An Open Letter to Employees of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies Globally

page: 7
102
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


You know, every time I see how low the enforcers of these policies sink I am always amazed. It is the shear stupidity, or down right Evil of the Act that really is horrifying. Today an Amish guy got 17 years, and that was the downsized sentence...for what is being legally termed a 'hate crime'. Now get this. What does a MILD Mannered, Mild Custom man do to show his disapproval? He shaved off the other guys Amish beard and long hair. 17 years, and not a drop of blood was spilled in this 'hate crime'.
I should have mentioned, that the point of going to corporate courts and long sentencing, is that they are all incorporated for profit entities. The man is jail for 17 years, and for that long the Incorporation receives Billions in Profit.

edit on 22-9-2012 by YellowRoseTx51 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
An 'OPEN' letter by someone hiding behind a sudonym... ????????

???????????



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
An 'OPEN' letter by someone hiding behind a sudonym... ????????

???????????

Open mouth, insert pacifier. Your wah-wahing is disturbing the adults.


Maybe, I'm being too harsh because I don't know what a "sudonym" is...


edit on 29-9-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
In a conversation about moderating another post - this thread came to mind, in a very abstract and distant sort of way. So I opened it to read it and see if I might not have a moral reason to abstain from helping to decide an ATS specific issue.

To be totally blunt, I'd forgotten just about every word written here. In rereading them I am left with an overwhelming feeling that, somewhere along the way, I might have lost sight of the ball. The Second Amendment debates started off polarizing and hyperbolic and, from there, became increasingly more so as time passed. Quickly they eroded into a "with us or against us" tone - something it is in my very nature to rebel against.

And maybe that is by design? Maybe the rhetoric is engineered to push good, well intentioned people, on both sides of the debate, into extremes they naturally would not inhabit.

Food for thought this evening, as we inch closer to the precipice. Is this great gulf between us all natural, or something willfully manipulated for effect?

~Heff



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I just gave your thread its 100 th flag.


Good letter, the 'terrorist' term could be used in similar propaganda machinery as the Nazis did with groups of people they persecuted.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 

Yes,an open letter from a PSEUDONYM.Don't worry,the ones whom he addressed knows his real name-that does'nt mean it should be up for public consumption on this or any other site.It really was addressed to Them,not us,though we have a right to comment.@HEFFICIDE-s+f,THANK YOU,i could'nt have said it better.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
"We don't really want a monster taking over, tip-toe 'round, tie him down."
"We don't want the loonies taking over, tip-toe 'round, tie him down."
"May pretty horses come to you as you sleep. I'm going to go to sleep and let this wash all over me."

from "Go to Sleep (Little Man Being Erased)" - Radio Head



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Imo,people in general feel personally insulted when someone disagrees with their position on any given matter-irrational,yes,but we've propably all been guilty of that at some time or the other,especially if its a matter extremely important to you,or an issue that you have good reason to have a very strong viewpoint about.

Its that much easier to cause a divide,to polarise-when people have invested much emotionally in any matter,so much so that they subconsciously feel their viewpoint defines Them,as individuals.


It seems then,to be an attack on person A by person B,if B disagrees strongly with A.People tend to take things very personally,even if its only opinions of points of view being discussed.Almost as in:My point of view/opinion is who and what i am,when actually its only one person's perspective,their perception of a matter,and the ones disagreeing are not slamming the person,but their opinion/worldview/sentiment.





new topics
top topics
 
102
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join