back. Perhaps the natural order is a dictatorship and all we lack is the divine dictator?

Good thoughts, good questions.

IMO - In the 'natural' order, the troop and hierarchy are essential for defense against predators, and to the physical survival of the troop/species.

Mankind has no predators except other men, mainly. In theory, man should be above the need for hierarchy, and many gentler cultures have shown that such structures can work - as can the idealist form of anarchy.

Men create both the need for defense and the hierarchies that support defense. ...Let women handle government, I doubt it would be necessary.

...Sorry got flippant there - was just called to dinner.


.