America and its last free breath. A Rant by the Kid.

Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away? I mean, other than the right to privately plan a massive terror attack on the country and the right to carry explosives and weaponry aboard an aircraft.

If a government is out to set up a totalitarian control of the population can someone tell me the first thing they must do to pull it off?

Yep, disarm the public. Now, which party in our recent past has been at the forefront of disarming our law abiding citizens while ignoring those who use weapons in crimes? Yeah, you guessed that one too huh?

Ya know, I remember the onset of the Bush admin and everyone going freaking nuts about how, in a year, we would all be in concentration camps. Really, unless you're into planning a terrorist act, what rights have you lost?

In that persiod of time, I have lived in the city and in the country and other than paying a hugh price for fuel (which I'm pissed at both sides for), I haven't seen anything from the administration which directly effected me accept the tax reform which helped.

Now, if you are upset about the fact that the US government has taken its bullseye off the rights of its citizens and began to target islamic militants, most of whom aren't citizens of the US and most of whom are here illegally doing illegal things, then I guess I'm not even in your same ballpark so there's little point in us debating.

I for one am glad to see that the days of Reno's raiders are over. Did none of you consider that they overstepped their bounds on several occasions? Does it make it an exception when its a political party you agree with? You know what? It shouldn't.


www.boogieonline.com...


"On August 21, 1992, the siege began in earnest. Six U.S. marshals, armed and camouflaged, went onto Weaver's property to conduct undercover surveillance. When Weaver's dogs started barking, they shot one of them.

Weaver's 25-year-old friend Kevin Harris and 14-year-old son Sammy and saw the dog die. Sammy Weaver fired his gun towards the agents as his dad yelled for him to come back to the cabin. "I'm coming, Dad," were Sammy Weaver's last words before he was shot in the back and killed by a U.S. marshal.

Kevin Harris, witnessing the agents' killing of the dog and child, fired at the agents in self-defense, killing one of them.

After the initial shootout, the Weavers and Harris retreated into their cabin, and a small army surrounded the area. Says Bovard: "the commander of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was called in, and ordered federal agents to shoot any armed adult outside the Weaver cabin, regardless of whether that person was doing anything to threaten or menace federal agents. (Thanks to the surveillance, federal officials knew that the Weavers always carried guns when outside their cabin.)"

Against a handful of rural Idahoans with shotguns, the U.S. arrayed four hundred federal agents with automatic weapons, sniper rifles and night vision scopes.

On August 22, 1992, Randy Weaver went to see his son's body in the shack where it lay. He was shot and wounded from behind by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. As Weaver struggled back to his house, Horiuchi assassinated his wife Vicki as she stood in the doorway, holding their 10-month-old baby.

Although the feds later claimed Vicki Weaver's killing was an accident, the New York Times reported in 1993 that an internal FBI report justified the killing by saying she put herself in danger. Horiuchi testified in court that he was an accurate shot at 200 yards.

Everything about the federal government's actions in this case is sickening, but possibly the worst was their taunting of the Weaver family after Vicki Weaver's murder: "Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?" That was one of the FBI's tactics revealed in court records, reported by Jerry Seper in the Washington Times in September 1993."


This is the kind of thing we lived with during the 90s. Trumped up charges and murder for wanting our right to possess the means for self defense. I haven't heard of any Ruby Ridges in the last few years have you?

While 400 agents conspired to kill a dog, a boy and a woman holding a 10 month old baby, Osama Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussien, and God knows who else were training and plotting. The very next year, two of Alqaeda's "Lilly Whites" Tim McVey and Terry Nichols along with unknown Arab accomplices would strike the first major blow from muslim terror groups.

Originally posted by Muaddib



Pfft....you know.... there are people from many dictatorships actually still coming to the States, trying to leave... There are online services in which Russian women want to leave Russia by marrying men in the West, mostly fomr the US....i lived under a communist dictatorship and still have family there, and none of us believe what you said above, or what that "holocaust" survivor is saying..... That should be proof that this is all a lie.....

Its pretty pathetic when the world is such a crappy place that people are leaving thier country to come to America especially when America is reverting to a facist state. A type of state that America fought AGIANST.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Do you support Bush? Did you vote for Bush? I would say by the statement above that you are, and I only proved my point in the post you quoted.

That is a dumb argument to make Kidfinger.....Can you prove that every democrat believes what you stated?....

Let me show you how....invalid is your statement...

St. Paul Mayor, a Democrat, will back Bush

"George Bush and I do not agree on a lot of issues," Kelly said in a statement. "But in turbulent times, what the American people need more than anything is continuity of government, even with some imperfect policies."

Kelly, who said he's remaining a Democrat, said the economy is going in the right direction. "There's no reason to believe a change of course will produce better or quicker results," he said.

And the mayor said the United States will bring the troops home from Iraq a lot sooner if "we don't try to bring in a whole new leadership team to run the show. We must stay the course."

democrats.bushblog.us...

let's see what this site is about..

A weblog dedicated to proud moderate and conservative Democrats who support President Bush.

Excerpted from above link.....

You want some more links on "Democrats for Bush"?.....

democrats4bush.com...

www.techcentralstation.com...

www.townhall.com...




[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by astrocreep
Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

Protest has been made illegal, unless you're in a "free speech zone." "Free speech zones" are located far enough away from the public appearance areas that they won't get media coverage. This is specifically to stifle protestors and keep them out of the way. That just may be the most significant one ever.

In whole, we've lost control of our government. You won't know this for quite some time, apparently. For some, this will have to be made so obvious that there's no chance of stopping it early. Patriot Act 3 may make it a bit more clear for you, I suppose.

Just allowing unconstitutional acts to be passed is diminishing your rights.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Kidfinger

*) He has the obsessive goal of creative a utopian "Open Society" that will "shape" the world (as he sees fit).

Where do you get this from?

[

www.prospect.org...
If you want to read some good New World Order rhetoric, go read his own words. He repeatedly calls for a one-world government. Everybody who is concerned about a NWO scenario needs to read this & understand this fellow's view of how the world should be. He uses his philantropic ideals as a shill to install his own vision of government:

A world order based on the sovereignty of states, moreover, cannot take care of our common human interests. The main source of poverty and misery in the world today is bad government -- repressive, corrupt regimes and failed states. And yet it is difficult to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries because the principle of sovereignty stands in the way.
One way to overcome the problem is to offer countries positive inducements for becoming open societies. That is the missing ingredient in the current world order. There are penalties for bad behavior, from trade sanctions to military intervention, but not enough incentives and reinforcements for good behavior. A global open society would achieve certain standards by providing assistance to those who are unable to meet them. States that violate the standards could be punished through exclusion. There would be a better balance between rewards and reinforcements on the one hand and penalties on the other.

So he is arguing against the sovereignty of states & pushing a "global open society." What exactly does that mean? And who decides what those "standards" are that all countries have to live by or be "punished & excluded"?

Of course, maybe Soros really is just trying to bring peace to the world...that's why he has so many holdings in Lockheed & Boeing other military/weapons stocks...if he's such a philanthopist maybe his first order of business to to clean all his investments of anything relating to war or the military??

I don't want this guy trying to "buy" the Democratic Party again. I don't want to vote Democrat again and have a Soros-backed candidate in the White House. I don't want the President of the US indebted to this guy & his viewpoints. It scares me just as much as the Evangelical backing of Bush scares me. I don't understand why when it's a left-winger blatantly trying to effect the course of an election is "ok" but when a right-winger does it it's "wrong."

One of the most essential ways we can stop another "Reich" is to take the ideological blinders off, admit that there are two sides to the story, have the courage to look beyond the "party line" & scutinize our own sacred cows the most of all. The Democratic Party prostituting itself to a questionable outside interest is just as dangerous as the Repubs doing the same with the Evangelicals.

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by astrocreep
Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

Protest has been made illegal, unless you're in a "free speech zone." "Free speech zones" are located far enough away from the public appearance areas that they won't get media coverage. This is specifically to stifle protestors and keep them out of the way. That just may be the most significant one ever.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

Can you show to us, with a link, when did this started happening?
Was there anything like this before 2000?....

Originally posted by Muaddib


Can you show to us, with a link, when did this started happening?
Was there anything like this before 2000?....

No, there wasnt anything like this before 2000. It was introduced in the patriot act part 2, I believe.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by astrocreep
Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

Protest has been made illegal, unless you're in a "free speech zone." "Free speech zones" are located far enough away from the public appearance areas that they won't get media coverage. This is specifically to stifle protestors and keep them out of the way. That just may be the most significant one ever.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

Can you show to us, with a link, when did this started happening?
Was there anything like this before 2000?....

Yes, there were free speech zones on the University Campus I worked at in 1998. These were the only places religion could be discussed openly. They were designed to allow anyone with gripe and concern to air it freely there instead of breaking an unlawful assembly law. I'm not sure how far back this goes but it was definetly in place before 1998.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by astrocreep]

Now you can thank Bush for this...

"When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up �free speech zones� or �protest zones� where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event."

America used to pride itself on being a nation where protest is allowed, since people supposedly have the say in this country. It was considered one of the most important freedoms we used to have. Now it's been made into a joke.

"There is nothing more American than raising your voice in protest, and there is nothing more un-American than a government that attempts to hit the mute button when it doesn�t like what it hears."

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

In all seriousness people, these kinds of zones have been around since before 1998. Free speech is one of our liberties. Why would you all have a problem with it?

The fact that you cannot mass and prevent someone elses right to free speech from being heard is no indication your rights have been limited any more so than theirs.

As for the free speech zone on that campus I eluded to, they were enacted by liberals to keep evagelist from interupting classroom activities. Do students not have as much right to solitude to study as preachers do to get their message out? I agree with them. Everyone's right ot be heard is still there along with my right to work and study without constant ineteruption.

Why would we want someone else's freedom to take precedents over another? When Clinton came to speak at this University in 1998, the same zones were in place. Does he, the president , not have the same right to come and speak without his rights being alienated as those who come to protest? Is it just a question of who can yell louder then?

Give me a break.


Just an edit to add that the DNC also had a "protest pen" for those who disagreed with them.

www.vulnwatch.org...

"Why is the "free speech zone" penned in and the delegates in the open? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the delegates' bus parking area and their walkway to the convention center be fenced in and citizens able to protest in the open public space?
How did we get to the point where some citizen speech is penned and the people who are imposing themselves with extraordinary security needs (which us taxpayers are footing the bill for) speak and roam freely. There's some kind of 1984ish inversion principle going on here.

The words of Judge Douglas P. Woodlock reviewing the case on July 22, 2004, "I at first thought, before taking a view (of the protest zone), that the characterization of the space being like a concentration camp was litigation hyperbole," he said. "Now I believe it's an understatement."



[edit on 15-11-2004 by astrocreep]

Astrocreep is right. That I remember, I have only been in the States since 1989, in order to make protests you first needed a permit and then an area was chosen for this. Down here in the Hialeah/Miami area we have had mostly democrats running for sometime, and quite a few times, they have voted against some Republican demonstrations in some areas.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Its pretty pathetic when the world is such a crappy place that people are leaving thier country to come to America especially when America is reverting to a facist state. A type of state that America fought AGIANST.

What is pathetic is that mostly, those who are protesting and saying the US is a dictatorship, are those people who live in the US or/and have never seen what a true dictatorship is....

Many people in the US have taken their freedom for granted and have "yelled and bashed that the US is a dictatorship"..... this has been happening for a long time.... Also the hatred and bashing of the US by many countries like Germany, France, Russia and others is nothing new, but has been around since before any of the Bush administrations or even before the Reagan administration.

You can see this in the following link.
This is part of what you can read in the link.

Topic: "The Americans"


The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the world.
...............
Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

Excerpted from.
www.rcc.ryerson.ca...

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by astrocreep
Yes, there were free speech zones on the University Campus I worked at in 1998. These were the only places religion could be discussed openly. They were designed to allow anyone with gripe and concern to air it freely there instead of breaking an unlawful assembly law. I'm not sure how far back this goes but it was definetly in place before 1998.

Now it also pertains to lawful assembly. When people are mad enough, no zones are going to contain them. Just keep that in mind. This would never happen in the 60's/70's. You'd have angry protestors disobeying all authority if you even tried to contain protestors and limit their right to free protest. What's next? Constitutional zones? Freedom zones?

"You're free alright, but only if you stand in this square."

In the case of schools, the schools were the ones designating the free speech zones, not your government.

Free-speech zones began appearing on campuses in the 1980s as a way to allow expression without interrupting learning. But in recent years, students and activists say that limiting speech to a few designated areas is unconstitutional because it effectively bans speech everywhere else.

The fact that they're not new, however, doesn't make them any more palatable. In a country that reveres free speech as a basic tenet, it is an insult to limit that right to particular areas or zones. To paraphrase a comment made by a protester in Pennsylvania, we thought all of America was a First Amendment zone.

Get it yet? It's a ploy.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

The right for our votes to be counted, is probably the most major one.

The right to free speech at any Bush rally...you will be summarily detained for exercising your free speech rights, even in a peaceful manner.

The freedom of the press, we are already seeing reporters being jailed for not violating their sources.

Heck, just read the details of the Patriot Acts to see what's being taken... I can't even cash a check for my wife in the bank, despite us being on the same account. Such things may seem like little things, but it's amazing how much such things add up.....

I, in no way, have ever said we were free. We are liberated in that we each have liberties and rights to certain things...and they all have boundaries which meet at the liberties and boundaries of others. Sure, the DNC had "protest pens" but did anyone ever consider their right to speak? When someone plans a lawful event such as the DNC convention, they have the right to carry out their convention in a way they see fit. Now, you also have the right to protest them and what they belive in and you may do so by scheduling your as well. However, do we have the right to stampeed in and break up a group of people exercising their rights because we think our message is so important that ours is allowed to overule theirs.

Look, I have always said with these liberties come the responsibility to use them and the respect for the bounds at which they meet. If you are protesting Bush, do I or anyone else have the right to charge into your gathering and inetrupt and disperse it? No, I do not. Thats a double edged sword, people. You can protest but just not in the middle of someone else's gathering.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

The right for our votes to be counted, is probably the most major one.

Yep. Once proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, this will be the most serious one. The problem is, people don't seem to believe their rights are being taken. I guess they never do, until it's far too late. This will never be acceptable to me. I remember the way things were when I was young, and I see how much the country has changed. Although the changes were gradual, they're still obvious. I'm simply dumbfounded that so many don't see what's happened and what continues to happen. Very sad, indeed.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

The right for our votes to be counted, is probably the most major one.

There are some problems but votes are counted as best they can be with the technology we have.

The right to free speech at any Bush rally...you will be summarily detained for exercising your free speech rights, even in a peaceful manner.

Why not plan your own rally. they won't let Bush and company barge in and inetrupt you either. You have the right to assemble just like he does.

The freedom of the press, we are already seeing reporters being jailed for not violating their sources.

I've seen that only in Iraq followed closely by their execution

Heck, just read the details of the Patriot Acts to see what's being taken... I can't even cash a check for my wife in the bank, despite us being on the same account. Such things may seem like little things, but it's amazing how much such things add up.....

Dude, maye its time to switch banks..just a suggestion. That may be more of a rule by that insitution. My wife and I hank a joint account and we both use it.

Originally posted by Damned
Now it also pertains to lawful assembly. When people are mad enough, no zones are going to contain them. Just keep that in mind. This would never happen in the 60's/70's. You'd have angry protestors disobeying all authority if you even tried to contain protestors and limit their right to free protest.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]

How ironic is it that the people that want world peace are most of the time those who resort to violence the fastest....

Nowadays many people just protest because it is a trend, like it was in the 70s... i remember not too long ago a program in which they asked several groups of protestors in the US to sign a petition to ban a substance which people were using everyday and they didn't know it... I saw this program on tv, it is done by two skeptics, the majority of people signed the petition, without even knowing what they were signning for, and at the end they found out they were signing to ban "water...."

To me that shows that there are many people that would make demonstrations and try to ban anything just because of their "rebellious attitude..." many people would believe anything and use it for their protests, as we see in these forums almost everyday, just because they want something to protest about, whether or not is true, or whether or not they have evidence to back their claims....

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Gazrok

Can someone tell me just what rights have been taken away?

The right for our votes to be counted, is probably the most major one.

Yep. Once proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, this will be the most serious one. The problem is, people don't seem to believe their rights are being taken. I guess they never do, until it's far too late. This will never be acceptable to me. I remember the way things were when I was young, and I see how much the country has changed. Although the changes were gradual, they're still obvious. I'm simply dumbfounded that so many don't see what's happened and what continues to happen. Very sad, indeed.

Look, if your vote wasn't counted, maybe you forgot to register or maybe didn't bring ID with you. Those are the rules that assure all our votes do count EQUALLY and no group is able to slip two or more ballots under the stylus more than once in a given election...which would also cut down on automobile emissions as there would be no reason to burn the fuel to drive bus loads of repeptitive voters to every precinct in the damn state and also cut down the amount of time those who don't smoke were subjected to second hand smoke of those who sold their votes for a box of cigerettes.