It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The question we should all be asking is "who gets to decide what the law is?" It is not you or I. What we have to say means very little in the big picture anymore. The elites get to make the laws they wish and ram them down our throats. Who ever thinks they have the right to run for office and fix things, get real. It costs millions of dollars now to run a campaign, and unless you know the right people or have won the lotto, you're not going to stand a chance in an election.

One last comment, something lost on people is where the power structures are. The belief is that they reside in the elected officials. This is so far from the truth it is not even funny. Elected officials have very little power. It is those professional political animals that work in the guts of Washington that make things happen. Those that reside in the thinktanks and the lobbies are the power structure. They are the ones that provide continuity of power, develop policy, and generate the dollars for the politicans they want to run. They are the ones who pull the strings from behind the scenes. Without their guidance, there would be no continuity from administration to administration. Follow the money trail. Check out the membership of these thinktanks. You'll find that the real power is hiding within the walls of these organizations.




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The member with the OP likes to call him or herself 'future world dictator.' I'm curious, is that a joke or do you really relish such thoughts within yourself? In my travels around the web I find that there is much discussion about what is legal and illegal and that is one of the big problems isn't it?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Katolu
What struck me as I read this was the fact that three posters quickly jumped to the conclusion that the OP was advocating the very thing he was denouncing.


Tis my punishment for being so damned wordy

I thought I'd expressed it clearly in the opening sentence, but in retrospect, perhaps I should have made a shorter post that stated my summarized feelings first, and then followed it up the longer posts.



Originally posted by Katolu
Are we truly digesting what we read/see/hear? Or have we gotten to the point where we have carefully crafted responses ready to go when we see something we think we may disagree with?


I believe you have hit the nail on the head, my friend. We are conditioned to only pay attention in 15 to 30 second spurts. Newspeak is being used to incredible effect by the Republican party (note, not bashing, honestly, just stating something very obvious).


from 1984

“The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.”



Now, let's examine the Republican party (again, not politically bashing, I'm making a point about word usage). They have used language to such an amazing degree that a mere phrase can embolden their argument and weaken their opposition without anything actually being said.

For instance, if you disagree with the administration about the war in Iraq, then you are accused of wanting to "cut and run", which immediately conjures to mind a negative, wasteful, and cowardly image. The administration, however, wishes to "stay the course", which conversely brings to mind the image of a stalwart hero determinedly moving forward. Our current administration would never resort to "torture", but "alternative methods of questioning" certainly doesn't sound too bad. If your opponent has changed his mind, even once, he is a "flip-flopper", but if you refuse to budge or negotiate even an inch in your policy, you are "dependable" and "reliable". You cannot have a contested state where people differ on their political opinions, your state is determined to be "Red" or "Blue" depending on the count, which does nothing more than divide the U.S. further into different "teams". If a business appends the word "green" somewhere within it's motto or mission statement, it has immediately become a bastion of environmental responsibility, despite whatever ecological damage it is actually causing.



Originally posted by Katolu
What I've gathered from these talks is that he fears change. I think the majority of people do as well.


(nods) I'd say that's true of humans in general, actually. Terry Pratchett put it best when he said "What people really want, more than anything, is for tomorrow to pretty much go on like today did, and the day before it."

Change is, by its very nature, and aberration. Craving change is abberant behavior. We are indoctrinated at a genetic level to fear and distrust change, because we do not know what dangers those changes pose to our continued survival. And let's face it, next to Sex, Survival is the single biggest motivator for human beings. Just ask the people giving up their liberty in exchange for security.


Originally posted by Katolu
The largest voting segment in the U.S. is the Baby Boomer generation and if a large percent of that group is fearful of change, then no change will occur in the near future.


Actually, I thought it was the elderly? Or are the elderly now Baby Boomers? 65+? I don't think they're quite the largest yet... who was before the Baby Boomers?


Originally posted by Katolu
Sadly, I think it's the fear of the unknown (non-traditional political party) than it is fear of the government.


I don't know that it is neccessarily fear of a new political party, but rather just plain-old comfort with what is familiar. People are, for the most part, Brand Loyal, and what is a political party, but another brand? There are a few people who will buy whatever the newest fashion trend is, and there are people who will only buy what's on sale at the lowest price, but for the most part, those are swing votes. The majority buy the same cola they've been drinking since they were a child. They're comfortable with it. They know exactly what to expect. They're familiar with the other players involved...none of those things can be said for 3rd party candidates. Hell, even the appelation of "3rd Party" implies a lack of responsibility.


Okay, on to W_Smith



Originally posted by W_Smith
I have been thinking on this a long while, but had yet to put it in words. Very well stated. You got my vote.


Thanks man. Ditto on the thinking about it for a while... it's been bugging me since that radio broadcast of the cops beating the drug dealer for 45 mins during a warrantless search, and then followed it up with rigging his nuts up to a car battery charger, when the radio announcer said, "Well, if you aren't dealing drugs, there's nothing to worry about."

It infuriated me, but I had no idea what to say about it, or why I was so pissed off. Now, a few months later, I finally figured out why.



Originally posted by W_Smith
With all the issues happening now, we adopt the "It's their problem ,not mine" attitude.


I believe this is a newly regurgitated defense mechanism from days gone past. Only, a few hundred years ago, the excuse for apathy was distance and lack of regular communication. In today's world, the excuse is that we are barraged with communication so often that we are quite literally forced to ignore any needs but our own just to get anything done each day.



Originally posted by W_Smith
I have also witnessed those who, although they have a greater understanding on what needs to be done, feel that if no one cares then why should they.


Ah, the sympathetic apathy, the contagion of the new millenia, and I myself have fallen prey to it a number of times and am STILL not immune. Let's also not forget apathy born of fear. Intervening, even to try and help someone, makes you target for a lawsuit if even the slightest thing goes wrong. There used to be, when I was growing up, something called "The Good Samaritan Law", which basically stated that if you attempted to save someone's life and they died anyway, you couldn't be sued. It was applied to many less critical things as well, and generally, everything worked out. Nowadays, if you attempt to save someone's life, you'd better be fully paid up on your insurance, and have a very good lawyer on standby, because their lawyer is going to advice them to sue the crap out of anyone and everyone remotely involved in the incident for any reason whatsoever. Woe to the hero who accidentally causes some back pain to the person they just carried out of a burning building.


Originally posted by W_Smith
I readily admit that I am not the most eloquent speaker.


I happen to think you've done a fine job and contributed quite nicely to the conversation at hand.


Originally posted by W_Smith
I grew up thinking a certain way and that way is crumbling. I am scared and I don't know what to do. Admitting these things is the beginning, for me at least. At least I have opened my eyes and want to do something. The opposing side would (and have, to my face) call this a weakness. But I feel stronger...


Vote. Try to get anyone and everyone you can to vote. Every election. Regardless of party. If everyone voted, our government would have no choice but to represent us.

[edit on 9/20/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
IMHO Kinky is just what we need right now for Texas(as well as the rest of the US). He's someone who wants to change the direction of where our state is heading which is Fascist police state run for corporate benefit. I'm 44 and both major parties have been soildly in the pocket of what once corporate America which has been replaced by the corporate global. Instead of doing what's best for the country, the Rep's and Dem's have given trillions of tax dollars away in corporate welfare to companies like Haliburton. The security industrial complex is more concerned with insuring quarterly profit than the survival of the human species. Those plutocratic indiivduals who run it believe they're invincible.
The "war on terrorism" is bigger boondoggle than the "war on drugs". Both are just excuses to further diminish the Bill of Rights and a waste of taxpayers dollars. People speak about how they don't want to put their families at risk from an Islamic terrorist attack but what about having your children enslaved by the global corporations as cannon fodder to secure oil supplies by military means. Taxpayer money should be spent developing new and cleaner forms of energy instead of funding the corporate welfare state bent on global destruction. I say vote out every member of Congress in '06 and impeach the entire Bush Administration for war crimes and corruption. It would be a great start.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
it isn't that...

it's the fact that they can invade your privacy whenever they want..

i have nothing to be afraid of but it's just the things we stand for..we stand for freedom, liberty and our rights but we are slowly losing it

people aren't mad because they're scared of getting caught doing something

it's just the symbolism..we stand for freedom and by invading our privacy..it feels like we're slowly losing our freedom



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I would like to preface this comment with the following:
This commentary is addressed to everyone who lives in the United States of America. And not to those who would dissect my words stating that how dare I say that any other country have a constitution and that people may even like to be enslaved.

Here it goes:

Another thing I hear a lot is...

"Ten years ago, I would have never believed it, but now I think it is true."

I am sad to admit that we are definitely losing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I never thought I would have said these words aloud, but what happened to our country? Numerous bills on the horizon which allow warrantless wiretaps and more. RFID chips in passports and cars. The law gets passed for national ID cards without so much as a fight.

We live in a country which in 2008 we will be hearing the words:
"Your Papers, please."

All that and the fact the we have government entities which can deprive you of your property and freedom and you must prove their charges against you are false. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

The previous comment about boiling frogs is starting to look like our situation. Our grandfathers and forefathers are turning over in their graves knowing that we gave up our rights, which they paid for in thier own blood, without a fight or even a thought.

Our citizens have been dumbed down to the point that most young Americans don't even know who the President or Vice-President is or even know anything about our Constitution or our history.

This has made me want to resign my current job and become a teacher until I realized that I would not be able to teach anything other than what was approved to be taught and in only in a way that was approved.

This whole thing makes me sick.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Ther is no such thing as a peacefull revolution. imo

Only one thing can move another and that is force.

If you are arrested the police do not politly ASK you to get in the squad car.

No they FORCE you in.

The only power people respect is force and the threat or infliction of pain.

This is why a suicide killer is so hard to combat, he is embracing the ultimate force thereby totally stripping you of all power over him/her.

Actually here in MI I witness stupidy, greed, apathy, and clulessness on a daily basis.

If 90% of the people choose to go through live totally ignorant of history, their rights, and their government policies, then they totally deserve to be imprisoned, tortured, and eliminated. They are nothing more than cattle.

STOP WATCHING MAINSTREAM MEDIA
IT IS A POISON!!!!!!!!

A couple of months ago I submitted a negative article about the pentagon. Two days later they called me on my cell phone. They were using the threat of knowledge of me to tell me to back off.

Dear PENTAGON,

MY FORE-FATHERS GAVE THEIR BLOOD AND DIED IN THE DIRT TO GIVE ME AND EVERY AMERICAN THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT.

I HAVE THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I KNOW YOU ARE READING THIS AND YOU ARE TRAITORS TO AMERICA AND YOUR OATH TO UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A VULGER JOKE.

THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU GO TO SLEEP.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm seeing a lot of anger here. A lot. But remember the words of Thomas Jefferson. When you are angry, count to 10. When you are very angry, count to 100. Let's take a step back, let's put down the guns, and let's take a very close look at the real problem.

Low voter turnout.

What did we expect? Did we honestly think that we could let the idea that our vote means nothing become a prevalent thought and this wouldn't happen? Please. How many of you voted. Let's be super honest from here on out, who really voted in every election you were eligable to vote in? I can't make that kind of a claim. What level of power ceases to be important enough for you to worry about? President? Governor? Senators? Representatives? State legislature? Mayor? City Council Members? The Board of Education? The Parent Teacher Associations?

How politically involved are you? All of you. If you failed to vote for any of those things, you have turned a blind-eye to the very problems you are so very furious about. Where the local, state, and nation aren't being actively f---ed up by someone you never bothered voting about, some other people you didn't vote about are controlling the education of future generations. If you truly want to change things, then start voting, at every level, as often as you can. Make everyone else you know do the same. Take some f---ing pride in that one right you have left and put it to good use! How can you even begin to think you could make a revolution work when you can't even be bothered to work with what you've got?

Vote! Vote damn you! VOTE!!!

(98...99...100) Sorry.

I got a bit worked up myself. Okay, I'm going to go cook something good to eat. Peace, love, and lollypops all.


[edit on 9/20/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Ok, back to answer some questions and points that were directed at me. Sorry I took so long.

To LordBasket first:



If I may, I would like to ask for some of your opinions on why you choose your personal stance though(relating to your region, where you personaly live). What are your thoughts exactly on goverment intrusion, or more specificly where do you personally draw the line? What would you consider to be too much? Does personal responsibility out-weigh goverment responsibility, when can the goverment dictate was is good and bad( such as prohibition, do you agree with a goverment telling you if drinking is good or bad)?


No probs. I have no religious affiliation. I used to believe that there is something, but as I get older and get more saddened by this world, I find it hard to believe that a higher power would allow the crappy things that are happening these days to happen. And the amount of conflict that I have seen over religion - well, I have to wonder if we would be better off without it.

My background, in general terms, is military, Air Force in particular. I served in Gulf War Mark II. I've been involved in some other operations close to Australia supporting our response to the Bali Bombings. This background obviously makes me more accepting of reduced privacy and increased security. I'm used to having phone calls monitored, mail checked, and personal movements limited in ways that most civilians wouldn't accept. So that at least gives you some context to my thoughts and feelings.

I don't really have a line to be truthful. My line is that as long as there are checks and balances in place for all these new procedures, then I'm relatively happy. No-one should be held without trial (I disagree quite strongly with what is going on at Guantanamo Bay), or without access to legal support. I would not like to see a vote having to be earned (I certainly don't think military service makes me any more deserving of having a say than anyone else!). Elections are a must, regularly and transparently, at all levels. And people should have the right to peaceful, lawful protest when they feel that something is wrong, and need to speak out.

I don't have a problem with a Government telling me that something is bad, as I don't see too many examples of them telling me not to do anything because it was bad. Travel advisories are a good example. Our government informs us of when they believe there is a threat to Australians overseas, but they don't stop us travelling there. We have warnings on cigarette packets, but can still chuff away if we want.

I think people have to accept personal responsibility for their actions. If you break the law, or put yourself in a position where you might be perceived as breaking the law, then you have to accept that these days you may be questioned. And arrest still doesn't equal conviction as far as I'm aware. If you are going to stockpile amonium nitrate, if you want to jump straight into learning to fly 747s, if you are observed photographing landmarks and have known extremist connections, then you probably will be questioned. And as the title of this thread suggests, if you are doing nothing wrong, then there are no problems. I'd expect to get questioned if I did the above, and would be fine with it.



When I speak of gun rights, I'm not advocating the killing of elected officials. I am mearly stating that I belive a person should have the rights to protect him/herself, his/her family and his/her community using any means nessesary. I belive that if a threat is true and real, it's not just the goverments problem but also every citizens problem. What can one do when the legal system fails though? Or what if the goverment outright fails in it's duty but resists the people pleas through the normal channels or reason( whatever the current form of laws/court system may be in that persons area)? Do you just kow tow to the higher powers, and hope they leave you alone by being obedient to a system you dissagree with?


If checks and balances fail, then things are pretty dire. Discontent will grow. Thailand is probably a good example at the moment. But most Australians disagreed with our participation in Iraq, yet the Government got voted back into office at the next election. Why? Our Liberal party has had a good economic record, but has also been strong on security. And the majority of the population (we have compulsory voting in Australia) thought they were doing a pretty good job all things considered.



To tell you the truth, my knowledge on the history and formation of your goverment is very limited( got to love the public school system, they must have felt Australia wasn't very important compared to our own history.... ). If you know of any good links offhand about the Australian sytem of goverment( or even some basic history) I will gladly read it to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from for a better conversation.


Wikipaedia has a really good entry on Australian Federation. Though some would argue that Australians never revolted because we just couldn't be bothered!

Australian Federation




What is your viewpoint on our( the USA's) past election that 50% of our population thinks it was rigged in favor of one party through vote tampering? What would you do differently than what we are doing currently? If you think it's all conspiricy that's fine as well, but at least give your opinion why, as I'm interested on an outside opinion.


I think your election process is somewhat confusing to most people. There is also way too much influence by big business in who gets nominated. It seems much harder, from my point of view, for US citizens to enter politics. I don't think there is a conspiracy per se, but I'm sure people exploit lack of understanding, dodgy recording mechanisms, and general voter apathy.


Thanks again for the discussion, I hope I at least answered some of your questions!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Now to Libra:



And if someone does flame you, I'll kick 'em in the nitz.


I very much like your style!



I myself personally felt the wrong end of the stick when I got just a little too curious about a particular organization. I had to make the choice about whether or not continuing to post on it was worth the consequences. I decided it wasn't, and I was very blatantly forced to make that choice.


I'd be interested to know more about what happened here. Was it a security issue? Did someone contact you, or did you back off yourself?



Then you most certainly did not read 1984 in its entirety, or have forgotten much. Ingsoc kept its people in a constant state of terror, citing "the unseen enemy" constantly as a reason to increase security measures and reduce liberties. No matter that no one ran across the unseen enemy, it was stated often enough and thusly believed.


It has been a few years since I read it. However, the enemy I know is quite visible when they act. The evidence was before my eyes when I watched the Twin Towers fall. I saw it in the video of the recent bombings in Bali. I hear it in videos that threaten further attacks against the West. Obviously I don't subscribe to the CT view that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.



Now, thank god a federal judge had enough balls (a woman, at that) to stand up to the executive branch and say "No, in point of fact, your job is not to make policy, it is to act on policy that has been hammered through congress." That really really ticked off the administration, but thankfully our system of checks and balances prevails.


Then the system works. These are extraordinary times. Everyone is dealing with a great deal of unknowns. It comforts me that your system recognised when it was going to far. And corrected itself. Now, if you could just sort out Guantanamo Bay (there's an Aussie in there getting a raw deal), then I'll be very happy indeed!



Ah, this puts me very much in mind of a rather nasty argument a few days ago. My parents' close friend and neighbor of almost 20 years was having his 60th birthday party and while over there, the topic turned to politics. I mentioned that it would appear that we are, in exchange for security, creating a caste of second-class citizens out of Muslims and anyone who was Middle-Eastern looking. They looked at me and nodded, shrugging "...and?" I thought perhaps they didn't understand, and further explained that, no, see, people who are natural born or naturalized citizens of the United States are being turned into second-class citizens by the policies of the current administration. They nodded again and said "that's fine with me."


This is a difficult topic, because it is hard not to come across as racist. So let's pretend that a group of extremist moustache wearers declared war on the West. They conducted terror attacks. They openly advocated the death of non-moustache wearers. Would I expect moustache growers to be targeted by security services? Absolutely! Targeting is an important part of intel collection, and there is little point at the moment in focusing on any other groups, because there is one group in particular (the moustachioed ones) that are much higher in probability to actually be planning to do something. And security procedure apply equally to everyone. I get asked to take my shoes off at airports. In fact, there is some discussion in Australia that due to the risk of perceived racism, that non-moustache wearing individuals are being publicly searched more than the moustached individuals. Dropping the euphemism, which I'm not even sure I'm spelling correctly, our Government has tried quite hard to ensure that everyone realises that Islam is a religion of peace, and the whole should not be blamed for the extremist interpretations of the few. A tough subject, I know. But Muslims can be as much a victim of terrorism as I can, and those that I know are happy to undergo security screening. Why? Because they have nothing to hide, and it makes them feel safer.



You use the prevention of your demise as justification for incurring any number of rather stretching security policies. Okay, fine that, but what about the other 99% of deaths per year that aren't caused by terrorism?


I drive at the speed limit. I eat well and exercise. I don't stand under trees during thunderstorms. I do a walk-around of my plane before I go flying. I look both ways before crossing the street. I take personal responsibility for those things. Like the smoker who disregards health warnings on cigarette packets really can't complain when they get lung cancer. But what I can't control is lunatics with a backpack bomb who blow themselves up, anymore than I can control a drunk driver. But increased security lowers the risk, and my fear. Terrorism can achieve its goals by doing next to nothing. As the name suggests, it is terror that it is trying to achieve. Security and intelligence monitoring reduce fear, people travel, the economy stays strong, terrorists get captured or lose interest because it is all too hard. So that in a nutshell is my belief. The majority of the population are more fearful of terrorism than they are of the Government. And personally, I think tougher fines and punishments should apply to speeding, drink-driving, and other activities that threaten the lives of innocent people.



What is this "peaceful shaping" thing you speak of? Does it involve guns?


Not at all. Check the link on Australian Federation I put in my post to Lord Basket.



Disagreement is what keeps people from getting too powerful.


I very much agree. It's been a pleasure talking to you



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Wow, excellent posts. Before I make a longer reply I'm going to re-read and digest exactly what has been said though. But, I will admit things both Willard and TheLibra have said have swayed my views for the better, so I thank you both for your well written responces as they have been very enlightening for me. Also Willard, thanks for the link on the Austrailian goverment...very interesting to say the least. I thank you both(and a few of the other responders) for sharing your ideas on this subject. I'm glad the disscussion has proved quite fruitful so far, let's keep it up.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Okay folks, new day, tempers have died down, the screaming for blood has subsided. Let's get some more people answered.



Originally posted by yeahright
The OP makes a great point: Voting isn't valued because it isn't earned. And I don't have a great answer for that one, although I'm not opposed in principle to a mandatory service period. But I can see some major issues surrounding that, as well. (another thread, perhaps)


If such a thread is started, lemme know. I'm on a major "get out there and vote" kick right now. Even though this isn't a Presidential election year, Senate elections are happening in 1/3 of the states out there, and countless state and local elections are going on, all of which are contributors to whatever problem or solution is going to be implemented.



Originally posted by yeahright
We have a very messy, chaotic form of government, which just happens to be the best one anyone's come up with to date.


I think so too, which isn't to knock anyone else's government. For all I know, we're a failure in the eyes of the rest of the world... but I live pretty dang comfortably compared to what I've seen in Mexico and what I've seen on TV about other countries. And maybe that chaos is part and parcel to doing well. Perhaps you have to keep government in a constant state of flux and fubar so that it can't focus for too long on giving itself more power in any one area.


Originally posted by yeahright
As long as you're on the "right side" of those issues, the single-issue voter doesn't care what else you do. Which IMO is bad.


I think a large part of that is that people "don't have time" to consider anything more than a couple of issues. The real truth, of course, is that people have filled their hours with meaningless crap, like TV shows, video games, bar hopping, etc (all of which I've been guilty of as well), and they just can't be bothered to worry about the good of the many over the few, learn anything about economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy... as long as their pet issues are addressed in a way that pleases them, and life pretty much goes on as it did the day before, why should they worry?




Originally posted by yeahright
As far as I'm concerned, if you haven't taken the time to know who you're voting for and why, stay home.


NOnononono... that's playing into the hands of the people who know exactly who they're voting for and are voting for that person for the wrong reason. I'd much rather there be 100% voter turnout with only 25% knowing who and why they are voting for, than to have only 25% voter turnout with 100% knowing who and why they are voting. Our system of voting was designed to incorporate the human factor (which, let's face it, is usually ignorance).

The real problem is that they're going about trying to get people to vote in the wrong way. They're trying to make it out to be something fun, cool, and trendy, when in fact it's none of those things and people bloody well know it. What they need to do is some serious negative reinforcement. People need to be made to feel ashamed when they don't vote. People need to know it's their duty and responsibility. They need to feel terrified at the idea that their voice might not get heard, and that they are worthless pieces of crap for not taking twenty minutes out of their sitcom and potato chip time to get off their ass and vote.

We're innundated daily with advertisers telling us what's hip, what's cool, what's fun. But what REALLY gets ratings and results are fear, guilt, and horror. THAT is the campaign that must be waged if people are to increase the voter turnout.




Originally posted by andy1033
i found out that this was a total rubbish saying back in school. i suspected something was happening to me, and tried to find out for certain. something was happening to me and has followed me all my life from those moments.


Out of curiosity, what was it?


Originally posted by andy1033
...also another saying that he could of added that is totally wrong is "YOU MAKE YOUR OWN LIFE IN THIS WORLD". that statement is totally wrong, and i have found out that to my cost in my life.


I think that latter statement is debatable, largely due to the environment one is raised in. obviously an abandoned child in Ethopia has a nearly infinite number of hardships to overcome in comparison to someone born into a wealthy home in a rich nation. But there is also a certain amount of accountability that each person must assume before they can lay any blame on society. If I were to be laid off tomorrow, and marched out the door, and then refused to go out and look for another job, or refused to accept a job that I felt was "beneath me", then who is truly to blame if my family starves and we lose our house?



Originally posted by Bhadhidar
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear..."

...Is a platitude which could only be realized in a cashless society totally free from personal material want, in which personal Status, as a measure of social value, was non-existent.


And how likely is that to happen? Heh... Well put, man. Well put.



Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
In America you are lucky to have the ability to challenge oppresive governments written into your constitution.Try living here mate(uk),where no such ability exists for anyone.


Really? The various documents and updates of the Magna Carter provide no such abilities to the UK? I don't mean that as a challenge, but rather as a genuine "I don't know much about it" question.



Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
You guys have GOT TO protect that right.It could be the most important part of your constitution.


I believe you are correct. And it is also not a part that many Americans are familiar with. Perhaps our greatest folly is in forgetting that.


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
If people tried to suggest a similar law in the uk,they would swiftly be harrased/arrested,and painted as a terrorist by our state worshiping media...


Really?!? Every time I listen to the BBC, I hear them denouncing Blair's party as so much rubbish. Of course, there's the other stations, but I'd always thought BBC news was more believable than, say, Fox News... Maybe it's just the British accent. It makes someone like 10x more trustworthy in America.


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
As for the surveillance thing-wait till you get the cameras which shout at you for droping litter,or whatever the crime may be.


It's funny you mention that. I actually did an ATSNN story on it.

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226315/pg1']Brits To Take Orders From Talking Cameras



Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The problem is,with the advent of nano technology and the like,this sort of spying,recording and monitoring society we are living in can only get more and more intrusive while at the same time becoming harder for us to avoid-or know what to expect.


I'm afraid you're right. NPR had a story much to the same effect. They said privacy is gone, it's not coming back, the real question is now how much more are you willing to sell?


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I`ve got to reccomend you to read Soficrow`s excellent research projsct on "the new military",which contains alot of info relavent to this excellent thread:


I'll check it out. Soficrow is a pretty well respected member on ATS, so I bet it's an interesting read, to say the least.


More replies to come...

[edit on 9/21/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
(continuing to reply to the various responses)



Originally posted by HankMcCoy
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Ben Franklin

I might get bashed for quoting some (freemason/devil worshipper/who knows what you people think its hard to keep track) but his message is very profound, moreso because he isn't a superhero from a work of fiction like V.


You're kidding, right? Most ATSers I know worship Franklin and Jefferson as the only two founding fathers who were worth a damn. I think if people knew history better, John Adams would be included among them, but unfortunately, though he was the champion of getting Independence declared, Adams had all the personality of a diseased scab. But I digree, never fear quoting the forefathers...except the arseheads from the Carolinas, who forced Jefferson to remove the clause abolishing slavery before they'd sign the Declaration.


Originally posted by HankMcCoy
its not hard to see that as a lot more of the constitution and the early practices are changed/removed, that our populous becomes more disenfranchised with the way things work.


To be honest, I think people are going to have to go through some very much harder times before they realize just how important the stuff they are giving up is.



Originally posted by HankMcCoy
How can a citizen grow up in the United States caring about his country when CIVICS isnt even a required course in a majority of high schools anymore?


It's not? Are you sure they didn't just change the name of it to Government? Even though, come to think of it, Government was only a one-semester class, and it was mostly a free period to do homework and talk to friends, cause our teacher couldn't be bothered to show up for class.





Originally posted by The Iconoclast
The question we should all be asking is "who gets to decide what the law is?" It is not you or I. What we have to say means very little in the big picture anymore. The elites get to make the laws they wish and ram them down our throats.


I'm afraid I must disagree. I think the reason the elites get to make the laws they wish is because the non-elites can't be bothered to vote. If you're running for office, and you know that Group A consists of a minority of hard-core fundamentalists who regularly vote, that Group B represents a few corporate interests who reliably vote for those who favor their policies, and then Group C who represents 75% of the registered voters and whom reliably do not vote, whom are you going to cater to? Are you going to waste time trying to help people who aren't going to help you get into office? Or are you going to preach gospel to Group A, take kickbacks from Group B, and then just give some paltry lip service to Group C?

Our laws are the direct result of the people we do and do not elect. One must never forget that.



Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Who ever thinks they have the right to run for office and fix things, get real. It costs millions of dollars now to run a campaign, and unless you know the right people or have won the lotto, you're not going to stand a chance in an election.


Very true. Which is why the Democratic and Republican parties typically win elections. They have the financial backing by voters, corporations, and organizations, to get their name and spin heard by more than the little guy. The reason independant candidates don't get the vote more often than not is because they do not have the organization, the infrastructure, or support in anywhere near the size that the established parties do. People don't waste votes on them because they feel that votes towards a 3rd party are wasted and allow one of the other two parties to get a larger margin of victory in the end. But again, that is the fault of the voter who does not vote their conscience, but rather votes along party lines.



Originally posted by The Iconoclast
One last comment, something lost on people is where the power structures are. The belief is that they reside in the elected officials. This is so far from the truth it is not even funny. Elected officials have very little power. It is those professional political animals that work in the guts of Washington that make things happen.


Government is a machine. It has many parts, it has a specific job it is supposed to do. When people want it to do more they must add parts, when they want it to do less, they must remove parts. The congress, senators, even the president, are nothing more than gears, circuits, and cogs in the great machine. The real power resides in the mechanics whom have figured out how to operate the machine, how to change it, and how to fix it when it's broken. The mechanics are doing exactly what they are paid to do. You are correct in your assessment that power lies not in the elected officials, but rather the lobbyists and interest groups. However, you must keep in mind that, like any other business, the market revolves around the demand, and that demand is determined by the vote. It is a very symbiotic system.

As a better example, examine the dollar bill. Your dollars equate to a vote. If you spend your dollar to buy a ticket to a movie, you are voting not just for the title of that movie, but also in favor of that director, the actors, the writer, the producers, the film crew, the editors, etc... If the movie gets enough votes, then not only will more movies like it be made, but the entire line of people who made that movie happen are going to find it much easier to get a job working on more movies.

That's just how it works, man. I'm sorry, that's not going to change, and it probably shouldn't change, because I'm a firm believer in people sleeping in the bed they have made (or refused to make) for themselves. It is not the job of the institution to change for you, it is your job to change the institution.



Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The member with the OP likes to call him or herself 'future world dictator.' I'm curious, is that a joke or do you really relish such thoughts within yourself?


Honestly, who wouldn't relish the thought of controlling the world? Sure. I'd love to be world dictator. It actually started as something of a joke in Austin several years back, with a group called The Bitter Male Society... somehow it turned into a quest for world domination as a joke, and then later just started growing. For a while I had a web page going where people could sign up and pledge their support for my regime in exchange for an extra potato ration once I was dictator. I got a little over two-thousand members before Geocities removed the page from its servers due to lack of updating, and my losing the password to actually log in and update anything. So, somewhere out there, are a good 2000 people or so just waiting for their potato ration once The Libra controls the world. If it's any consolation though, I promise to be a benign dictator.

The offer stands here too, by the way. Anyone who supports me will get an extra potato ration once I'm dictator. Anyone who doesn't gets to work the potato farms.


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In my travels around the web I find that there is much discussion about what is legal and illegal and that is one of the big problems isn't it?


I don't quite follow. Could you elaborate?


(still more replies coming)



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Yet Even More Multiple Replies to Multiple People


Originally posted by crgintx
IMHO Kinky is just what we need right now for Texas(as well as the rest of the US).


I agree with his policies, but his mouth does have a rather amusing way of getting him into trouble.

www.breitbart.com...

He's been called out on a number of rather...ummm... racially slanted remarks. I'd hate to think I was electing a bigot. But then again, the comments could have been taken out of context, and it could be he just doesn't care about political correctness... so I really don't know. Still, it's hard not to vote for someone who's slogan is "why the hell not?"



Originally posted by crgintx
The "war on terrorism" is bigger boondoggle than the "war on drugs". Both are just excuses to further diminish the Bill of Rights and a waste of taxpayers dollars.


The "War On (whatever)" has always rather ticked me off. It's an abuse of powers. Our forefathers gave the executive and legislative brances additional power during times of war because sometimes a nation must be expediant to get through a threat to the survival of a nation. But those branches have now assumed the right to declare "War" on everything from homelessness, to poverty, to drugs, to terrorism. These are wars that can never be won, can be extended forever, and can be used to justify any abuse of power imaginable. So, yes, I agree with you 100%.

I'm not, however, certain what the solution is, except possibly to limit the ability of congress to declare war on ideology, which would in turn limit the powers they have been abusing for so long.


Originally posted by crgintx
I say vote out every member of Congress in '06 and impeach the entire Bush Administration for war crimes and corruption. It would be a great start.


Amen, bro, but I don't think every member of Congress is corrupt, and I don't know that the people elected will be any less corrupt, but at least if everyone is voting, that corruption will be more representative of the populace at large.

 



Originally posted by playaofthegame
people aren't mad because they're scared of getting caught doing something

it's just the symbolism..we stand for freedom and by invading our privacy..it feels like we're slowly losing our freedom


I get exactly what you're saying, and I think it's another huge factor. I'd really say the nationwide discontent with all this domestic monitoring is a combination of people who are doing nothing wrong, but dislike the symbolism of lost freedoms, people who are doing "little" things wrong, like the aforementioned joint smoking, and people who fit in either category but are more afraid of allowing government to become so powerful that it could ignore it's own guarenteed right to be overthrown if it got too oppressive.

 



Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Another thing I hear a lot is...

"Ten years ago, I would have never believed it, but now I think it is true."

I am sad to admit that we are definitely losing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Then we must take it back. I agree. There are ideals about America I grew up believing in. What we are living in is nothing approaching those ideals. Now, it could be that it was always this way, and it's just that we, as human beings, are capable of learning and seeing a lot within 10 years. Especially as communication methods get better, faster, and more widespread.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I never thought I would have said these words aloud, but what happened to our country?


People stopped voting.



Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
This has made me want to resign my current job and become a teacher until I realized that I would not be able to teach anything other than what was approved to be taught and in only in a way that was approved.


Again, largely due to the fact that people aren't voting in regards to PTA, School Boards, and other elected officials whom control your children's education.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
This whole thing makes me sick.


Then you owe it to yourself and the nation to vote, as often as possilbe, in as many elections as you are legal entiteled to vote in, and to educate yourself about who you are voting for versus whom you are not voting for.



Originally posted by Rusty Blunderbuss
Ther is no such thing as a peacefull revolution. imo

Only one thing can move another and that is force.


In physics, I'd be inclined to agree. And even in most of human history. Force has, traditionally, been the fastest, most effective way to execute change. However, we have methods at our disposal that do not require violence, do nor require bloodshed, and do not even count as "illegal". You have the ability to change and shape every aspect of your local, state, and federal government with but 20 minutes of your time, every year.

Beyond that, you have the ability to encourage your friends and family to vote as well and as often. You have the ability to educate yourself about whom you are voting for and against. No one has stripped any of these rights from you, and until they are executed on a majority scale, we cannot possibly claim government has failed us.

And...ummmm... while I appreciate your enthusiasm with the idea of evoking change, I'd appreciate it if you didn't go taunting the Pentagon. Some of us, myself included, are kinda paranoid, and I'd hate to end up in GITMO just for starting a thread where someone else said the wrong thing at the wrong time.

(almost caught up, next reply is to Willard)



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
I'd be interested to know more about what happened here. Was it a security issue? Did someone contact you, or did you back off yourself?


In a nutshell, I was approached by someone who was able to prove they were who they said they were. They explained to me in great detail what happens when you poke around in the wrong place too deeply for too long, and then they left. It was either a very carefully worded threat, or a very good warning. Either way, I was getting married, getting a house, starting life anew in a permanent job, and I really didn't need any of the things they mentioned happening to me. I chose to let them move the project I was working on to a safer place, so others could poke it with a stick, and I disassociated myself with it from that point on. Some may call me a coward, but I doubt those same people would have done much if I suddenly disappeared.



Originally posted by Willard856
Obviously I don't subscribe to the CT view that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.


Neither do I. I know terrorism is real, I know it is visible, and I know they are very bad people whom I would never associate with. But the word terrorist gets thrown around an awful lot nowadays. In fact, there was even a debate in the 80's about what consituted a "Freedom Fighter" versus a "Terrorist" and the answer we arrived at was that "Freedom Fighters" work at a goal that is beneficial to U.S. interests, and "Terrorists" work at a goal that servers someone else's benefit.

However... I honestly think there are bigger threats to life than terrorism that could be solved with a LOT less expense on the government's part and don't involve the deployment of our troops to some dustbowl for decades at a time. Like, for instance, the dummy-proof car.


Originally posted by Willard856
Then the system works. These are extraordinary times. Everyone is dealing with a great deal of unknowns. It comforts me that your system recognised when it was going to far. And corrected itself.


Ah, but it should have never gotten that far to begin with, and the executive branch is STILL fighting to keep the power the judicial branch took away and gave to congress. The executive branch STILL doesn't see anything wrong with what it was doing, and STILL tries to bully the other two branches. And thanks to the wonders of legal domestic surveillance, whichever candidates they can't gain enough info on to sway with words, they can gain enough to sway with blackmail.

So the system might not have worked yet, we're still watching, waiting, and praying.


Originally posted by Willard856
Now, if you could just sort out Guantanamo Bay (there's an Aussie in there getting a raw deal), then I'll be very happy indeed!


Really? Damn, I'm sorry man. I hope Oz doesn't hate America for the actions of one out of control branch.


Originally posted by Willard856
This is a difficult topic, because it is hard not to come across as racist.


Yes, exactly. Now, personally, I don't have a problem with profiling in secure areas where there is a potential threat to a major loss of life (such as an airplane, a nuclear power plant, a chemical plant, etc...). I would rather there be those tools in place, and that a few people who match a terrorists profile (which is based on a lot more than just looks) will be understandably delayed a bit more. However, I was actually referring to a literal creation of a second-class citizenry whom were being treated as much in everyday life by ignorant first-class citizens in normal everyday areas..


Originally posted by Willard856
It's been a pleasure talking to you


Likewise, I hope we have more talks.


Okay folks, I'm caught up on the replies... I can't wait to see what's next!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
My high school psychology teacher always said "If you do not participate in democracy you are destined to be controlled by those who do." It is something that has always stuck with me and why I always vote.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Hi Libra,

Thanks for the response. If you're interested in knowing more about David Hicks, the Australian who has been held in Guantanamo Bay since 2002, check out the below. And where you read about Major Michael Mori, David's military defence lawyer, the guy is an absolute champion and has my undying respect for sticking it to his own system. The old joke of "There is no such thing as a good lawyer" doesn't hold true in his case.

David Hicks

Just to clarify, I in no way condone what David Hicks is alleged to have done, but for god's sake, if you don't have enough evidence to charge and try him, let him go already!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadboi
My high school psychology teacher always said "If you do not participate in democracy you are destined to be controlled by those who do." It is something that has always stuck with me and why I always vote.


Good on yer, m8!!! Please continue to do so your entire life. And of course, keep in mind if you vote for me, you get an extra potato ration.


Originally posted by Willard856
Thanks for the response. If you're interested in knowing more about David Hicks, the Australian who has been held in Guantanamo Bay since 2002, check out the below.

(snip)

David Hicks


That's a pretty raw deal indeed. Especially since I found out a lot of what goes on there when I was researching for a debate on ATS. The debate was over whether or not the geneva conventions applied at Gitmo, and even though I lost the debate, it looks like my research was correct. Check out some of the stuff I found out.




The complete list of abuses of prisoners in Gitmo is far too long to post, but here are some, with the appropriate Geneva Convention Articles they violate:


  • Interference or refusal to allow prisoners religious practices. Muslims targeted for abuse. (GC3:A13, A14, A16, A34)


  • Threatened with mauling by dogs. (GC3:A13, A17)


  • Forced to strip naked in front of others, and photographed in sexually humiliating positions. (GC3:A13, A14)


  • Less than 12 hours of exercise allowed per year (GC3:A13, A38)


  • Denied food and bathroom facilities.(GC3:A13, A22, A25, A26, A29)


  • Denied more than three ounces of water per day. (GC3:A13, A26)


  • Chained into excruciating positions for hours or days on end, forced to void their bowels upon themselves. (GC3:A13, A14, A29)


  • Exposure to extreme heat or cold, without protection, until going into shock. (GC3:A13, A27)


  • Beaten (often with weapons) to the point of unconsciousness, broken bones, sexual dysfunction, mental illness, and even death. (GC3:A13)


  • Detainees are held "in small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs" which provide virtually no protection from the elements. (GC3:A13, A25)


  • Outright torture, for days on end. (GC3:A13)


  • Medical treatment for wounds, beatings, and tortures withheld. (GC3:A13, A15, A30)



  • Another interesting little fragment of information about Gitmo is that when inspected by the Red Cross they found no fewer than four confirmed violations of the Geneva Conventions just during inspection alone. Anyone who's worked anywhere knows when you're being inspected, you're on best behavior. And they STILL found four cases during inspection.

    In America, innocent men are sentenced to death or life in prison all the time, after a very long and arduous court proceeding, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and evidence, motive, modus operandi, and lots of other hefty requirements are met and one can at least be reasonably sure that after several appeals, new evidence, etc, if the person is still found guilty all those times, then there's a pretty good chance they did it, that they deserved it. But even that is not a certainty, because no judicial system is without flaws, and some times guilty men go free, and innocent men are punished. Thankfully I can say this is a relatively low statistic here, but the chance still exists.

    Gitmo has housed, by now, thousands of detainees. Four have been let go. Four. The rest have been held without charges, without trials, without being shown the evidence against them, without communications with the outside world, without anyone to plead a case for their innocence whatsoever.

    Thousands. Even if one were to think a terrorist does deserve torture in the worst way, what are the odds that every single one of them were guilty?


    Now, a few of you may be wondering why I keep going on about Guantanamo Bay in this thread. The reason is because THIS is what you have to worry about even if your NOT doing anything wrong. Because of all these convenient little measures that are justifying under the guise of "if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to be afraid of," are what lead to places like Gitmo, and any of it's other nameless isolated cousins around the globe.

    A few might argue that it's neccessary. That it gets an unpleasant job done that sometimes has to be. Very well, but when it starts to be an accepted norm in society, and we're asked just to trust, without evidence, that the right thing is being done, then I say that power is being overused and even abused, and that those in power should be removed from office, as far up the chain as gave authorization to do so, and anyone who's read even a scrap of news in the last two years knows exactly how high up the food chain that authorization came from.

    Regardless, being an innocent man, in a place like Gitmo, is exactly what innocent people have to fear from all these security measures.


    (edit, clarifications and formatting fixes)

    [edit on 9/21/2006 by thelibra]



    posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:12 AM
    link   
    Wow. This thread lost steam pretty quick after the whole "vote" thing.
    I wonder if we've got some sort of aversion to it built in, or if people
    just found less depressing things to talk about.



    posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:03 AM
    link   
    I don't think that's it at all. It's a big complicated issue with layers upon layers of considerations. It can be branched out into thousands of different directions. Yes it can certainly be overwhelming.

    Plus, face it, you raise the bar fairly high with your responses. Not so easy to post a one-liner or goofy response without coming across like a total arse. That's a good thing IMO. Causes people to step back and think a bit. Maybe using a little more care in formulating a response.

    I know I've wanted to reply to the whole "get out the vote" thing, but haven't had time to punch it up to fit what I see as the standards set in this thread. (I don't COMPLETELY disagree, BTW, but I'm still kicking it around in my head, where there's plenty of room).


    [Edit for typo]

    [edit on 9/22/2006 by yeahright]



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 1  2    4 >>

    log in

    join