To people who believe "The Left" is "stealing your freedom"....

reply to post by beezzer

You've been watching too much tv, perhaps. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin don't speak for us. They may want to. But they don't.

Thank you that is great to hear. And I can not watch too much TV because I tossed my boob tube in 1976.

I just could not stand the horrible crap they were trying to feed me.

I lean right on many things - so I'm guessing that makes me one of your target audience for these questions. So, I'll give them a go.

1. - Yup. I think Ben Franklin was right when he said that he who gives up freedom for security is a fool and gains neither. I can't think of anything else that took away as many freedoms in one fell swoop.

2. As another poster pointed out - both sides have been guilty of this. Both sides talk about freedom of speech, but neither side wants their speech interrupted by protesters.

3. I never understood why we went into Iraq. I was against it and think much of the time there was handled poorly. Iraq was a mistake from day 1. Afghanistan I can understand why we went there. But, again - it was (and is) being handled poorly. There was never a clear strategy for what to accomplish it and how to accomplish. So, it ends up being a 10 year quagmire.

A little commentary as an added bonus...

Both left and right politicians sometimes have very selective memory. I'm not sure either side wants what is best for the country as much as they want their side to "win".

Originally posted by 11PB11
reply to post by American-philosopher

 

I just repeating what I read in the ACT and what I heard. They still needed to get a warrant or at least get a judges approval. I'm not saying that is always what happened, there are rogue people in authority everywhere but that's what it was supposed to do. If there are cases where that wasn't followed then it wasn't the ACT that did it, it was the person.

Remember the NSA illegal warrantless wiretapping thing? Here's a refresher.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Frogs

Both left and right politicians sometimes have very selective memory. I'm not sure either side wants what is best for the country as much as they want their side to "win".

You are being very generous. I figure if every politician in DC was brought up on charges of "Acting against the best interests of the USA" over 90% of them would be found guilty. To bad that is not the legal definition of a traitor: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust... Although it does protect the rest of us from being hung from a high tree by the government.

Traitor
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who reneges on an oath of loyalty or a pledge of allegiance, and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

...To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress could pass a statute creating treason-like offences with different names (such as sedition, bearing arms against the U.S., etc.) which do not require the testimony of 2 witnesses, and have a much wider definition than Article Three treason. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

In the United States, the accusation of treason has at times been levelled at those who dissented against the government's foreign policy, especially during military actions. However, actual prosecutions have been very rare, and even very well known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions....

In the 20th century, treason has become largely a wartime phenomenon, and the treason cases of World Wars One and Two were of minor significance. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia....

www.wordiq.com...

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Maybe it is you who should deny ignorance.

I did, by demonstrating to you that your labels are meaningless.

Attack the issues and the objectionable behavior, wherever it may be found.

Until you do so, your ARE the problem.

Hey loam!

Very Good! You can always tell the OP that is biased,when they respond on their 2nd post. Relax those fingers aching_knuckles. Calm Down! just Calm Down!

Originally posted by loam
As meaningless a question as any posed by the Mad Hatter.

So you cannot answer a simple question? I have asked it about 3 times now and you just cannot answer it. I am not sure who falls for this lame type of blowoff but pretending a question is too crazy to answer is pretty weak.
You said.

Originally posted by loam
For me, the distinctions between "liberty" and "tyranny" are nearly always clear.

Apparently not?

I'll repeat myself:

Do not bother. I read it the first time and I can scroll back and read it again if I so choose. It is not a response to my very simple question.

I'm betting 90/10 chance you'll still miss the point.

Missing some relevant syntax in that sentence. Hopefully when you read it again you will see why it is pretty funny.

'nough said.

edit on 16-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

You cannot answer questions or respond to a post in a mature manner? Emoticons and insults are the level of discourse here? Please, give me more smileys because I find them very convincing.

Again, let's try this one more time. Stop trying to alter what my actual point is so you can swat at straw men. I say it is not always so simple. You say

Originally posted by loam
For me, the distinctions between "liberty" and "tyranny" are nearly always clear.

So it should be really easy to answer any question about tyranny put to you. This one is really easy. Are the current highway and road systems and example of tyranny or liberty. Either you can answer it or not. Stop actling like an angry child about it though.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Sinnthia

SIGHHhhhh...
You are incorrect again. It is used to move troops around. Haven't you ever gotten stuck behind a military convoy???

Shhhhhhhhhhh, go look up the word "current." Is there like a reading block on ATS where some people just cannot see certain words?

Any intelligent person is well aware that a minimum amount of government is needed. Is it needed for large building projects like roads and bridges and dams?

Perhaps you should ask Asa Sheldon who with oxen moved Pemberton Hill into the Backbay of Boston and filled it in in less than six months "The first shovel full of dirt was thrown out on the morning of May 5th and... the last on Oct 5th" "Yanlee Drover" by Asa Sheldon 1788-1870

Cool story bro. Not sure what it has to do with anything I have said. All I see is people doing everything they can to seemingly miss a quite simple statement. It is not always that black and white. CURRENTLY, I do not have to go around any troops or oxen.

reply to post by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Please, give me more smileys because I find them very convincing.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
So you cannot answer a simple question? I have asked it about 3 times now and you just cannot answer it. I am not sure who falls for this lame type of blowoff but pretending a question is too crazy to answer is pretty weak.

...

Again, let's try this one more time. Stop trying to alter what my actual point is so you can swat at straw men. I say it is not always so simple. You say:

Originally posted by loam
For me, the distinctions between "liberty" and "tyranny" are nearly always clear.

So it should be really easy to answer any question about tyranny put to you. This one is really easy. Are the current highway and road systems and example of tyranny or liberty. Either you can answer it or not. Stop actling like an angry child about it though.

Neither.

Does answering with a single word help you understand now???

I'll assume tyranny and liberty are mutually exclusive terms, thereby leaving three possible answers: one...or the other...or neither.

I choose neither. The existence of the current highway system provides no meaningful evidence that speaks to the question of whether the government that produced it, did so out of benevolence or oppression.

But I'm guessing that's too complicated a concept for you...

Bad governments can produce good or bad public works and good governments can produce bad or good public works.

So, again, your question is meaningless.

Otherwise, why not ask me if the dinner I made last night is an example of my conservatism or liberalism? Or the shoes I bought my son last week an example of my politeness or rudeness? Or the elderly woman I helped with her groceries the other day an example of my wisdom or ignorance.

Each of these questions are all constructed in the same fashion as yours....and they are just as pointless.

The actions don't prove the qualities posed.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by loam
I'm betting 90/10 chance you'll still miss the point.

Missing some relevant syntax in that sentence. Hopefully when you read it again you will see why it is pretty funny.

Nope. I pretty much don't see your silly point here either.

But I'm very amused by the irony of how 'Loughner-esque' your comments seem.

Really? You're criticizing my grammar/syntax?



Too funny, indeed.

Oh, and one last thing....

I was right.....you did still miss the point.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Why do I get the impression you'd gladly praise Dear Leader for a cushy apartment in Pyong Yang?

We're either free or we arent. The gun to my head and the hand in my wallet ake my status pretty clear. Dare I say black and white clear.

Originally posted by loam
Neither.

Does answering with a single word help you understand now???

I already understood. In fact, I was the one that stated it. I just needed you to finally admit it. It is just not that simple. If it were, your answer would have been one or the other. Thanks for again and again reinforcing and proving my point. Say it is simple over and over again but until you can demonstrate that, and you have failed many times thus far, I have little reason to be swayed by that argument. Sometimes, things are not so black and white.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Why do I get the impression you'd gladly praise Dear Leader for a cushy apartment in Pyong Yang?

Because you are basing your post on ignorant assumptions that can only be gleaned from the most minimal "evidence" available?

We're either free or we arent.

That simple is it? Why does my neighbor on one side feel more free than I do and the neighbor on the other side feels less? We live in the same place.

The gun to my head and the hand in my wallet ake my status pretty clear. Dare I say black and white clear.

So you are a slave? If only there were a way to escape the US then huh?

reply to post by Sinnthia


I don't know you tell us .

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

I don't know you tell us .

I would be happy to answer any actual question put to me. I am just not really sure what it is you are asking me to elaborate on here. If it is in reference to my last post, can you please point out exactly what it is you want me to tell you?