Hey look! the FBI and NSA are data-mining and analyzing your data! [Archive]

Skybird

06-07-13, 08:13 AM

The opposite to a Western democratic state is not North Korea or Russia, but is no state at all. A democratic state is a certain form of dictatorship itself. It usurps power that it has no claim for, it's existence cannot morally be defended without getting pulverised by inevitable contradictions any such argument has, it acts and behaves criminally from A to Z, and it never stays at the sioze that it is at, but necessartily must grow more and more from the size of a newly created, just beginning democratic basic order to total and complete state and bureaucracy tyranny - you cannot avoid that.

That is unavoidable for sure, because the people, the plebs, demand from the state more and more services and nanny-deeds and financial benefits that politicians are all too happy to deliver (in order to get re-elected) even if they have no moral right at all to run the underlying redistribution (which means expropriation of the one and shifting that to the other: socialism pure and simple) or to endlessly print papermoney (which necessarily needs the killing of a value-based money worth the name and replacing it with a system of meaningless papermoney that is only unguaranteed bonds, notifications of somebody's debts - no representation of active material values), or by raising taxes (which needs all citizens being turned into completely defenceless and weak victims of the state) what backfires also against those who earlier demanded the state to do more for them. And so more antispcially wealthy get taxed even higher, and the number of people living on werllfare rises, and economic performances declines, initiative and self-responsbility gets demonised as lacking "solidarity", and all the PC propaganda bull to follow. And so it spins on and on, into the centre of the spiral, and there it forms a critical mass sooner or later, and then it goes Bamm! WWII formed up that way.

All this, and the very existence of any state at all is morally undefendable.

And you can see all that happening right now, in every single Western country, from Germany to the United States. Everywhere.

My reading tips of the day:

LINK: Christoph Braunschweig: Die demokratische Krankheit. Der fatale Teufelskreis aus Politkerversprechen und Wähleranspruch (http://www.amazon.de/Die-demokratische-Krankheit-Politikerversprechen-Wähleranspruch/dp/3789283436/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370611354&sr=8-2&keywords=christoph+braunschweig)

LINK: Kenneth Minogue: The Servile Mind. How democracy erodes the moral life (http://www.amazon.com/Servile-Mind-Democracy-Erodes-ebook/dp/B003XNTTFI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370611289&sr=8-1&keywords=kenneth+Minogue)

Some quotes worth to remember:

"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide." - Samuel Adams

“If you put our federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand. (...) We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work." - Milton Friedman

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"A Democracy is the most vile form of government there is!" - Thomas Paine

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Anonymous

"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." - Rothschild

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough - we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much” - Ronald Reagan

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship” - Alexander Tytler

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill

mookiemookie

06-07-13, 09:08 AM

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

Oberon

06-07-13, 09:42 AM

So how does anything get done on a national level in a state of no government?

mookiemookie

06-07-13, 10:07 AM

So how does anything get done on a national level in a state of no government?

It works great! Just look at late 90's Somalia. Total freedom from government oppression, maaaaan!

Takeda Shingen

06-07-13, 10:13 AM

So how does anything get done on a national level in a state of no government?

I asked him the same thing several months ago and received a convoluted mixture of town councils, corporate bounty killers and building your own railroad in return. In short, neither Skybird nor Hoppe have any answer to that. Conversely, the whole theory behind replacing western democracy with an anarcho-capitalist scheme seems to be that the blocks will magically arrange themselves in perfect fashion once we knock over the current tower, as though shouting "privatization" will serve as the magic word to crack the door of Utopia.

the_tyrant

06-07-13, 10:31 AM

The truth about the internet, is that you should treat it as a public place. There are no secrets on the internet, and things last forever.

You know how in the movies criminals always discuss their crimes in a well populated restaurant? Ever tried that in real life? Of course not, if you did, you wouldn't be here, you would be in jail.

If you would not discuss anything you don't want others to know in public, why the hell would anybody do it on the internet? You shouldn't have an expectation of privacy on the internet, it simply doesn't exist

Oberon

06-07-13, 10:59 AM

I asked him the same thing several months ago and received a convoluted mixture of town councils, corporate bounty killers and building your own railroad in return. In short, neither Skybird nor Hoppe have any answer to that. Conversely, the whole theory behind replacing western democracy with an anarcho-capitalist scheme seems to be that the blocks will magically arrange themselves in perfect fashion once we knock over the current tower, as though shouting "privatization" will serve as the magic word to crack the door of Utopia.

So, basically, nationstates as a whole would cease to exist, becoming instead a massive series of states at a town or village level. A survivalists wet dream perhaps, but about as practical as a cheese sword and it would essentially last about a year (if that) before a group of towns banded together to form a small nation to pool their resources and conquer other towns. You see, we've been there before and it didn't work then either, that's how nations were formed, doesn't anyone play civilization anymore?

This isn't directed at you, Takeda, by the way, I suspect that you know this anyway, but it's in response to your response...if that makes sense. :haha:

Oberon

06-07-13, 11:01 AM

It works great! Just look at late 90's Somalia. Total freedom from government oppression, maaaaan!

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/845/itsbetterinsomalia.jpg

Tribesman

06-07-13, 11:14 AM

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill
Does that cancel out the other quote then as all of the various dictatorship feudalism communitarian utopias Sky pushes have been tried from time to time and have been found to be crap?

Takeda Shingen

06-07-13, 11:16 AM

So, basically, nationstates as a whole would cease to exist, becoming instead a massive series of states at a town or village level. A survivalists wet dream perhaps, but about as practical as a cheese sword and it would essentially last about a year (if that) before a group of towns banded together to form a small nation to pool their resources and conquer other towns. You see, we've been there before and it didn't work then either, that's how nations were formed, doesn't anyone play civilization anymore?

This isn't directed at you, Takeda, by the way, I suspect that you know this anyway, but it's in response to your response...if that makes sense. :haha:

Basically, yeah, that is the fly in the ointment. Communities "must be kept as small as possible", but without a regulatory body to keep this from happening, what will stop a group of little states from forming a super state and absorbing their neighbors again?

06-07-13, 11:35 AM

In a democracy, people get the government they deserve

:haha:

Nothing like witty quotes....

Sailor Steve

06-07-13, 11:59 AM

And that was nothing like a witty quote. :O:

Actually it was quite good. I just couldn't resist the old joke.

Sailor Steve

06-07-13, 12:02 PM

Basically, yeah, that is the fly in the ointment. Communities "must be kept as small as possible", but without a regulatory body to keep this from happening, what will stop a group of little states from forming a super state and absorbing their neighbors again?
And conversely, if you create that regulatory body you have to give it the power to make it stick, therefore creating the very superstate you were trying to avoid, and so on...

Skybird

06-07-13, 12:39 PM

So how does anything get done on a national level in a state of no government?

In principle in the way you deal with people in your life without the state needing to tell you how to do it (although it regulates your life more and more).

We have been there some weeks ago, and I summarized it as best as could, and still incomplete. Obviously it is something not that easy to talk while standing in the door, leaving. I can only advise to read some literature on the matter,it is by far not as hair-.raising or insane as I may sound in your ears. According links I have given many times by now, but I do again below if you have missed them. My thinking has shifted massively on these issues in the past two years, and prepared to do that shift already earlier, since 2008 when the events back then forced me to realise that my previous assumptions about the wonderful democracy obviously are seriously misled if thy lead to such disastrous results as we see unfolding. The classical school of liberalism (european understanding, what they call libertarianism in America now to differ it from American liberalism meaning socialism) has plenty to do with it, as well as the Austrian school of economics. Names to mention are Menger, von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, Hoppe, to name just a few. Their idea of liberalism and economics in fact is not that new, and currently not represented in politics of the represent - the so-called European liberals are a carricature of true liberalism and in fact abuse the term every time they mention it, but stick to concept that secure their political power and are rightout as socialist as those concept of appranertly every other major European party these days.

Additionally to the two books I just recommended above on this thread, one of which is available in English, I recommend this English-language archive of a rich - and free! literature, specially by the universal genius of Murray rothbard and the most forceful Hans Herrmann Hoppe. In German, I could give you some more book-links and authors and websites.

Free download of the full books, both of which are classic and are held in very high esteem by those intellectually examining and being busy with the matter of money, and liberty&liberalism, both by Murray rothbard:

LINK: What has government done to our money? (http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money. pdf) - The best explanation, easy to understand, that I ever read on the question of what money is, what it used to be and should be - and what it has been turned into in intentional destruction of real money.

LINK: The Ethics of Libert (http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty.pdf) - A profound analysis, chapter by chapter adressing all kinds of questions on how to define loberty in this and that situation and context. Do yourself a favour and check the context list.

Needless to say I read both books^ in German. These are very essential readings for people who really want to know about what liberty is and how it can only function in what social context. The full books, and all for free, legally - what else can you want? Cheap and short and easy answers presented to you in form of a toffee on a silver plate, easy to consume so that you must not spend some time for thinking about it yourself...? (not meaning you personally, Oberon, but generally speaking)

LINK: Their full library of Rothbard (http://mises.org/Literature/Author/299/Murray-N-Rothbard)

LINK: Their full library for Hoppe (http://mises.org/Literature/Author/164/HansHermann-Hoppe)

And another link-list:
LINK (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html)

LINK Their library, total overview on authors. (http://mises.org/Literature) So much there is free, free, free! Choose authors via the "author" tab. There are so many!

And as already mentioned before, some weeks ago, the most consistent and unforgiving book by Hoppe: LINK-Democracy. The God that failed (http://www.amazon.com/Democracy--The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370624867&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=demiocracy+the+god+that+failed). An unforgiving final judgement of a concept that until just 100 years not only was not widely spread, but had an extremely unfavourable, negative reputation, since the Ancient Greek, and for very good reasons that already were known to the ancient Greeks.

And again, the book by Minogue that I already linked to earlier in the thread. Check it out, its a good book by an angry old but well-educated man. "Servility" often is the term in which I think of people's attitude towards the modern state.

For the German readers: more sites and material there, posted once again:

http://wertewirtschaft.org/

http://detlevschlichter.com/

http://www.misesde.org/

I know democracy is the golden cow of politics today. And I slaughter it mercielssly, for it is indeed just this: a golden cow to keep the people under control, to keep them silent and obedient. But it ruins our societies, it destroys our economic and financial basis, and kills or freedom and self-responsibility, our dignity and our ability to live a self-determined life. And it always necessarily must lead to socialism and communism, and to an ever stronger centralist government turning into a dictatorship. The opposite of socialism is not democracy. Both are different phases of the same thing. The opposite to both is freedom.

Guys, your societies and countries get underminded under your feet, your lifes get sold out, and still you believe them their old semrons and doctrine that brought you there and that have just one purpose: top keep you unaware, uncaring, and thinking that the worst can be avoided. That is the mindless atttitude of cattle not knwoing that the butcher is already there. Stop dance around the golden cow. It is not devine, it just is a golden idol. Its is not even massive gold, but just hollow, of wood, painted yellow. what makes freedom rotting and sees it destroyed - you help to push forward and keep alive, turning you into accomplice in your own and our fall and enslavement. Your sin is your engagement for the wrong thing, your sin is your easy and careless trust, the growing power of the tyranny is the weakness you accept to live in.

From the perspective of the above linked materials, it all falls into place: the EUZ, the Euro, the destruction of political legitimation even within the demcoartic contexts, relation between politicians and the canaille mutually abusing each other but by doing so ruining the future for both of them in the end. It is not only consistent and just different features of one and the same image - I do even claim that it necessarily cannot go any other way in the context of the societies that formed up in the past 100 - 200 years, and a bit earlier.

I do not link German books. First, I did that before, second, so any Germany are not around here. I'm sure there are English pendants to such books that I am not aware of. Why reading English when the same thing or comparable stuff is available in my own mother tongue. German authors names to look out for would be Andreas Baader (not the RAF guy), Detlev Schlichter, Christoph Braunschweig, to name just three.

All people: the material is all laid out before you - that, and so much more, if only you would ind to investigate. Stuff for thought. You can continue to hate me or laugh about and ridicule me or like Takeda try to turn words in my mouth or mutilate the meaning - or start to finally quit nagging me, and get some really qualified education on the matter yourself - by starting with reading two or three of the suggested things. But do not hold me responsible for your own laziness. Some of you complain when I produce "walls of text", and when I do not do that and cut it short and give only a general indication, you complain again. It seesm the real reason is that the message itself is not welcomed, I think. Attacking democracy? Slaughtering the golden cow of Western self-understanding? Blasphemous!

You have been born with eyes to read and minds to think. So the hell use them. Get two or three books. Works wonders. You must not even agree with everything - just to see that what you have come to take as granted and natural, is not that natural at all and can be easily and fundamentally put in question, would be an improvement. Or be lazy, delegate your responsibility to those higher in the food chain, and leave it to just making a cross on an election ticket. You will be the obedient submissive sheep that way that they expect you to be.

Not meaning you personally, Oberon.

Ducimus

06-07-13, 12:46 PM

George Orwell, author or prophet?

Tribesman

06-07-13, 12:59 PM

All people: the material is all laid out before you - that, and so much more, if only you would ind to investigate.
Same material as last time, it's still nonsense.
No matter how many times it is posted it will still remain fundamentally flawed in the most obvious manner.

Ducimus

06-07-13, 01:06 PM

Yup, this story is really making the rounds now.

The NSA information collection scandal and what it means for Utahns (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25493015&nid=148&title=the-nsa-information-collection-scandal-and-what-it-means-for-utahns&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1)

I'll bet a lot of people here are REALLY wondering about that NSA data center here in Utah now.

soopaman2

06-07-13, 01:18 PM

Takeda Shingen

06-07-13, 01:18 PM

All people: the material is all laid out before you - that, and so much more, if only you would ind to investigate. Stuff for thought. You can continue to hate me or laugh about and ridicule me or like Takeda try to turn words in my mouth or mutilate the meaning - or start to finally quit nagging me, and get some really qualified education on the matter yourself - by starting with reading two or three of the suggested things. But do not hold me responsible for your own laziness. Some of you complain when I produce "walls of text", and when I do not do that and cut it short and give only a general indication, you complain again. It seesm the real reason is that the message itself is not welcomed, I think. Attacking democracy? Slaughtering the golden cow of Western self-understanding? Blasphemous!

The thing is, you don't argue anything. Your response is to point hysterically at the failings of the current system, largely due to the fact that you cannot point to how the system that you propose would function in a remotely effective manner. Then you have the arrogance to sit back and haughtily proclaim me lazy for pointing out those failings, while it is actually your approach that is intellectually lazy. What you are doing is promoting the replacement of a system that does not work well with a system that doesn't work at all in what appears to be a very shallow attempt to get back at people and groups that you don't like. To return to the blocks analogy, it is like a child that gets back at another by knocking over the tower.

You have been born with eyes to read and minds to think. So the hell use them. Get two or three books. Works wonders. You must not even agree with everything - just to see that what you have come to take as granted and natural, is not that natural at all and can be easily and fundamentally put in question, would be an improvement. Or be lazy, delegate your responsibility to those higher in the food chain, and leave it to just making a cross on an election ticket. You will be the obedient submissive sheep that way that they expect you to be.

Not meaning you personally, Oberon.

No, it was clearly meant for me. I would suggest that he use some of that self-proclaimed intellectual superiority and examine his own words and theories, not blindly cling to them like one hangs onto the mast when the ship begins to sink.

Ducimus

06-07-13, 01:29 PM

So is this partisan blame, or a a-hole government as a whole?

As much as I would like to mash one clear person on this, I feel it is institutional, and much like the stealth bomber, been around longer than we had awareness to it.

I would agree with your assessment that this is institutional. I don't think there is any one party or political ideology to blame, only human nature. When people are allowed some power or authority, they almost inevitably abuse it. Especially when they are not, or can not, be held accountable, or face repercussions for their actions.

Bubblehead1980

06-07-13, 01:29 PM

George Orwell, author or prophet?

Prophet

Bubblehead1980

06-07-13, 01:33 PM

I would agree with your assessment that this is institutional. I don't think there is any one party or political ideology to blame, only human nature. When people are allowed some power or authority, they almost inevitably abuse it. Especially when they are not, or can not, be held accountable, or face repercussions for their actions.

My thoughts exactly, some are worse than others but but it's the "political class" as a whole. The Governor of my home state(Florida) just removed the Liberty County Sheriff from office and had him arrested, for what? Standing up for second amendment rights.Governor Scott had seemed like one of the good guys, but apparently not.

danasan

06-07-13, 01:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducimus http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2068475#post2068475)
George Orwell, author or prophet?

Prophet /quote

realist

Betonov

06-07-13, 01:50 PM

Next time I type with Redoctober over Skype I should use more words like BOMB and INVASION. Maybe throw in the Slovene Perun project :arrgh!:

That'll keep them looking at the map

Tribesman

06-07-13, 02:52 PM

The Governor of my home state(Florida) just removed the Liberty County Sheriff from office and had him arrested, for what? Standing up for second amendment rights.
You mean he was removed for releasing someone being held for a felony, then destroying the police paperwork relating to the incident.

There is a phrase for cops like that, vile corrupt scum.

u crank

06-07-13, 02:58 PM

Hey look! the FBI and NSA are data-mining and analyzing your data![

I'm flattered actually. I didn't think anybody cared. :O:

06-07-13, 03:07 PM

FBI must be all over GT and if Skybird disappears in mysterious way(drone attack?) then you know...Orwell was right.

desertstriker

06-07-13, 04:27 PM

What is pitiful is that it is completely legal under the patriot act.

Wolferz

06-07-13, 04:44 PM

We in America have no rights.
We have privileges. Privileges that can be curtailed at the drop of a hat or a fat friggin lie.

If you need proof...
Go to Wikipedia and search for Japanese/Americans 1942. Thousands of citizens, born here, were rounded up and placed in internment camps simply because their parents were born in a country that declared war on us. No accusations, no warrants, no jury trial, no due process. Just, we see you as a threat to the public order and now you're free to walk into this camp we made for you for an indefinite period of time. It's for your own safety.:-?

Our government and its agencies are riddled with paranoid psychopathic liars that are afraid of their own shadows. Considering the way they keep trampling on the constitution, I don't wonder at it.:hmmm:

They can monitor anything they want because I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them of their errors.:stare:

mapuc

06-07-13, 04:47 PM

FBI must be all over GT and if Skybird disappears in mysterious way(drone attack?) then you know...Orwell was right.

Could that be the reason, that we haven't seen Yubba for a while

Markus

Wolferz

06-07-13, 04:50 PM

Could that be the reason, that we haven't seen Yubba for a while

Markus

The Yubba who knew too much?:03::haha:

desertstriker

06-07-13, 04:54 PM

Wolferz

06-07-13, 05:11 PM

don't forget about the red scare of the 50s where respectable citizens would loose everything because of possible political affiliation.

The days of McCarthy. Who could forget? The sixties were a trip. Pardon my pun.:03: Nuclear arms racing. Government promoting the constant scare tactic of a nuclear holocaust. The old kill a commie for your mommy mentality. That one was still prevalent through the late eighties. At least until the USSR had its' economic back broken. The big wigs in DC gasped when that happened because they didn't have a fear carrot to dangle anymore. So, they invent a new scare. Radical Muslim Jihad. Cementing it in place with commercial aircraft and a media blitz. Wars blossoming like top fourty hits, using invented threats.

Catfish

06-07-13, 05:18 PM

"The old kill a commie for your mommy mentality. That one was still prevalent through the early nineties. At least until the USSR had its' economic back broken. The big wigs in DC gasped when that happened because they didn't have a fear carrot to dangle anymore. So, they invent a new scare. Radical Muslim Jihad. Cementing it in place with commercial aircraft and a media blitz. Wars blossoming like top fourty hits"

Ok then i think it is pretty obvious. However if it is so easy, why don't anyone protest ?
Is the 'patriot act' even legal ?
:hmmm:
USA: One nation. Under surveillance.

Platapus

06-07-13, 05:25 PM

FBI must be all over GT and if Skybird disappears in mysterious way(drone attack?) then you know...Orwell was right.

Don't tease. :D

Platapus

06-07-13, 05:30 PM

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.

We already have a purge of the Senate, every six years, and the house, every two years.

If the people choose, and it is their choice, not to exercise their right to replace their representatives, that's not the government's fault.

No Senator or Representative is ever automatically re-elected. None. The citizens choose to keep the same congresscritters in office at a rate above 90%.

Who is really at fault?

We have met the enemy and it is us. :yep:

desertstriker

06-07-13, 05:33 PM

Ok then i think it is pretty obvious. However if it is so easy, why don't anyone protest ?
Is the 'patriot act' even legal ?
:hmmm:
USA: One nation. Under surveillance.
you have reached the heart of the problem haven't you. The main problem is that when it came out those that had the issue with it where considered unamerican and where called such and now those people that called others unamerican are complaining. the main problem is it suspends 7 out of 10 bill of rights IIRC the second amendment not being one of them.

As to why people don't protest look at what happened during occupy wall street.

Platapus

06-07-13, 05:35 PM

Is the 'patriot act' even legal ?

Some provisions have been declared unconstitutional at the lower courts. Other provisions have never been challenged in court.

There have been provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act that have been reviewed by the SCOTUS and have been up held as being constitutional.

There is a presumption that all laws passed by congress are, by default, constitutional until proven otherwise in court. I don't personally agree with that presumption but it is the way it is.

Oberon

06-07-13, 08:00 PM

In principle in the way you deal with people in your life without the state needing to tell you how to do it (although it regulates your life more and more).

The problem I think that is happening here is that you are not introducing a first step into the subject. It's a bit like saying to someone who wants to know why the earth moves that they should read a thesis by Stephen Hawking. Furthermore the method in which you put forward this thesis is borderline fanatical, comparable to fundamentalist preachers and extremist Imams in its ferocity and vehemence.
Sure, it's good to be passionate about a subject, but brow-beating people from a pulpit of righteousness that your cause is just and the only true way...well, makes you sound a lot like some of the people that you have argued against in the past in different threads.

Putting this to one side, and coming back to the point at hand. What you describe, in essence, is the state of mankind in the days around the Neolithic era, when it boiled down to small local settlements which spawned new settlements off each other like buds from a plant. Eventually this collective group of settlements pooled their resources to form a nation, it may not have been done peacefully, it most likely was done through force, but there was strength in numbers against both disease, other settlements and predators. It enabled them to do greater things, to pool their knowledge and basically lead to where we are today, through a few thousand years.
There is a reason, a real reason, that we don't live that way any more, and it's got little to do with government greed, although certainly there is a factor in that, because after all government is made up of perfectly ordinary people just like you and me, but a need for collective strength.
I would put money on, if it still existed, the likelihood that any attempt to split a state into seperate individual states would eventually result in the reunification of those states into one larger entity. You can deregulate, transfer powers, like devolution in the United Kingdom, but somewhere along the line the buck has to stop, there has to be one entity which decides the collective direction of a nation, be it a King, President, Fuhrer, General Secretary, Ayatollah, anyone, that central figure has to exist to interact with the figures from other nations, even if it's only a figurehead and the real business is done by the worker-ants underneath them.
Yes, the current democracy is bloated, and yes it is probably quite corrupt, but you show me one governmental system in this planets history that has NOT suffered from corruption of some sort in its existence, and lasted longer than a year.
Furthermore, and here's the real kicker, any one nation that is dissolved into a collection of smaller states, will almost immediately be overrun by its neighbours, because it will be unable to form proper resistance without a central organisation, each individual militia will be fighting a separate battle against a unified army, so unless those militia have someone rich and power backing them, they will be kicked around by the unified force and destroyed.
Things throughout history happen for a reason, civilization evolves for a reason, right now democracy seems to be the government of choice, five hundred years ago it was monarchy, ninety years ago everyone was convinced that communism and socialism was the answer. Perhaps through some sort of giant war or ecological disaster Hoppes work will come to fruition, I don't deny that should the planets population be reduced by three quarters of its current size then governmental types would have to rapidly evolve to suit the situation, and unless communications were swiftly restored between nations then there would be a break-up of states across the globe, because civilizations adapt, they have to, or they die.
Sure, it makes for some good fiction to have a civil war in America, Texas is independent, California tries to become the new Athens and instead becomes Rome post-visigoths, the Monroe Republic rules with an iron fist (yeah, I've seen some episodes of it, and no, I'm not impressed by it) or Cheyenne rules through subterfuge (much better imho), but each of those works of fiction require a major catastrophe to take place to break the current situation. No amount of links, posts, tirades, sermons or judgement on an internet forum is going to create the sort of catastrophe required to break up a nation.
I, too, am disillusioned with the current political system in the United Kingdom, and a tad fearful of the one in America, here in the UK everyone has taken the middle ground and there is little difference between the parties, in America the middle ground has been napalmed and both sides are flying off the opposite ends of the spectrum, neither system particularly works, however I would much rather live under a democracy than under a system that, by typing these words, I am automatically picked up in the early hours of the morning by a policeman and spend the rest of my short life in a prison cell.
Sure, there are some circumstances in a democracy at the moment that can cause this to occur, and at the moment, they usually involve Islam, and now surely, Skybird, you cannot call for greater security against Islamic extremists on one hand, and decry increased government surveillance on another. It just doesn't work that way.

desertstriker

06-07-13, 08:18 PM

great Now i have to watch "V for Vendeta" good movie to watch and was ahead of its time and pretty well depicts what is happening with terrorism and the patriot act.

mookiemookie

06-07-13, 09:28 PM

So is this partisan blame, or a a-hole government as a whole?

As much as I would like to mash one clear person on this, I feel it is institutional, and much like the stealth bomber, been around longer than we had awareness to it.

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.

They all act as if they did not know, hoping someone (the president) takes the bullet for everyones conspiracy.

For Legislative bodies to all of a sudden act outraged at this, when the crap they pulled far outweighs this....sad, on many levels.

I still want to know why they get free healthcare when they wish to abolish the same benefit to the poorer american??

This is what happens when the extortion money does not go where it is supposed to, scandal....

No president is ever going to give back the powers that were granted to George W. Bush in 2001. If you're scared that Obama has them, well, guess what? A bunch of us warned you that Bush wasn't gonna be president forever. And even if the Patriot Act were, through some miracle, overturned in court or legislated out of existence through your theoretical constitutional convention, it's already too late because the web of surveillance has been put in place. You can bet that its future legality has already been set up.

You can't unscrew the virgin once the cherry's popped.

Sailor Steve

06-07-13, 09:43 PM

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.
Seriously? Have you considered what that would entail? The original only came about because men of wisdom fought and bickered and compromised. At the Virginia ratification discussions Patrick Henry said there should be a new convention then, and a Bill Of Rights should be placed withing the document itself. Fortunately he was not heard, mainly because they weren't sure a second convention wouldn't create an entirely new Constitution that would be much worse.

If a new Constitutional Convention were to be called (and thank whatever powers you pray to that they made it so difficult) there is no rule that it would have to do what you want, and every chance that the things you believe in would be ignored. They would have carte blanc to create whatevery they wanted. What if it came up with a new Constitution that truly made America a socialist state? What if it took away all our rights? What if it went in the opposite direction, and guaranteed all rights but totally eliminated all Federal interference, for better or for worse? First off, at least two-thirds of the States would have to ratify it (unless of course it did away with the States entirely, as some have suggested in the past), and that in itself seems highly unlikely.

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?

Stealhead

06-07-13, 10:39 PM

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?

No one can honestly answer that there is no way that it would not be a complete compromise unless as you said they got rid of the 2/3 majority by getting rid of states which would never fly.

All though I would like to see Soopamans answer.

Skybird

06-08-13, 04:26 AM

The problem I think that is happening here is that you are not introducing a first step into the subject. It's a bit like saying to someone who wants to know why the earth moves that they should read a thesis by Stephen Hawking. Furthermore the method in which you put forward this thesis is borderline fanatical, comparable to fundamentalist preachers and extremist Imams in its ferocity and vehemence.
Vehement yes, and intentionally. that is for biographic reasons which I do not wish to publicly talk about, and for the reason of that I see all Europe around going to hell, aggression between various peoples in different countries growing again, totalitarianism openly being invited under different labels, conflicts between states growing and growing, and everybody cheering to even accelerate the overall decline. Yes, I am very angry there. I also cannot believe and understand this... this monumental and needless waste of potential and opportunities. In wanting to understand why these processes nevertheless run on, I realised that my old ideas did not work and that I needed to pout everything into question. And that I did.

I am in short time right now, and get back to you later this day. For the moment just this: I am a realist, and do not assume I would not know that they have made it almost impossible, both legally and psychologically, to just overthrow the current order - I know it, and many of the names I mentioned know it as well. Hoppe repeatedly said that he has almost no optimism for the future,. regarding whether the libertarian social order based on the old and honorable tradition of what is called "natural law" (that is explained early in Rothbards book on Ethics) could be achieved. I, like he, argue from a theoretic standpoint and say what should be looked for, what should be tried to reach. It would be the right thing to do. But I have almost no hope that people will do it. Part of libertarianism is and must be to nevertheless demand the right nevertheless, and he who says that it should be had later, or in smaller steps, and in a limited, reduced format, already has betrayed freedom and liberty.

You ask what to do, and probably also what it is. Again, check the content list of Rothbard'S book, The Ethics of Liberty, the chapters make it easy to identify the matter you might be interested in i form of your questions. I do not even agree with all of that, for example the chapter on children's rights (or lack of), made me swallow twice. Regarding the how, my reply is: disloyalty to states, parties and politicians. Do not help the state. Be disobedient. Talk to you next people, spread the ideas of libertarianism. Boycott the common political showacts, they only serve the purpose of legitimising state-run crime. Refuse to pay taxes if you can get away with it. Do not cooperate with state organs. In other words: refuse to give moral legitimation to those who take freedom away from you. Historically, you would be in very good and high and honorable company with all that. And that is not just Thoreau.:)

The Hoppe book gives a good historic introduction on how and why republican state order took over from monarchies at the WWI-era - and what consequences that has for the citizens in affected states: taxes exploded in following decades, freedom declined, war became even more total and barbaric than ever before, all civilisational inhibitions removed. It has much to do with the change from monarchies to republics. In I think 14 chapters, he repeats himself quite oftenb. That makes it comfportable to read, becasue you store it in mind easy that way, and every chapter deals with the (same) matter form a slightly different perspective and focusses on slightly different objects. And yes, the book caused quite a stirr.

I get back to you later, I have no time right now.

Skybird

06-08-13, 04:36 AM

Seriously? Have you considered what that would entail? The original only came about because men of wisdom fought and bickered and compromised. At the Virginia ratification discussions Patrick Henry said there should be a new convention then, and a Bill Of Rights should be placed withing the document itself. Fortunately he was not heard, mainly because they weren't sure a second convention wouldn't create an entirely new Constitution that would be much worse.

If a new Constitutional Convention were to be called (and thank whatever powers you pray to that they made it so difficult) there is no rule that it would have to do what you want, and every chance that the things you believe in would be ignored. They would have carte blanc to create whatevery they wanted. What if it came up with a new Constitution that truly made America a socialist state? What if it took away all our rights? What if it went in the opposite direction, and guaranteed all rights but totally eliminated all Federal interference, for better or for worse? First off, at least two-thirds of the States would have to ratify it (unless of course it did away with the States entirely, as some have suggested in the past), and that in itself seems highly unlikely.

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?
The declaration of independence was a good thing. The constitution less so, mainly for it founds the belief that the people must be governed by a government (that there must be a general state). From a libertarian POV, that statement already is unacceptable, no matter the idea of the people being allowed to chnage the government (which in practice proves almost impossible, I would say, for people have to deal with the same politicians time and time again and agfain and again - you just cannot get ride of them, for decades).

What it comes down to, is a question I assume you would like: who monitors the monitors? The checks and balances do not work well, for the judge's name is Capone, the grand jury is formed up by mafiosi, and the witnesses are next of kin of the suspect.

See, you absolutely sank some hooks in me back then. ;) More than you or Neal maybe imagine.

Sailor Steve

06-08-13, 05:22 AM

No one can honestly answer that there is no way that it would not be a complete compromise unless as you said they got rid of the 2/3 majority by getting rid of states which would never fly.

All though I would like to see Soopamans answer.
That's my point. There is no real answer, but I have met more than a few people who say they want to try, which makes me nervous to say the least.

Sailor Steve

06-08-13, 05:29 AM

The declaration of independence was a good thing. The constitution less so, mainly for it founds the belief that the people must be governed by a government (that there must be a general state).
I see your point, but for them it was more than just a belief. They were faced with the reality of three major powers (Britain, France and Russia) who refused to make trade treaties with the individual states. They had to have some kind of central power just to deal with foreign governments, or else face the possibility of separate States making their own deals and possibly being swallowed up by those powers, leaving the rest surrounded and outnumbered. For them it was an absolute necessity. Franklin's statement from the signing of the Declaration, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately", was a very real concept, and one which affected the next generation, which accounts for Lincoln's belief that the Union had to come before all. Right or wrong, that was the bogeyman they saw awaiting them if they didn't create a strong central government.

As for the monitoring question, that is something that is always there as well. They had their own arguments, hence the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson over the National Bank. They couldn't concieve of modern technology and its problems. On the other hand the fact that this has come to light at all shows that the invasiveness of such technology works both ways. In this case the people really are the monitor. Yes, it was done, but it has been brought to everyone's attention and it is the government that is on the run because of it. It will continue to happen, and all we can hope for is that we can keep up with them, if not ahead of them. The beauty of it is that the technology involved is available to everybody.

Tribesman

06-08-13, 05:39 AM

In wanting to understand why these processes nevertheless run on, I realised that my old ideas did not work and that I needed to pout everything into question. And that I did.

Yet the answer to the questions which you cannot even see is that your new "ideals" don't work any more than your old ones did.

Platapus

06-08-13, 06:02 AM

Awesome point about the risk of writing a new constitution. I think the only thing worse than relying on a 200 year old constitution is trying to write a new one today.

It would be an interesting academic train-wreck to watch what would result from a constitutional debate between representatives of FIFTY states.

Actually, if we can get the entire congress to focus on writing a new constitution, it would keep them busy for the next 20-50 years and that might be better off for the citizens. LoL

STEED

06-08-13, 06:42 AM

It's crossed the pond.

GCHQ Prism spying claims: Agency to report 'shortly'

Eavesdropping centre GCHQ will report to MPs within days over claims it secretly gathered intelligence from the world's largest internet companies.
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism) claims the UK's listening post accessed data on the internet activity of Britons obtained by a US spying programme called Prism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22824379

So what is new?

Ducimus

06-08-13, 07:01 AM

Awesome point about the risk of writing a new constitution. I think the only thing worse than relying on a 200 year old constitution is trying to write a new one today.

I don't know how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that the constitution and the bill of rights is outdated. Yes, they were written 200 years ago, yes we have new technologies, however, Mankind has not changed or evolved. Sure some social quirks may change here or there, but people behave today, just as they did 200 years ago, just as they did 2000 years ago. The constitution and the bill of rights was written with human behavior in mind. If humans had changed, we'd have stopped killing each other, or trying to gain control or advantage over each other, a long time ago.

Oberon

06-08-13, 07:19 AM

Vehement yes, and intentionally. that is for biographic reasons which I do not wish to publicly talk about, and for the reason of that I see all Europe around going to hell, aggression between various peoples in different countries growing again, totalitarianism openly being invited under different labels, conflicts between states growing and growing, and everybody cheering to even accelerate the overall decline. Yes, I am very angry there. I also cannot believe and understand this... this monumental and needless waste of potential and opportunities. In wanting to understand why these processes nevertheless run on, I realised that my old ideas did not work and that I needed to pout everything into question. And that I did.

I can, in some respects, see where you're coming from, and I too am concerned about the potential of the rise of totalitarianism in Europe and the conflict between states. Unfortunately when you look back through history, it is an almost inevitable consequence. This is the longest period of peace in Europe since the Roman Empire, and it won't last forever no matter how hard the nations within the EU try. There will be another war in Europe, I couldn't say when, whether it will be in our lifetimes, who can say? But it will happen.
You cannot eliminate greed, that is the major stumbling block of most of humanity, our jealousy and desire to have something that we do not, be it wealth, land or power, and no matter what political system you put in place, it will be ruined by those who climb the ladder by treading on the heads of those below them.

I am in short time right now, and get back to you later this day. For the moment just this: I am a realist, and do not assume I would not know that they have made it almost impossible, both legally and psychologically, to just overthrow the current order - I know it, and many of the names I mentioned know it as well. Hoppe repeatedly said that he has almost no optimism for the future,. regarding whether the libertarian social order based on the old and honorable tradition of what is called "natural law" (that is explained early in Rothbards book on Ethics) could be achieved. I, like he, argue from a theoretic standpoint and say what should be looked for, what should be tried to reach. It would be the right thing to do. But I have almost no hope that people will do it. Part of libertarianism is and must be to nevertheless demand the right nevertheless, and he who says that it should be had later, or in smaller steps, and in a limited, reduced format, already has betrayed freedom and liberty.

Hmmm, natural law, now that is an interesting concept, and I understand how it can be applied to the laws of a state, however the reason we have such a myriad display of laws in this day and age is that no matter how big the mousetrap, there will always be a bigger mouse. You set up a series of laws based upon natural law, and it will likely be circumnavigated by people who look to use illegality to further their cause, and so you will need to pass further laws to close that loop-hole, and then they will create a new loop-hole, and so on and so forth. However the idea of creating a city which would be 'established in accordance with nature' is quite an intoxicating proposition, although I suspect that the law of nature that it would follow the closest is that of 'survival of the fittest' or to be more exact 'survival of the biggest and strongest', which would mean that those who are less fortunate in life would be excluded and we would wind up straight back at square one.

You ask what to do, and probably also what it is. Again, check the content list of Rothbard'S book, The Ethics of Liberty, the chapters make it easy to identify the matter you might be interested in i form of your questions. I do not even agree with all of that, for example the chapter on children's rights (or lack of), made me swallow twice. Regarding the how, my reply is: disloyalty to states, parties and politicians. Do not help the state. Be disobedient. Talk to you next people, spread the ideas of libertarianism. Boycott the common political showacts, they only serve the purpose of legitimising state-run crime. Refuse to pay taxes if you can get away with it. Do not cooperate with state organs. In other words: refuse to give moral legitimation to those who take freedom away from you. Historically, you would be in very good and high and honorable company with all that. And that is not just Thoreau.:)

I think that many of us only give as little as we can to the 'big machine', certainly if I could get away with not paying taxes I don't think I would hesitate, although that would be more through the desire of the accumilation of wealth than it would be through a libertarian viewpoint.
Likewise one could argue that the multi-national companies that avoid paying tax and move nations to accumilate vast sums of wealth are, not giving moral legitimation to the state, but again, it's not any political ideal that motivates them, and I do wonder if Hoppes work would withstand the inherent greed that is apparent in some people in society and the measures which they are willing to go to in order to further their own means.

The Hoppe book gives a good historic introduction on how and why republican state order took over from monarchies at the WWI-era - and what consequences that has for the citizens in affected states: taxes exploded in following decades, freedom declined, war became even more total and barbaric than ever before, all civilisational inhibitions removed. It has much to do with the change from monarchies to republics. In I think 14 chapters, he repeats himself quite oftenb. That makes it comfportable to read, becasue you store it in mind easy that way, and every chapter deals with the (same) matter form a slightly different perspective and focusses on slightly different objects. And yes, the book caused quite a stirr.

I get back to you later, I have no time right now.

I can understand how the book would cause a stir, after all, the republics and democracys are seen as the government of the moment and this book attacking them would be seen as alarming as the sudden rise of republicanism in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is where I think you can trace the beginnings of the Republic and Democratic orders in Europe and North America. Did this directly lead to a more total and barbaric warfare? I would hesitate to link the two, and point more in the direction of technological advances enabling mass destruction to become much easier. Of course, one could equally circle back and state that such advances were accelerated by the rise of scientific discovery under the Republican and Democratic orders, but then that would be undercut by such examples as the Portuguese Renaissance (although, equally one could come back and argue that the Renaissance itself sparked from Republican Italy and the trade hub that it was at the time between the Middle East and Europe) and indeed one could also point to the scientific discoveries undertaken by various other nations throughout the years which have been monarchical or dictatorial in their political system.
However, the wars of the monarchical eras were no less barbaric than those of the twentieth century, the only real difference is the scale of them which is limited by the technology. If Otto the Great or Henry VIII had had access to tactical missiles, tanks and jet fighters, one would suspect that they would not have used them for small border skirmishes. Technology enables you to do more with less, and therefore wars themselves expand in nature, as do atrocities committed in them. Would the Nazis have been able to kill as many 'undesirables' as they did if they had had to use an axe on each one? Would the French revolution have taken as many lives as it did without the invention of Madame Guillotine?
Likewise, you can look at technology and the decline of freedom, certainly if you go back to the medieval era, you may have had greater freedom from immediate governmental supervision, however you still had to pay your tithe, you still had to obey the laws of the land, and if you were caught you were either executed or had something removed. Technology has increased the ability of the government to close the cracks that people could fall through, whereas back in the medieval era you could theoretically live outside of the government, now it is very hard not to, and one could also argue that population growth has also played its part in this (and indeed circling back, that population growth has been expedited by technology) so that the gaps in between habitats has shrunk significantly and there are much fewer places to hide now.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, 'preppers' for example, they take very little from the state and prefer to be as self-sufficient as possible, unfortunately for the rest of us, most preppers are quite wealthy to begin with, and they need to be to afford the equipment they use to 'live off the grid'. There are also nations where the technological level is relatively high, and yet the rule of law is pretty absent, Somalia for example, where cellphones exist alongside feudal lords. However, one can blame external forces for a lot of these exceptional nations, certainly if the Western world had not developed cellphones, it is unlikely that Somalia would be using them (although equally one can also blame some external forces for Somalias unrest in the first place).
So I would not be so quick as the pile all the blame for todays ills on the rise of the republican state, moreso that it is merely the continuation of the natural world order which is shaped by human behaviour.

Catfish

06-08-13, 07:38 AM

When they read and control all, the only way out is becoming a terrorist.
Because if you do not like it, or say anything against it, you instantly become one by their definition. Self-evident. :-?

Wolferz

06-08-13, 11:10 AM

If they want to monitor us. We should return the favor and monitor them.:D

I'd wager that they would shut that down in a heart beat. Citing national security which is the PC way of saying, "We don't want you discovering our secret plots to take over the world."

All your resource are belong to us

Catfish

06-08-13, 12:11 PM

Facebook, Apple, Microsoft the CEO's dementis are useless, since they are 'allowed' to lie, to the public.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040991/report-nsa-prism-program-spied-on-americans-emails-searches.html

http://news.yahoo.com/improved-facebook-google-statements-prism-still-holes-222735735.html

So regardless what you use, unless it isn't bush drums..
And i bet they have something for that.

Bubblehead1980

06-08-13, 12:35 PM

You mean he was removed for releasing someone being held for a felony, then destroying the police paperwork relating to the incident.

There is a phrase for cops like that, vile corrupt scum.

REALLY!! you have no idea what you are talking about but of course you will attempt to argue with anything I say.Perhaps since you are not from Florida I will lay it out for you.The Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county, they are in the Florida Constitution.Now, as Chief LEO of the county and head of the Sheriff's Office, he has discretion, and he chose to honor the second amendment instead of violating this man's rights, the Deputy who arrested him is the vile scum you speak of, get it right.The citizen was released and never charged, nor should he have been and thus they did, what should be done when someone is released without charge or found not guility, all record should be erased.The Deputy who arrested him should be disciplined, fired? no but given a warning and some classes on the rights of citizens. The Official Misconduct charged is bs dreamed up for political reasons.One, the Sheriff is not from the area, which is rural and it is said he is seen as an outsider.Also, there is talk he ran afoul of Governor Scott and some of his cronies not long ago, so sure they were more than happy to make this trumped up charges.

Rick Scott has shown his true colors here, SMH.

Wolferz

06-08-13, 12:35 PM

Since it was DARPA that invented the internet, it's kind of a moot point that the government would have ways of accessing everything on the information super highway. Traffic cams if you will.
Obama denies any direct snooping, not that I believe anything he says, and cites that Prism is only looking for patterns in the length of phone calls and internet usage. So, the question still remains as to what they are looking at and for what reason. We can't trust the news media to report in an honest fashion because they tend to sensationalize it all. Just remember if you're a wannabe terrorist... Big Brother is watching YOU!
As for all of us law abiding, freedom loving types, I don't think we have anything to worry ourselves with in regard to this.

I had one friend, that I know of, who experienced a direct snooping encounter by the CIA on their home computer.
I think it was just a random occurrence because, as soon as she made them aware that she knew what was going on, it stopped.

Platapus

06-08-13, 12:47 PM

So, the question still remains as to what they are looking at and for what reason.

The technical term is "Comm Externals" or information about communication origins, trace path, destination, start/end times, but nothing about the actual message.

Simply put, there are patterns that can be exploited to help prioritize future collection. Much time, effort, and expense is spent in determining and exploiting these and other patterns.

It is a lot easier to get authorization to collect and record the Comm Externals than it is to get the Comm Internals (the actual message)

It is also a lot easier to exploit Comm Externals, then Internals. Machines are great at the externals, not so good at the internals.

Comm Externals, when not identified down to a specific individual, are not considered private information. For legal purposes, there is a huge difference between a phone call that comes from my house and a phone call that comes from me.

Comm Externals are a good way to filter out the 99.99xx% of innocuous communication while still preserving the security of the message, while at the same time, identify those communication nodes that would warrant (pun intended) the focused collection of the Comm Internals.

Is it a silver bullet for any intelligence problem? No. But it helps.

I am not opining whether the current protocols are good, bad, or indifferent. I am just explaining what value the collection of the Comm Externals can be and how it is different from actually "listening in" on people's phone calls.

Tribesman

06-08-13, 01:47 PM

REALLY!! you have no idea what you are talking about but of course you will attempt to argue with anything I say.Perhaps since you are not from Florida I will lay it out for you.The Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county, they are in the Florida Constitution.Now, as Chief LEO of the county and head of the Sheriff's Office, he has discretion, and he chose to honor the second amendment instead of violating this man's rights, the Deputy who arrested him is the vile scum you speak of, get it right.The citizen was released and never charged, nor should he have been and thus they did, what should be done when someone is released without charge or found not guility, all record should be erased.The Deputy who arrested him should be disciplined, fired? no but given a warning and some classes on the rights of citizens. The Official Misconduct charged is bs dreamed up for political reasons.One, the Sheriff is not from the area, which is rural and it is said he is seen as an outsider.Also, there is talk he ran afoul of Governor Scott and some of his cronies not long ago, so sure they were more than happy to make this trumped up charges.

Simple question bubbles did the cop falsify the police records?
As a supposed legal expert you should know what crime that is.:rotfl2:

2nd amendment..... irrelevant
sheriffs not local ...irrelevant
Gov. Scott.....irrelevant
A plain and simple cut and dried issue which is beyond your much vaunted legal expertise obviously:yep:

Wolferz

06-08-13, 01:54 PM

Thank you for that in depth analysis, Platapus. :up:
There is no way in hades that they can monitor literally billions of phone conversations and internet traffic. The thought or even the assertion that they can is ludicrous to the extreme. Hence my reasoning that those who broke this story have sought only to sensationalize it for their own agenda of lighting a fire under the hot seat.
Even the thread title is misleading. Sorry Tyrant. Nothing against you but, it is misleading like so many modern day headlines.:hmmm: I'm just as guilty of doing the same thing.

the_tyrant

06-08-13, 01:56 PM

welp, well it looks like the original expose was filled with unverifiable, click bait content.

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

Well, it looks like journalistic integrity is going down the drain:down:

Even Playboy would publish their mistakes and changes, the Washington Post just secretly changed the article.

Wolferz

06-08-13, 02:12 PM

Skybird

06-08-13, 02:19 PM

Oberon,

I am putting together a longer reply that I hope will give a better overview of pieces that so far havebeen scattered around and thus do not get noted, if I interpret you correctly. But that means work, that needs time, and I will need more of the latter. Expect a reply not before late tomorrow, maybe even Monday. This is just to say that I neither ignore you nor have forgotten you. It is a time thing. But I 'm on it.

Oberon

06-08-13, 02:31 PM

Catfish

06-09-13, 10:52 AM

Tyrant, ZDNet just tries to play project 'PRISM' down.
Not only time, user and length of communications have been logged. The contents has been recorded and can be listened to anytime. It is just the overwhelming mass, that prevents it - instead as posted before, algorythms are used to find suspect ones. What is suspect, or considered criminal, is a 'military secret' though !
The NSA datamining tool called 'boundless informant' [sic] also logs all ip-addresses.

It is not the Washington post alone, nor was it first publishing. USA today and a lot of european agencies have published that earlier, indeed i posted evidence here some weeks ago, with no reaction at all. And please remember the Guardian recently only received an additional secret file, publishing it. The older 'rest' is even worse.

The article you posted (that all those companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, you name it, participated voluntarily) is neither comforting, nor is it true.
Verizon was forced to do that with full court ruling, and it is not the only one. The fact that the CEOs of said companies tell us "we did not do that" is almost lie. (besides even if cooperation is welcomed, it is not always necessary - you do not actively need to send data to the NSA if it is all wiretapped) The wiretapping itself, or what of it has been noticed at all, was to be allowed 'voluntarily' by the companies. But they are also forced to spread their half-lies to the public, again backed by court ruling and the 'Patriot act'.

Adjudication forced to hand over telephone data:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Electronic frontier foundation:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans

Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Once again, a 'leak' has revealed what a lot of people had expected. 'Bluffdale' indeed lol

the_tyrant

06-09-13, 01:52 PM

I believe that the original Washington post article does have many factual inaccuracies (after all, why would they modify it).

Interestingly, I believe that the NSA's technique is different than what people commonly believe. When the scandal first broke, everyone thought it was that the NSA actually had access to the servers themselves, and took data from there; on further investigation however, it doesn't seem likely.

First of all, think about it from a purely logistical standpoint. The NSA isn't stupid, they understand that in order to keep secrets, they would have to try to keep the people who have insider info to a minimum. If they actually installed backdoors on every single server (or have a command and control server with access to every single server), someone sooner or later will find out.

Secondly, its extremely difficult to have to install a piece of software on every single server these companies own (everyone will know, see above).

Instead, I believe that the NSA simply taps into the internet providers and datacenters. They have the capability to break ssl encryption (the most common kind, as documented here: http://www.zdnet.com/how-the-nsa-and-your-boss-can-intercept-and-break-ssl-7000016573/). They would intercept the data coming in and out of the servers, and analyze that.

As for the tech companies saying that they "haven't heard of prism" of course not! PRISM is a high level internal codename, they probably know it as something else. As for not giving the NSA direct access, again, of course its that way! The NSA doesn't get direct access, but the NSA probably accesses the data from the network layer.

nikimcbee

06-09-13, 02:37 PM

As for the tech companies saying that they "haven't heard of prism" of course not! PRISM is a high level internal codename, they probably know it as something else. As for not giving the NSA direct access, again, of course its that way! The NSA doesn't get direct access, but the NSA probably accesses the data from the network layer.

I wonder what my progressive co-workers have to say about this?:hmmm::haha: Probably nothing since it's not "Bush." I wonder if I should even bother bringing this up?

Lt. Commander Joe Delano

06-09-13, 03:36 PM

I read about this and then I thought about this..

What Happened To My Country?

I grew up an American, and proud of it. I was taught in school about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. My brother was a Merchant Marine Officer during the war and had three ships sunk beneath him. We beat the Nazis, the Fascists and the Japanese and made the world safe for democracy. After the war came Nuremberg and the assurance that things like the holocaust could never happen again. The Marshal Plan helped to rebuild the shattered portions of the world. America, Democracy, Compassion and Help. It was good to be an American. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad, but necessary to end the war and save lives, we were told.
We read George Orwell's 1984, which could happen in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but we could never have thought police terror and endless war here in the United States. Then came the Cold War, McCarthy, Korea, and later on Vietnam. My service time crossed those wars, but I thanked my stars I didn't have to fight in them. I was at Bikini for the Hydrogen Bomb tests in 1956, which taught me the unthinkable horror of nuclear war.
Vietnam taught us the danger and folly of going to war on a false pretext. Tonkin Gulf was to be a lesson to us all, as was the intended impeachment of Nixon for violating the law and the Constitution. We wouldn't let that happen again; no president was ever going to spy on his own people again, or persecute people who didn't agree with him or his policies.
Yes, the United States was a nation of great wealth. A nation that took care to see to the freedom and well being of its citizens, and welcomed the downtrodden foreigner to the new land. It was a nation that pioneered the exploration of space and gloried in the advance of science. I was proud to be an American!

My God! What has happened to my nation? My nation that no longer pays more than lip service to its Constitution and Bill of Rights, which have been a beacon to the world for over two centuries. My nation that unilaterally discards treaties that were the hope of a world of peace, guided by law and diplomacy. My nation that will wage a war of aggression against a far off nation that was no threat to it, but that has lots of oil. My nation that gives all of its wealth to the rich and is satisfied to leave its citizens to starve, homeless, unemployed and sickly.
What happened to that Constitution that so wisely divided the government into three separate units, to provide a system of checks and balances against any one branch usurping power? How did we wind up with a President that refers to the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend as just a goddamned piece of paper, and a Congress that seems willing to rubber stamp any giveaway the President demands? How did we find ourselves with a Supreme Court that will set aside the Constitution in favor of unlimited presidential power for the duration? To protect us from terror that we unleashed ourselves!?
Now I live in an America I don't dare leave for fear of being spat upon, shot, bombed or kidnapped. I am looked upon as a citizen of a rogue nation that has no concept or respect for any law except bullying and strength. I need a passport even to visit Canada, which was to be our sister nation with open borders forever. I must expect to be required to show my papers at any time, to any official. I must accept that the government can break into my house and rifle my belongings and papers any time it wishes on the thinnest of excuses and it is not even required to let me know it has violated my home and my privacy. I must accept the fact that the government can listen in to my private conversations, my phone, my e-mail, can probably read my snail mail if they wish and can put a gag order on anyone who has information on me so I may not even be made aware that I am being spied upon.

George Orwell's absolute dictatorship has crept into my home and my life and thrown out my beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. The difference between the United States, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is steadily and inexorably diminishing and the people are letting it happen while they remain paralyzed with fear. Fear incited by the gang that runs the White House and their cronies in the propaganda ministry that used to be our last bulwark against tyranny; our once free press.

The rights that I could have been asked to die for have been taken away. Where is the justice? It has been redefined by our Supreme Court and as a result lost and forgotten in another time! So now my pride in America is for our past; my sadness for our present; my fear for our future. I am no longer proud to be an American, but I have no place to go.

2007

Stephen M. Osborn is a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest. He is an "Atomic Vet." (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956, ) who has been very active working and writing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. He is a retired Fire Battalion Chief, lifelong sailor, writer, historian and former newspaper columnist.

Not to bully the US but it marks the fundamental shift the world we live in..

mapuc

06-09-13, 04:40 PM

After have read this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

I have been thinking- Would I do the same? If I had the same information.

Propably yes I would. That's easy to say when I'm not in that position.

Markus

Ohh by the way. Do not forget to say a prayer to Osama Bin Laden, if it hadn't been for his attack on USA, these surveillance would most higly never had happened.

Markus

August

06-09-13, 05:40 PM

Ohh by the way. Do not forget to say a prayer to Osama Bin Laden, if it hadn't been for his attack on USA, these surveillance would most higly never had happened.

Markus

I don't know about that. They started just as soon as the technology to do so became available which makes me think that just about any excuse would have sufficed.

Bubblehead1980

06-09-13, 06:08 PM

Simple question bubbles did the cop falsify the police records?
As a supposed legal expert you should know what crime that is.:rotfl2:

2nd amendment..... irrelevant
sheriffs not local ...irrelevant
Gov. Scott.....irrelevant
A plain and simple cut and dried issue which is beyond your much vaunted legal expertise obviously:yep:

No, he did not falsify records, the charges were dismissed and he disposed of the arrest file as no arrest was occurring, the man was simply detained since his arrest was not processed, so remove the arrest file is tantamount to deleting a draft of an email, as the arrest was not processed(nor should it have been) , much like an email you decided not to send.

How DARE you say the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant you , well ill stop. :/\\!! Really, you have no clue, you simply try to distract from the issue here as always and insult me but you are not even a resident of this country let alone Florida or Northern Florida to be more specific so you have no clue of how things work, because if you did you would know his being an "outsider" affects this process.Also, you would know his personal run in with Governor Scott does have bearing on this. Basically, you are an pro government boot licker who is talking out of your hind quarters as per usual.

Bubblehead1980

06-09-13, 06:10 PM

Edward Snowden is a a hero and patriot, sadly he will probably have to hide the rest of his life.Hopefully someday, he will be pardoned and praised for doing his duty, just wish more people in the government had guts to stand up to the thugs running things currently.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/snowden-nsa-leak-whistleblower-cia-204241311.html

Oberon

06-09-13, 06:16 PM

Edward Snowden is a a hero and patriot

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/snowden-nsa-leak-whistleblower-cia-204241311.html

And yet Bradley Manning is not... :hmmm:

Sailor Steve

06-09-13, 06:42 PM

No, he did not falsify records, the charges were dismissed and he disposed of the arrest file as no arrest was occurring, the man was simply detained since his arrest was not processed, so remove the arrest file is tantamount to deleting a draft of an email, as the arrest was not processed(nor should it have been) , much like an email you decided not to send.
Umm, the charge against him is that he falsified records. That is what is under investigation. He is alleged to have released the man himself, then whited his name out of the arrest record. This may have been the proper thing to do, and the investigation may result in his reinstatement. It may very well constitute destruction of official records, and the investigation may result in his imprisonment. You don't know what the truth is any more than Tribesman does, so insisting your version is the right one proves nothing, and is nothing more than your opinion.

How DARE you say the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant you , well ill stop. :/\\!!
His implication was obviously that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to this case, not to America in general. Even I could see that. If the investigation or trial finds that Sherrif Finch was correct in his actions then his defense citing support of the 2nd will indeed be relevant. If he is found guilty then the 2nd will be irrelevant to the case. Tribesman's assessment was correct as far as it goes, but it was just his opinion, and your comments are just your opinion. It is my continuing hope that someday you will learn to tell the difference.

Really, you have no clue, you simply try to distract from the issue here as always and insult me
It seems more to me that he is pointing out that your arguments are highly biased. It could also be said that you are the one distracting from the issue, since this case has nothing to do with the thread topic. Also, can you show a single instance in this thread where he actually insults you? Your argument, yes. I disagree with his assessment, just as I disagree with yours. Yes, he is having fun saying you are wrong and backing it up, but has he insulted you?

Basically, you are an pro government boot licker who is talking out of your hind quarters as per usual.
And that is a personal insult. One more like that and you will find yourself in trouble again.

My personal opinion is the same as it has always been, that you are too highly biased and too sure of your own rightness to be able to see things clearly, and it always comes back to yelling that you know what's right and everyone who disagrees is an idiot or a lackey of some sort. Please calm down and make reasonable arguments, and prove your case. Shouting about it doesn't make you right.

Bubblehead1980

06-09-13, 06:48 PM

And yet Bradley Manning is not... :hmmm:

I don't recall saying he is not but I did intially have some mixed feelings towards Manning as he seemed to just release things to wikileaks which has a bit of an agenda.However, he should not be treated the way he is currently being treated, which is tantamount to torture and did do the right thing, and should be hailed a hero as well. Snowden saw the government violating the constitutional rights of nearly every American citizen and decided to speak up about it, in spite of the danger and the massive interruption to his life.This man put the country and his fellow citizens ahead of himself.Now, if only had more people willing to do this, these jackboot thugs running our country would not be able to get away with such things.

Platapus

06-09-13, 07:03 PM

Edward Snowden is a a hero and patriot,

If it is proven that he violated Federal law by betraying his NDAs, then he is a criminal.

Not saying that our opinions are mutually exclusive.

But no, just like with Manning, Snowden had many different approved, legal, and appropriate venues to raise his concerns to. He, like Manning, chose unwisely.

Good intentions make excellent road material.

Skybird

06-09-13, 07:07 PM

I'm still at it, Oberon, you have not been forgotten. ;) I got a late visitor announcement for tomorrow, so I must ask you for some more patience. I really try to bring some things into a format easy to the eyes and mind. :) I have the replies to most of your paragraphs ready now, but I want to add some stuff in a following overview. And tomorrow I probably have no time, due to the surprising visit.

:03:

Oberon

06-09-13, 07:08 PM

I don't recall saying he is not but I did intially have some mixed feelings towards Manning as he seemed to just release things to wikileaks which has a bit of an agenda.However, he should not be treated the way he is currently being treated, which is tantamount to torture and did do the right thing, and should be hailed a hero as well. Snowden saw the government violating the constitutional rights of nearly every American citizen and decided to speak up about it, in spite of the danger and the massive interruption to his life.This man put the country and his fellow citizens ahead of himself.Now, if only had more people willing to do this, these jackboot thugs running our country would not be able to get away with such things.

Fair enough. I can't argue with most of that, government and its agencies should be accountable to the people, and it is a sad state of affairs that it is often not, however this is something common to just about every form of government that has existed in history.

Oberon

06-09-13, 07:10 PM

mapuc

06-09-13, 07:16 PM

I don't know about that. They started just as soon as the technology to do so became available which makes me think that just about any excuse would have sufficed.

A little background to why I wrote as I did

In 2008 or 2009 I saw a documentary on a swedish science channel TV4Fakta(TV4Science) In this program they went behind the attack on USA and some of the new laws that had passed the congress and senat.
In the program they told about a bill-can't remember the name of it-was voted down by more than 2/3 in 1998 or 1999. The bill was put forward again in 2002 and this time more than 2/3 passed it through. It was something about surveillance and it was many more bills regarding surveillance a.s.o

Since then I have been thinking. If it hadn't been for Osama, those laws would never have passed the Congress or the Senate.

Markus

Bubblehead1980

06-09-13, 09:25 PM

If it is proven that he violated Federal law by betraying his NDAs, then he is a criminal.

Not saying that our opinions are mutually exclusive.

But no, just like with Manning, Snowden had many different approved, legal, and appropriate venues to raise his concerns to. He, like Manning, chose unwisely.

Good intentions make excellent road material.

The "appropriate venues" no longer work, the courts are stacked with statists who could give a crap about our rights, look at the most recent Supreme Court decision which says it is okay to take DNA without a warrant, without a conviction, to build a database simply if you are arrested.Scalia and the liberal wing were against it, shows that respect for rights does trump political ideology for some but too many of the lower court judges are also on board.The ahole federal judge who forced verizon to turn over the data to the feds is based in my hometown.The press is in the US is rather subservient and friendly to the government, 75% of it, esp the major networks might are propaganda divisions for the government.

I don't think this is some well mastered conspiracy but it is the sad state of affairs but it only exists because so many of the people are unaware of what has happened.Manning and Snowden did the right thing, I could honestly care less if they violated some stupid NDA.We need more people in a position to expose this crap to do so or nothing will ever change.This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is an issue for the citizens, the political class believe they have the right to do things like this.I agree this is the natural course of governments as they are ran by men and that is why our constitution is so valid now as that document was more about keeping the people who make up a government in check as the inevitable course is for it to get out of control, that is why rights are guaranteed so that when the time comes, we have the means to keep things in check.The second amendment is meant for absolute worst cases scenario, but the 4th, 5th and 1st are so vital to this as well and they just keep trying to take more and more away.

I get so angry when I see people accept this like good little drones, SMH.

August

06-10-13, 12:18 AM

A little background to why I wrote as I did

In 2008 or 2009 I saw a documentary on a swedish science channel TV4Fakta(TV4Science) In this program they went behind the attack on USA and some of the new laws that had passed the congress and senat.
In the program they told about a bill-can't remember the name of it-was voted down by more than 2/3 in 1998 or 1999. The bill was put forward again in 2002 and this time more than 2/3 passed it through. It was something about surveillance and it was many more bills regarding surveillance a.s.o

Since then I have been thinking. If it hadn't been for Osama, those laws would never have passed the Congress or the Senate.

Markus

AFAIK and according to the news here the law that authorized this was enacted in 2008 and reauthorized in 2012.

desertstriker

06-10-13, 12:29 AM

Personally I am waiting for whatever revolution/civil war comes. As is tensions in the USA are higher than they where when the civil war started in 1861 so something has to snap eventually. Unfortunately the gov is already preparing for that because troops have been doing drills in metropolitan areas.

Now as Bubblehead1980 has pointed out the 1st 4th and 5th are so vital and thats why they are trying to take them way and are continually infringed upon when they cant. Many people are so ignorant to this fact as many don't care who is in office as long as it is someone from their party or those blasted 1 issue voters who don't care as long as it is somebody who is on their side of the issue.

Tribesman

06-10-13, 03:09 AM

No, he did not falsify records, the charges were dismissed and he disposed of the arrest file as no arrest was occurring, the man was simply detained since his arrest was not processed, so remove the arrest file is tantamount to deleting a draft of an email, as the arrest was not processed(nor should it have been) , much like an email you decided not to send.

Clueless, absolutely clueless.
Do you know anything about the story at all? It certainly appears not.

It was only a matter of time before someone posted it here after Alex Jones ran with it on his loony website, you just happen to be that someone.:up:

How DARE you say the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant you , well ill stop. :/\\!!
Wow, CAPSLOCK strikes again:rotfl2:
It is entirely irrelevant, it makes no difference if he was arrested for jay walking or for breaching floridas concealed carry laws.
It really is that simple.

Really, you have no clue, you simply try to distract from the issue here as always and insult me but you are not even a resident of this country let alone Florida or Northern Florida to be more specific so you have no clue of how things work, because if you did you would know his being an "outsider" affects this process.Also, you would know his personal run in with Governor Scott does have bearing on this.
Are you trying to prove my point for me?
More red herrings than I could possibly hope for....all irrelevant.:yep:

Basically, you are an pro government boot licker who is talking out of your hind quarters as per usual.
Well the only appropriate response to that nonsense is....
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

Lets make it real easy for ya, little baby steps if you like to move you through the very simple process which is the only relevant issue in the whole story.
Shall we for one moment assume that you somehow manage to graduate from that law school of yours where the staff all know "nothing about law".
You miraculously get a client, the client wants to sue for unlawful imprisonment, say in this case he was put in a cell for dropping litter.
Can you produce the custody record which shows when and where he was locked up and how long he was held in the cell?
Now lets make the big leap to the actual story.
You do know what a custody record is don't you? Do you understand why they cannot be falsified?:hmmm:

On what you have written so far with all you irrelevant attempts at spinning it off into something other than what it is, I think it is fairly safe to say you have not got the faintest idea what you are talking about or what the officer is being accused of doing.

Mittelwaechter

06-10-13, 07:07 AM

BOSTON, Mass. — Human rights activists say revelations that the US regime has expanded its domestic surveillance program to private phone carriers is more evidence of the North American country’s pivot toward authoritarianism.

The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported this week that a wing of the country’s feared intelligence and security apparatus ordered major telecommunications companies to hand over data on phone calls made by private citizens.

“The US leadership in Washington continues to erode basic human rights,” said one activist, who asked to remain anonymous, fearing that speaking out publicly could endanger his organization. “If the US government is unwilling to change course, it’s time the international community considered economic sanctions.”

Over the last decade, the United States has passed a series of emergency laws that give security forces sweeping powers to combat “terrorism.” But foreign observers say the authorities abuse those laws, using them instead to monitor ordinary Americans.

While the so-called Patriot Act passed in 2001 is perhaps the most dramatic legislation to date curbing freedoms here, numerous lesser-known laws have expanded monitoring of news outlets, email, social media platforms and even opposition groups — like the Occupy and Tea Party movements — that are critical of the regime.

US leader Barack Obama, a former liberal community organizer and the country's first black president who attracted a wave of support from young voters, rose to power in 2008 promising reform. He was greeted in the United States — a country of about 300 million people — with optimism. But he has since disappointed those supporters, ruling with a sometimes iron fist and continuing, if not expanding, the policies of the country’s former ruler, George W. Bush.

On a recent visit to the United States by GlobalPost, signs of the increased security apparatus could be found everywhere.

At all national airports, passengers are now forced to undergo full-body scans before boarding any flights. Small cameras are perched on many street corners, recording the movements and actions of the public. And incessant warnings on public transportation systems encourage citizens to report any “suspicious activity” to authorities.

Several American villagers interviewed for this story said the ubiquitous government marketing campaign called, “If you see something, say something,” does little to make them feel safer and, in fact, only contributes to a growing mistrust among the general population.

“I’ve deleted my Facebook account, stopped using email, or visiting websites that might be considered anti-regime,” a resident of the northern city of Boston, a tough-as-nails town synonymous with rebellion, told GlobalPost. It was in Boston that an American militia first rose up against the British empire. “But my phone? How can I stop using my phone? This has gone too far.”

American dissidents interviewed by GlobalPost inside the United States say surveillance by domestic intelligence agencies is just one part of a seemingly larger effort by the Obama administration to centralize power.

The American leader, for example, has in recent years personally approved the jailing — and in some cases execution — of American citizens suspected of involvement in what the regime calls “terrorist activity.”

“What exactly is terrorism? The term is used so loosely these days it could include just about anyone,” said one anti-government protester, who was tear-gassed and then arrested in 2011 for participating in a peaceful demonstration in New York, America’s largest city and its economic capital.

Obama has also overseen a crackdown on whistleblowers, most famously jailing Bradley Manning, a US soldier, for leaking documents that called into question US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government quietly imprisoned Manning for three years before finally trying him in a military court this week. He spent the first nine months of that in solitary confinement, where prison officials forced him to sleep naked without pillows or sheets and prevented him from reading newspapers, watching television or even exercising.

Activists also criticize the US regime for imprisoning without trial foreigners it deems threatening to national security in an offshore prison camp called Guantanamo Bay. This week an investigation revealed that the US regime force-fed Guantanamo inmates participating in a hunger strike. Force-feeding is illegal under international law.

Meanwhile, whispering in the streets about what the regime might do next has reached a dull roar. But after a national uprising in 2011 by the leftist Occupy movement ended in evictions, arrests and tear gas, Americans appear hesitant to take their anger into the streets.

Most major media outlets, which in the United States are largely controlled by politically-connected corporations — many of them, in fact, financially supported Obama’s election — have been relatively quiet on such issues.

Foreign observers, however, say the recent news about domestic surveillance is spreading wildly in other ways — on Twitter and around the dinner table. They say the news has the potential to spark an uprising — at least among urban, educated elites in the country’s major cities — mirroring those happening now in Turkey and that earlier swept parts of the Arab world.

One foreign businessman who works closely with the US government on issues of security said he thought Obama was too well-established and had too strong a security force for any challenge to its authority to take hold.

“This isn’t Tunisia,” he said. “This is more like China, where a massive security presence could easily put down any organized opposition movement.”

The businessman added that Obama was democratically elected twice, which he believes gives the leader enough credibility to weather any serious opposition to his rule.

In a small, unassuming house near Boston’s bustling seaport, though, supporters of the opposition disagreed, saying the leader had lost “all credibility.” The group said the opposition continued to organize and grow, and that it was just a matter of time before the rest of the American population joined them.

Indeed, different political factions are beginning to unite over the issue of domestic surveillance, despite their strong differences.

“We meet in person these days to talk about strategy, phones and email are no longer safe for us,” one of them said. “Our goal now is to just get out the message to the world about what is going on here. That’s the first step. We need to educate not only Americans but the world about the extent the US regime is controlling the lives of its citizens.”

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130607/what-if-journalists-covered-us-like-they-cover-world

Tribesman

06-10-13, 07:49 AM

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...ey-cover-world (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130607/what-if-journalists-covered-us-like-they-cover-world)
That piece reads like it was written by a genuine idiot.

August

06-10-13, 08:05 AM

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130607/what-if-journalists-covered-us-like-they-cover-world

You forgot the first paragraph of the article:

This is satire. Although the news is real, very little actual reporting was done for this story and the quotes are imagined. It is the first installment of an ongoing series that examines the language journalists use to cover foreign countries. What if we wrote that way about the United States?

Dowly

06-10-13, 08:12 AM

Hahahaha :rotfl2:

Wolferz

06-10-13, 08:47 AM

Big difference between tongue in cheek and fish hook in mouth.:03::haha:
It was interesting and a bit funny to say the least.

Obamas' regime...:har::rotfl2::haha:

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 09:28 AM

Clueless, absolutely clueless
Do you know anything about the story at all? It certainly appears not...Wow, CAPSLOCK strikes again:rotfl2:...Lets make it real easy for ya, little baby steps if you like to move you through the very simple process which is the only relevant issue in the whole story.
And here I just defended you, asking him to show one place in this thread where you actually insulted him, then you turn around and do it several times in one post. It doesn't matter what you or I may think about the way he posts, you've been infracted before for this kind of dismissive attack, and you're just a step away from having it happen again.

Shall we for one moment assume that you somehow manage to graduate from that law school of yours where the staff all know "nothing about law".
You miraculously get a client, the client wants to sue for unlawful imprisonment, say in this case he was put in a cell for dropping litter.
Can you produce the custody record which shows when and where he was locked up and how long he was held in the cell?
Now lets make the big leap to the actual story.
You do know what a custody record is don't you? Do you understand why they cannot be falsified?:hmmm:
Still insulting with the opening statement, but a fair challenge. I'm curious about the answer myself.

On what you have written so far with all you irrelevant attempts at spinning it off into something other than what it is, I think it is fairly safe to say you have not got the faintest idea what you are talking about or what the officer is being accused of doing.
Absolutely uncalled for in an honest debate. I'm sure you know what that is, even if you think he doesn't. Please try to stay with the discussion and away from the personal attacks.

06-10-13, 10:11 AM

This is satire. Although the news is real, very little actual reporting was done for this story and the quotes are imagined. It is the first installment of an ongoing series that examines the language journalists use to cover foreign countries. What if we wrote that way about the United States?

Look for political asylum in china?:haha:

Dowly

06-10-13, 10:28 AM

Nicholas Finch's arrest warrant, to clear up what he is charged with:
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Nicholas+Finch+Arrest+Warrant.pdf

Tribesman

06-10-13, 10:46 AM

And here I just defended you, asking him to show one place in this thread where you actually insulted him, then you turn around and do it several times in one post.
Did I?
I asked a very simple question.......

Simple question bubbles did the cop falsify the police records?
As a supposed legal expert you should know what crime that is.
I addressed his reponse to that question
His response shows that he appears to know nothing of substance about the story at all. Which means he is indeed clueless on the issue.
The warrant is very specific about what was falsified, it was backed with forensic evidence and sworn testimony.
That single specific thing is all the story is, which means all the rest of bubbles writing on the topic is just irrelevant hot air.
In fact since he hasn't gone anywhere near the actual issue then "all the rest" really covers "everything he wrote".

Mittelwaechter

06-10-13, 11:03 AM

Kim Jong Un is looking at things.

Oh wait...

http://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/

Look at the sinking freighter on the wall!

http://abload.de/img/tumblr_mo3lmxzlhs1sumrcub4.jpg

I allways knew he is here at Subsim.

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 12:41 PM

Did I?
I asked a very simple question.......
In intentionally insulting question.

His response shows that he appears to know nothing of substance about the story at all.
Now your trying to defend yourself while insulting him again.

Which means he is indeed clueless on the issue.
More personal insults.

That single specific thing is all the story is, which means all the rest of bubbles writing on the topic is just irrelevant hot air.
In fact since he hasn't gone anywhere near the actual issue then "all the rest" really covers "everything he wrote".
And more. You were warned.

Mr Quatro

06-10-13, 12:57 PM

I like anything that has to do with our government that has three little letters in it ...

I wish they would find a way to make money off of this legal data gathering ...

Legal for them that is ... perhaps sell the information gathered to people that always seem to know what you are doing online ...

example I looked up a book one time and the next thing I know it's being offered to me online on the side over there where it says advertisment.

How did they know?

I wanted a thermos one time and I checked Amazon ... the next thing I know the same thermos at you guessed it Amazon was advertised over on the side of the web page I visited.

What if the NSA or the CIA or the FBI ... where do they keep these secrets at anyway, offered pictures for sale of alien space craft kept in secret hangers in Nevada ... offered them for sale from the government archives or for a profit kick back from other companies involved in the investigation of such outrageous claims ...

Would it help ease the burden of the national debt ... I think so :yep:

Go ahead NSA catch my neighbor with bombs on his mind ...

I for one care and approve of what you are doing :cool:

Dowly

06-10-13, 01:02 PM

Uh... what? :doh:

Spiced_Rum

06-10-13, 02:03 PM

According to the BBC:

Mr Snowden told The Guardian he flew to Hong Kong on 20 May, after leaking information about the National Security Agency's surveillance programme,
He said that he chose Hong Kong because the city has "a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent".

This man is a criminal at best, having deliberately leaked classified intelligence. Not only has he betrayed his country, his treason further threatens Western democracy because he went to China. No doubt he was warmly welcomed there and has been thoroughly de-briefed by those friendly Hong Kong security officials.

mookiemookie

06-10-13, 02:29 PM

Don't shoot the messenger.

mapuc

06-10-13, 02:39 PM

An rhetoric question

what has he achieved by doing this? except from being on the run for the rest of his life.

NOTHING!! the only different will be that the NSA, CIA, FBI a.s.o will be more careful in the future.

Do you really think that they will stop monitor your life, now that they have been exposed?

Markus

Tribesman

06-10-13, 02:43 PM

In intentionally insulting question.
Is it?
If someone has claimed to be a legal expert can it not be mentioned when a legal issue is being discussed?
Now your trying to defend yourself while insulting him again.

No, evidence suggests that is a statement of fact which was made.

More personal insults.

No, it is no different from saying he is ignorant of the issue. Which has been proven.:yep:
It might be insulting if he showed he did know what the topic was and I called him oblivious of it as that would clearly be a false statement which woud be insulting.
ignorant, unaware, oblivious, unknowing, nescient, bewildered, uninformed....all the same as clueless. Which are insulting and which are not?
Or is it all down to your random interpretation depending on the quirk of the day?

And more. You were warned.
Really?
And what is offensive in that passage?
"irrelevant hot air" perhaps?

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 02:54 PM

Is it?
If someone has claimed to be a legal expert can it not be mentioned when a legal issue is being discussed?
As I've told him many times, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You might not want to keep arguing about this if you don't want to make it worse.

It might be insulting if he showed he did know what the topic was and I called him oblivious of it as that would clearly be a false statement which woud be insulting.
ignorant, unaware, oblivious, unknowing, nescient, bewildered, uninformed....all the same as clueless. Which are insulting and which are not?
All of them. It's not debating, it's name-calling. Either debate the topic properly and show where he's wrong, or discuss it like a gentleman.
From the rules: The Radio Room forum is not the place for flaming, spewing, or otherwise mouthing off. We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc.

Or is it all down to your random interpretation depending on the quirk of the day?
Nothing random about it. It's all about the name-calling. Stop it.

Really?
And what is offensive in that passage?
"irrelevant hot air" perhaps?
First, calling him "bubbles". Part of your tactic seems to be to pervert peoples' names in a manner designed to insult. And yes, saying that everything he wrote is "irrelevant hot air" is an insult. If you take the time to prove it so, then it's proven. If you just say it, it's meaningless. Again, you say it in intentionally provocative ways. That is close to trolling again.

Julhelm

06-10-13, 03:43 PM

Tribesman

06-10-13, 03:51 PM

All of them. It's not debating, it's name-calling. Either debate the topic properly and show where he's wrong, or discuss it like a gentleman.

Is it name calling or an accurate description of the situation.
The evidence relating to the arrest is a matter of public record.
You had no problem finding that tip-ex had been used to falsify the custody record. For someone to insist that no documentation was falsified shows that they do not know even the most basic information available, that person can only fit one of those perfectly normal everyday words.

First, calling him "bubbles". Part of your tactic seems to be to pervert peoples' names in a manner designed to insult.
Is it?

And yes, saying that everything he wrote is "irrelevant hot air" is an insult.
How?
Everything relates to a specific set of actions, anything not related to those actions is hot air (bluster, empty talk, gas.....) Which is by its nature irrelevant.
However one aspect of that bluster can be relevant if you stretch it, the persecution complex.
But if you follow that stretch to its logical conclusion it only condemns the officer for illegally falsifying the record while giving the reason why he felt he had to illegally cover up his legal actions.

06-10-13, 03:53 PM

Which western democracy are we talking about? The western democracy that spies on it's citizens, uses drones to execute without due process those it accuses of being terrorists and arbitrarily suspends certain citizens' rights and sends them into prison camps indefinitely; that invades and overthrows foreign governments that don't do as they're told to or just happen to have resources it needs. That western democracy?
Very often so that you could sit in your nice place and have privilege to rant about it...but not always...sometimes or more often things are judged by the end results.

Bubblehead1980

06-10-13, 04:02 PM

Spiced_Rum

06-10-13, 04:11 PM

Bubblehead1980

06-10-13, 04:12 PM

Tribes insults, trolls because he has nothing better to say, even if he is wrong etc he will never admit it.There are times when it's a matter of opinion but of course he insults or as you pointed out Steve, he tries to use little names etc as a way of insulting someone, it's petty and childish, but amusing.

Anyways, first he was not just an "officer" or "Deputy" would be correct, he is the SHERIFF of that county.

Oh lovely little hypothetical you conjured up Tribes, real cute but answer is no, if someone is mistakenly arrested etc, all records should be disposed of, if someone is arrested and not convicted, should automatically be erased forever.The Sheriff stood up for the Second Amendment after one of his deputies violated this man's constitutional rights, plain and simple. I know you do not live here, do not understand this, and that is fine.

mookiemookie

06-10-13, 04:17 PM

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 04:20 PM

Is it name calling or an accurate description of the situation.
It's name calling.

The evidence relating to the arrest is a matter of public record.
You had no problem finding that tip-ex had been used to falsify the custody record.
Correct, and if you had left it there we wouldn't be having this conversation.

For someone to insist that no documentation was falsified shows that they do not know even the most basic information available, that person can only fit one of those perfectly normal everyday words.
Maybe, but as soon as you point it out, especially the way you usually do, you change the subject from the case in question to the other person. That's where you go wrong.

Is it?
Since you only do it when you're busy putting somebody down, yes it obvious.

How?
Because it's not aimed at what he wrote, but at him personally.

Everything relates to a specific set of actions, anything not related to those actions is hot air (bluster, empty talk, gas.....) Which is by its nature irrelevant.
It's also not relevant to your argument. It's name-calling, pure and simple, and you've been warned against it many times now.

No more name-calling or insults. You've made a habit of it for far too long.

Catfish

06-10-13, 04:22 PM

Don't shoot the messenger.

They do not only shoot the messengers (meanwhile more than one), but completely ignore the reason why those people may have decided to let certain information be known by the public, despite knowing they had to face court martial sooner or later.
The information handed down itself does not seem to stir up most of the people either.

OT, but related to last paragraph - I just read a statistic, about which people in Germany vote for the right wingers, usually accepting what the government does without much questioning. To my astonishment it was not only the 'rich' who would have a reason to protect their property from the poor masses (if you would think of class war, which has died out), but foremost more poor and uneducated people - or, to say this in numbers, more than 70 percent of the population.
I do now understand where those numbers in elections come from, i somehow still do not understand why they do that.

There are a lot of people here you would call 'parasites', living from state welfare and never intending to work and get a job - but just of all those are the loudest bigmouths when it comes to condemning real poor people and foreigners who deserve welfare, as well those bigmouths always vote for the political 'right wingers'.
I admit i do not quite understand the mechanisms of opinion formation.
:06: :hmmm:

MM you are right, i also should buy a boat and ... :yep:

Tribesman

06-10-13, 04:22 PM

Oh lovely little hypothetical you conjured up Tribes, real cute but answer is no, if someone is mistakenly arrested etc, all records should be disposed of, if someone is arrested and not convicted, should automatically be erased forever.The Sheriff stood up for the Second Amendment after one of his deputies violated this man's constitutional rights, plain and simple. I know you do not live here, do not understand this, and that is fine.
Young man, you cannot falsify custody records.
They exist for a very good reason and must be kept for that very good reason.
It really is as simple as that.

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 04:32 PM

NO he is not a criminal! What is wrong with you? Wake up! WAKE UP!
You really need to learn to discuss things properly. Yelling and shouting does nothing for your case.

Tribes insults, trolls because he has nothing better to say, even if he is wrong etc he will never admit it.
And now you're doing exactly the same thing. Everything I've said to him applies to you as well. You're both treading a very fine line.

There are times when it's a matter of opinion but of course he insults or as you pointed out Steve, he tries to use little names etc as a way of insulting someone, it's petty and childish, but amusing.
And so are a great many of the things you post. You, like him, don't seem to be able to see it. I've told you many times about the way you say things, but you always seem to fall back into the same way of doing things. You, like him, don't seem to understand how debate and discussion work. You've already been warned once in this thread. I suggest you quit while you can.

Oh lovely little hypothetical you conjured up Tribes, real cute but answer is no, if someone is mistakenly arrested etc, all records should be disposed of, if someone is arrested and not convicted, should automatically be erased forever.
And you continue in the same vein, with demeaning names and an insulting tone. Trust me, "he started it" won't work here.

About the case itself:

The Sheriff stood up for the Second Amendment after one of his deputies violated this man's constitutional rights, plain and simple. I know you do not live here, do not understand this, and that is fine.
The deputy made an arrest. He may have been mistaken, but it was his mistake to make. Did the sherrif falsify documents. You say no. Were you there? It looks like it is the arresting authority's decision whether to press the charges, and the court's decision concerning the verdict. If he is reinstated are you going to shout "See, I was right!"? If he is found guilty are you going to rail about "injustice"? Your mind seems to be already made up, yet you know no more about it than anyone else. Once again you literally shout your opinion as if it were fact, and get upset and shout even more if anyone points that out.

mapuc

06-10-13, 04:32 PM

In a sort of he did something criminal. I guess he had to sign some kind of "keep silence, do not talk about you job" paper

On the other hand, he did something-what many see as an act of patriotism to his country

Markus

Tribesman

06-10-13, 04:37 PM

Because it's not aimed at what he wrote, but at him personally.

How do you figure that?
It only aims at what he wrote, thats why it says "everything he wrote".

It's also not relevant to your argument. It's name-calling, pure and simple, and you've been warned against it many times now.

But it is relevant, the core of the arguement is that one set of things happened.
Anything which tries to hide those set of events behind irrelevant issues must be dealt with to remove the attempt at obfusctating

06-10-13, 05:04 PM

They do not only shoot the messengers (meanwhile more than one), but completely ignore the reason why those people may have decided to let certain information be known by the public, despite knowing they had to face court martial sooner or later.
The information handed down itself does not seem to stir up most of the people either.

It probably does stir but not for everybody the goverment or services responsible for security for that matter are public enemy number one.
It also has nothing to do with left or right.
Actually maybe it does for some ....as it seems.

Sailor Steve

06-10-13, 05:44 PM

How do you figure that?
It only aims at what he wrote, thats why it says "everything he wrote".
Okay, you're turning this into yet another game. Argue the points, stop the insults, stop the game playing.

August

06-10-13, 06:02 PM

I guess it boils down to whether the American people have the right to know that their own government is not only monitoring their communication patterns but also has the ability to sift that data they collect in any manner they so choose.

The government claims to be searching for terrorist groups but ANY group of people can be targeted for any reason. What's to stop it being used to target political enemies for example? Where is the oversight for such a powerful monitoring tool if we are not even supposed to know of the tools existence?

Ducimus

06-10-13, 06:05 PM

This man is a criminal at best, having deliberately leaked classified intelligence. Not only has he betrayed his country, his treason further threatens Western democracy because he went to China. No doubt he was warmly welcomed there and has been thoroughly de-briefed by those friendly Hong Kong security officials.

Giving a link helps:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22842837

Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but unfortunately, I can't. The United States government over the course of years has gotten entirely too big for it's britches and forgets that it exists by, for, and is employed by, We the people.

The key problem is ever since 911 and the policies inacted as a result, the Civil Liberties of the Citizens of the United States, have been steadily eroding. This needs to stop, before it can no longer be said that America is the "Land of the Free." I don't think he betrayed his country, i think he stuck to the core of an oath that politiicans and military alike take. To Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; Unfortunately our politicans forget this all to easily.

NO he is not a criminal! What is wrong with you? Wake up! The Government does not have the right to do what they are doing.Do you think that you are somehow protected? You are not. This is not the type of thing supposed to go on in the US. How long do you think it is before some scandal breaks about misuse of this info or someone being wrongly targeted based on info gathered from this "sweep"? This is immoral, unamerican and disgusting.Who cares if he leaked "classified" material? The same jagoffs violating our rights are the one's labeling things classified. Betrayed his country? NO! he was defending his country against the president, his people, and anyone else in the government who have betrayed their country !! WAKE UP!

I have to agree bubbleheads comments about the government.

I'll just leave these video links here:

I Spy With My Little Eye: NSA Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HDxoTmQe4)

NSA Surveillance: Don't Care. I've Got Nothing to Hide. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5VAgSdGnSQ)

http://i.imgur.com/y70KdJl.jpg

As overused as that quote is, the overuse doesn't make it any less true, nor any less applicable.

Skybird

06-10-13, 06:17 PM

A criminal committing a crime, is criminal.

Somebody revealing the crime, is not.

Snowden nevertheless miscalculated his choice for Hongkong maybe, although he hopes to finally end up in Iceland. His revelations not only reveal how far the surveillance state already is reality in the US (and the US monitoring all the globe), but they could also be painful for other states who are accomplice sin crime or running excessive surveillance themselves. If china is one such candidate, they might not want to to give him political asyl, but want to hand him over and have the US lock him and throwing away the key.

I wish Snowden well. Hopefully he made his homework on the Chinese.

For careless ordinary citizens this hopefully is a wakeup call to realise to what degree the total surveillance state already is reality. And since not only priovate people get overheared, but the ifnrasturcture gets used on everybody, we inevitably also talk about economic and industrial espionage as well. Knowing what the manmagers of a foreign company talk on the oh so well protected phone before meeting Americans in a business negotiation, can be worth millions and millions of dollars for the american side. It's like playing poker with marked cards.

And lets have no illusions. Not only will those data never be deleted, but they also will be used and abuse outside ans counter terrorism context. Just a question of time. The state never executes self-restraint, the state always wants more and more and more control and its citizens being naked, made of glass, pinned under the states microscope from the cradle to the grave.

The dream of the totalitarian dictatorships of the past century, and the secret polices of theirs, finally has come true. Of course we must allow getting told again and again that it all is just for our best. Yeah, sure. And the data is safe with almighty father state. Yeah sure. And there is laws and regulations. Yeah sure. And anti terror is the only motivation and there will be checks and balances against abuse. Yes, if I get some brain surgery done on myself, then I will believe all that, yes I will.

The Gestapo in the Third Reich acted on the basis of laws, too. So did the Stasi in the DDR that spied on its own people, and the KGB in the USSR. And yes, the White Rose indeed was illegal, from laws' point of view. Good that they caught them!

Our forefathers have been told the same bull last century, too. Now its our turn to swallow all that.

Morality and legality are two totally different things. And the modern states' morals can no longer be trusted.

Snowden acted on basis of his conscience, and by a moral argument that I find no reasonable way to argue with. He pays a high price and does not give me the impression to have done it for fame or to boast with it. I wish him well and that this under the circumstances he now is in will come to the best possible end for him. But I fear the opposite will become true. Many Americans will call fore revenge and retaliation.

This is a confused state of mind, because the rage should be directed against the state and against the shadow it casts over the people in the US, and outside the US.

A simpe question:
WHO MONITORS THE MONITORS, if the people do not even know they get monitored? And is a society where checks and balances fail, really free and "democratic"?

The answer to the latter can only be "No".

-

And now back to my letter to Oberon. :)

Oberon

06-10-13, 09:44 PM

I wonder if Neal is going to have enough bandwidth by the time you're finished Sky. :03:

In other news, Snowden has 'gone missing'. He's believed to still be in Hong Kong but his whereabouts are unknown. He checked out of his hotel on Monday and hasn't been seen since. Four possibilities in my mind:

1) The CIA have got him. In which case he'll probably reappear in America within the week and face charges.

2) The MSS have got him. In which case he'll probably reappear in Beijing within the week and apply for political asylum

3) He's just moved position since he's gone public in order to try and shake some of the heat that's on him.

4) His body will be found later in the week.

Number four is unlikely but possible.

Mr Quatro

06-10-13, 10:12 PM

His body will be found later in the week.

Number four is unlikely but possible.

He's made too much noise to die of sudden death syndrome

A fair trial would answer a lot of unanswered questions

CNN has a poll showing 53% he's done nothing wrong
and 47% thinking he has.

Stealhead

06-10-13, 11:16 PM

He is a criminal if he committed a felony; unauthorised disclosure of government material is a felony. This is not some speeding fine or jaywalking incident. The government does have the right. The right to protect all our freedom from enemies within and without, and for intel to stay out of public domain.

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell

In other words you believe in freedom yet you also have no problem with the fact that government agencies have a blank check to deem anyone and anything that they want a treat.

See the problem? You surrender your freedom and allow the goverment to hunt down "terrorists" which happens to be anyone they so deem as "terrorists" .Yet you believe in freedom.

06-10-13, 11:36 PM

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell

In other words you believe in freedom yet you also have no problem with the fact that government agencies have a blank check to deem anyone and anything that they want a treat.

See the problem? You surrender your freedom and allow the goverment to hunt down "terrorists" which happens to be anyone they so deem as "terrorists" .Yet you believe in freedom.
Its not that simple like mr Obama deciding out of the blue that mr stealhead is terrorist.

Méo

06-11-13, 12:27 AM

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/845/itsbetterinsomalia.jpg

Good one! :haha:

August

06-11-13, 12:29 AM

Its not that simple like mr Obama deciding out of the blue that mr stealhead is terrorist.

True but they didn't have to declare conservative organizations to be terrorists in order to sic the IRS on them either. There are a lot more things the Government can do to screw it's enemies besides dropping a bomb on them.

The thing is they are secretly collecting enormous amounts of personal information, ostensibly to combat terrorists, but how can we know what this information is actually used for if the very existence of the program is kept from us?

Where is the oversight that so vital in preventing the abuse commonly found in government operations that we do know of?

Oberon

06-11-13, 12:32 AM

He's made too much noise to die of sudden death syndrome

They said that about David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert))...

Still, I think you're probably right, and it's likely he's just moving around to prevent both the press and security agencies from catching up with him. That's the price you pay when you kick a hornets nest.

Catfish

06-11-13, 03:20 AM

It probably does stir but not for everybody the goverment or services responsible for security for that matter are public enemy number one.
It also has nothing to do with left or right.[...].

Well, first this kind of state of war, regulations and censorship must be the wet dream of the right wing, don't you think so ? How unfortunate that just of all a demcrat fell for the exercise of influence, by the war hawks of the military complex. And don't tell me the latter are politically 'left', in any regard.

Yes, i must have completely misunderstood ..
Everyone being against eavesdropping, against killing terrorists and unfortunate bystanders without trial and by drones, does not like Guantanamo and what is done there, or has something against how the military acted against civilians, was considered as being left wing scum and 'unpatriotic'.

And now tell me how much left intellectuals do you think sit and work in the arms industry ? Or the NSA ? Or the CIA ?
:hmm2:

On topic:
Maybe this is the solution .. but then the real list of what is listened to might not be made public anymore :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxCTYYNYlOk

Not that the english GCHQ or other dépendances in Israel, Germany or wherever would not do that. They all do, because they can.

Mittelwaechter

06-11-13, 04:39 AM

It's all about control.
Due to the internet our true rulers and their puppets have lost the sole sovereignty over their subjects reality. Those who control the information, the talk of the day and its interpretation, control our perception and therefore our reality, our motivation to think, to act, to consume, to attack etc.

Free, unlimited, uncontroled information and communication leads to the loss of their rulership, because the subjects do realize the difference between the prethought or "proclaimed" reality and their actual live situation. They talk about this discrepancy and realize a multiple interpretation of the once only truth, traditionally provided by the church - replaced by the classic media today. Suddenly it's not the proclaimed reality - our controled common view of the world - that motivates the subjects, but a wide, uncontroled diversity of truth provided by thousands of reporters and commentators via blogs, youtube, facebook, wikileaks, twitter, comments and discussions directly under the online articles of our prethought information, or - in our case - wistleblowers. Hence the rulers and their puppets have to regain control over our motivation or the puppets are at risk to lose their status - to be observed in the arabic world.

So what is their choice of actions to regain and strengthen their control? One well tried, tested and trusted measure is "to divide", to discourage and to prevent solidarity amongst the subjects. Every day we stumble over polarizing information about male vs. female, the elder vs. the youth, left vs. right, sick vs. healthy, west vs. east, natives vs. non-natives, families vs. those without kids, rich vs. poor, fat vs. well shaped, pedestrians vs. drivers, unemployed vs. workers, chistians vs. muslims etc. - just to breed bad blood, to split the society. Divide and rule!

But with the internet they have to go some steps further. It's necessary to know "in due time" all about the intentions of your subjects. You have to collect as much information as possible about their networks, their friends, their online and offline behaviour, their political opinion, about their wishes and fears, about their whole lives. As a result of this collection you can sort them, observe "critical" groups, predict their behaviour and act accordingly to answer any slight "unwanted" deviance.
Additionally you may want to distract and desinform the society, use propaganda and censorship to control the information flow and consequently the motivation of your subjects. Discredit any free source of information that may endanger your intentions, that may uncover your wheelings and dealings.
Keep the people busy and show them their life is nice, fine and "above average". Let them work and make them consume - it's their single purpose.
Teach your own kids in some elite schools how to run the system itself and let the others learn how to work flawlessly within in the system to keep it going.

After work we shall passively watch other people singing, dancing, cooking, eating, talking, working, housekeeping, raising children, fighting criminals sucessfully etc. Strange, eh?
It's a constant group of only "150 people" that has the privilege to explain the world, the situation and the causal relations on TV, providing opinions, arguments and positions we may sympathize with. Why? Because they reflect the view of our true rulers. Instead of thinking and researching about the situation, about the sense of it, about who profits from it, we shall accept the given prethought concepts. The leaders opinion becomes the leading opinion.
Most people don't have an own opinion, based on collected facts and own creative thinking. They simply rethink - often only parrot - the "prethought" provided by those we chose to support.
It's all about control.

Stealhead

06-11-13, 09:25 AM

Its not that simple like mr Obama deciding out of the blue that mr stealhead is terrorist.

I did not say that I was referring to how the Patriot Act can be used in any way the government desires.It is a blank check.I never said that they just "target" people out of the blue I am not some paranoid nut case.What I was referring to is how they use the Patriot Act to violate civil liberties of any person.

I choose not to intrinsically trust any government to follow its laws regrading civil liberates.I am not saying that a drone is going to follow me around or that Obama is building a zombie Homeland security army or building death camps that all is utter nonsense.Please do not confuse with this type of person.

Wolferz

06-11-13, 11:06 AM

Looks like the American people are being awakened from the American dream and the brainwashing tactics are starting to unravel as more folks wake up and smell the stench of the BS coming out of DC.
I'm sure that the puppet masters are quite cross with their puppets for allowing this kind of leak.
It didn't take puppet Boehner long to brand Eddie Snowden a Traitor, did it?

The way I see it... It takes one to know one.

The instant rhetoric rolling down the hill about how much this revelation has damaged the state's ability to fight terrorism is the purest form of BS and a blatant effort to continue reinforcing the government fear campaign.
Scared sheeple will follow the shepherd, right? The talking heads on TV are all voicing the puppet master's opinion in an attempt to sway the thinking of the gullible.

What they don't seem to understand is, we're not that scared, at least, I'm not. What I am scared of is these elected morons paying a third party billions of dollars for intelligence collection. Like we can afford it! I wonder which reps hold stock in this Booz- Allen company? Everyone on the security committee maybe?:hmmm:

" Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies" GROUCHO MARX

Ducimus

06-11-13, 01:34 PM

Is this song applicable yet? :O:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYnySGM9dQA

Penguin

06-11-13, 02:04 PM

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/845/itsbetterinsomalia.jpg

Nah! Equaling the absence of government with the situation in Somalia is the same like people in the 80s were told to move to the Soviet Union when uttering the slightest left thought.

If you're interested in historical examples of anarchist societies, I can recommend you to read People without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy by Harold Barclay. Sorry that I also link to a book, but I am sure it is a much better read and much more based in the real world than the crazy pipe dreams by Hoppe who makes the word liberty sound like a swear word:
"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society." (p.218, Hoppe 2001 - Democracy: The God That Failed.)
More of his thoughts can be found on the brilliant divided by zero blog: http://dbzer0.com/blog/oh-gawds-wat-the-most-hilariously-deluded-libertarian-ever/
That's all I have to say to Sky's new god - Hoppe's ideas are neither new, nor original, nor have the slightest to do with freedom. It's funny enough when European economic-liberal capitalists call themselves "libertarian". :haha:

Ducimus

06-11-13, 02:21 PM

Meta My Data: NSA Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o2djiZOxyA)

Skybird

06-11-13, 02:55 PM

the_tyrant

06-11-13, 03:28 PM

I'm done, Oberon, but must correct a biblical legion of typos, which I will do tomorrow. So tomorrow it is, I think. So far I counted six words not having a typo in them, and all six consisted of one or two letters.

I really should have the Max Planck institute checking my typing technique. Somewhere in there there's a problem, it seems.

:haha:

I'm not used to this kind of thing anymore, I really feel the lacking practice. Or I just become old. :woot: Shouldn't have allowed the forum to civilize me. :O:

Off topic: If you get a LOT of typos when you are typing, you might wanna consider a new keyboard. I made the switch to a mechanical keyboard, and I FEEL the change every day (its painful switching to my surface pro's type cover after using my desktop's mechanical keyboard)

Skybird

06-11-13, 06:07 PM

Ah, I simply type too damn fast, faster than I could speak those words. Cannot slow down those fingers, and when the steamroller once got rolling than I really get plowed under by the keyboard.

Typing once mislearned is difficult to correct.

Skybird

06-11-13, 06:42 PM

"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society." (p.218, Hoppe 2001 - Democracy: The God That Failed.)

Now try again - and this time in context:

" The situation is very different, however, and rather more drastic measures might be required, once the spirit of moral relativism and egalitarianism has taken hold among adult members of society: among mothers, fathers, and heads of households and firms.

As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued conformity, exclude and ultimately dispel these members from society. In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting life-styles incompatible with this goal. They - the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, indoviduakl hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism - will have to be physically removed from societ, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

In that chapter (chapter 10: On Conservatism and Libertarianism), Hoppe is about the way how liberty, basing on natural law and thus the guarantee for private property, can and must be defended against attempts by the state, democracy, communism to soften up this right and to erode freedom by limiting people's options to decide and act freely when partially and then increasingly expropriating their rights to indeed use their property as they see fit, and have private law treaties between individuals regulating relations between people lending their property for use by others. I remind of the tolerance.-paradoxon by Popper again: when the tolerant tolerate even the intolerant, the intolerant will overthrow tolerance and destroy it and the tolerant as well. When it is about freedom and private property, there can be no tolerance for those arguing that the state shall have the right to claim part of that freedom and property for itself, or that expropriating private property is okay on behalf of whatever an idea to excuse that robbery. When somebody enters your home and starts to steal items of value and money, you do not tolerate that, do you. You throw him out. When you give a party, you have any right there is to decide who is welcomed and who is not and must stay out, and a guest misbehaving you have the right to show to the door. This may be against moral relativism saying that nobody should own anything or that everybody is valuable and nobody should get discriminated by selectively not inviting him. But that is BS. And that kind of BS unfortunately is omnipresent in the Western world today.

August

06-11-13, 11:31 PM

Any society that tries to live by Hoppes law will just become prey for the society that doesn't live by those rules.

Stealhead

06-12-13, 12:22 AM

Any society that tries to live by Hoppes law will just become prey for the society that doesn't live by those rules.

Military power will always trump political philosophy.

Armistead

06-12-13, 12:49 AM

Any society that tries to live by Hoppes law will just become prey for the society that doesn't live by those rules.

Hoppes law, not that again.....

Tribesman

06-12-13, 12:55 AM

Now try again - and this time in context:

Quote:

The full passage doen't make the fruitcakes writing any less nutty.
Hoppes dreamworld of enforced serfdom would make even Tsar Ivan the Insane blanche.

Skybird

06-12-13, 02:35 AM

Any society that tries to live by Hoppes law will just become prey for the society that doesn't live by those rules.
It is not "Hoppe'S law". It is what your own nation once has been founded upon in ideas and what people like you often quite naturally refer to in "American key qualities", that everybody is/should be strong enough to carry his own weight, live in a free society, is his own fortune's blacksmith, shall have the opportunity to become happy, and regulated and tyrannised by government but the government needing to fear the people.

And Hoppe did not invent this modern libertarianism. He bases much on Rothbard's ethics and principle who revived it, basing on what is called Austrian economics that had a renaissance in intellectual popularity after the Keynesian diasaster. The first economist winning the Nobel for economics after Keynes death, was Hayek, an Austrian school economist. The outcome of that disaster and the prediction that spending oneself out of debts never can work, has been predicted since before the 70s, and they have attacked Keynes and Friedman already before. Seeing where it all stands today, they were right.

What sets Hoppe apart is that he is more consistent in identifying even democracy to be a source of cultural decline, erosion of freedom and liberty and financial ruin of nations, where Hoppe, von Mises and Hayek accpeted to live with democracy, hoping to "reform" it. von Mises, short before he died, admitted, that he was wrong in supporting democracy, that he was naive.

A strong defense can be erected by free people as well. You do not need a centralised government for that, but the poeople agreeing to do so. You need competent defnse contrctors who makes it their business to provide that for a payment. We have had that, and we are shifting back to that. More and more intelligence services already get externalised (the current PRISM setup for example uses much spying and data analysis done by private companies like Snowden work for one), same with externalisation of combat power to private mercenary companies. The motives to do so are different, yes. Still it shows that it can be done and can be had. And in afghanistan, a military opponent formed by anything but a centralised government, has had your hightech operation stalled. Not the first time in history that local militias have exhausted a techncially and by paper-form superior enemy. European history is full of that. So is the history of the early United States, and your independence war.

This is all what"private law society" means: that the people living in a place negotiate amongst themselves and decide themselves what they do, and not getting decided by a government that has its own parasitic interest to live at their expense and defend that, and robbing them and demanding their submission. There is no service the goivernment an provide, that free people cannot decide all by themselves to establish it or not, and running it more efficient, most ecponomic and with better net effect. The government is the worst manager of all.

The status quo today is unsustainable in the medium and longer run. Finances bring us down, erosion of liberty brings us down, wellfare state bribery and socialism brings us down. We need to start thinking outside the box. The old familiar way brought us to where we are, if we stick to them, they will destroy us. As I repeatedly said in threads: we are already living in post-democratic era. Our own democratic government since quite a while now have started to destroy democracy, and the people assist them in that, and so the old prediction of democracy turning in ochlocracies* and tyrannies, becomes fulfilled once again. Do we never learn?

* Wikipedia: Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

August

06-12-13, 06:00 AM

We have had that, and we are shifting back to that. More and more intelligence services already get externalised (the current PRISM setup for example uses much spying and data analysis done by private companies like Snowden work for one), same with externalisation of combat power to private mercenary companies. The motives to do so are different, yes. Still it shows that it can be done and can be had.

The only thing it shows is that a strong central government can outsource some of it's operations. It does not show that those mercenaries could be controlled without it.

And in afghanistan, a military opponent formed by anything but a centralised government, has had your hightech operation stalled.I wouldn't be using Afghanistan as your shining example unless you are trying to convince us that the Taliban are a desired feature of this brave new world of yours.

This is all what"private law society" means: that the people living in a place negotiate amongst themselves and decide themselves what they do, and not getting decided by a government that has its own parasitic interest to live at their expense and defend that, and robbing them and demanding their submission. There is no service the goivernment an provide, that free people cannot decide all by themselves to establish it or not, and running it more efficient, most ecponomic and with better net effect. The government is the worst manager of all. Private law is no law at all, it is anarchy. You just won't see that you cannot subdivide people into tiny little independent groups and then expect them to react as one to an external threat. They will argue and bicker and fight amongst themselves and would soon be gobbled up piecemeal.

Even without an external threat you still cannot expect that these tiny independent communities to remain friendly to each other. Whether through mismanagement or pure back luck there will always be haves and have nots with the inevitable friction, greed and hatred as a result. That's why a society built upon Hoppes vision could not long survive and what replaces it will make the survivors yearn for the old Democracies and Republics where they had at least the appearance of human rights.

Human nature cannot be ignored no matter how much you may wish to do so!

Skybird

06-12-13, 07:49 AM

Oberon! Fresh from the working table - guggst Du hier:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2070191&posted=1#post2070191

Skybird

06-12-13, 07:58 AM

The only thing it shows is that a strong central government can outsource some of it's operations. It does not show that those mercenaries could be controlled without it.

It shows that fiscal pressure creates - "creative solutions" that are not legitimised in democratic state's self-understanding. In theirs - not necessarily in mine.

I wouldn't be using Afghanistan as your shining example unless you are trying to convince us that the Taliban are a desired feature of this brave new world of yours.

the one doe snot lead to the other. The Taliban have been there when you walked in, and they will be there when you leave. You got out-waited and strategically defeated, the military operation to keep them away and to democratize Afghanistan, is a complete failure. And that qualifies as an example for that a not nationally organised underdog can very well fight off an assumed superior organised nationalistic army.

Local resistance and militia did that in all parts of Europe over centuries of armed conflict, too.

Private law is no law at all, it is anarchy.
No. Get some information hat the terminology of "natural law" really means, on which it bases. Law codes must not, not at all, be given by centralised govenrments only. That is historically wrong in that the basis of modern laws ofetn have roots that lead back in time and anchor in tradfitions that are naything but centrlaised, and "natiuonal". Oftgen it bases on the porivate law of trading guilts, like for example the Hanse. I have that at the very end of my reply to Oberon.

You just won't see that you cannot subdivide people into tiny little independent groups and then expect them to react as one to an external threat. They will argue and bicker and fight amongst themselves and would soon be gobbled up piecemeal.
Nobody external, and so also not me, subdivides anyone. It is people in place deciding to do this or that. London does not force the Scots to possibly seoarate. The Kanton of Zurich did not tell people in some part of it to separate years ago, nor did anyone tell other Swiss people to unite with some Kanton in another plart of Switzerland. People in Moincco or Hongkong are not told to stay separate from France, or China.

People decide, in their realm. That's all. Now leave them the right and freedom to decide all by themselves how they want get social insurance, or not.

Some mn ths ago there was an uproar int he forum. US firebrigades just sat still and watched as s couple's private house burnt down. when I googled ther story I found that in soke districts, they had to make the dfecision that outside a central city perimeter fire brigades can only economically be maintained by having people to pay a yearly fee, like an insurrance. this couple in question decided to not do that, quoting the woman they asumed they would not get struck by fate. They made a decision. They were free to do so. With freedom comes responsibility. And the new firebrigade system? I read it works great in these districts, having avoided communal budget breakdown and maintaining the firebrigade intact and functional inside and outside the centre perimeter. Great job ! - In germany: unimaginable. How could people be löeft being responsible for their deicisons? How antisocial, how brutal! Lets have the nanny milked again.

Even without an external threat you still cannot expect that these tiny independent communities to remain friendly to each other. Whether through mismanagement or pure back luck there will always be haves and have nots with the inevitable friction, greed and hatred as a result. That's why a society built upon Hoppes vision could not long survive and what replaces it will make the survivors yearn for the old Democracies and Republics where they had at least the appearance of human rights.

Human nature cannot be ignored no matter how much you may wish to do so!

Historically you have some examples on your side. And some examples against you. The Hanse. Italian and Russian city states. Germany a puzzle of several thousand free cities and dukedom before the united "nation" - never before and after that phase has Germany's culture and cultural output blossomed like that. The whole "nest" that europe was, probably became big and globally influential only because geography and historic time lines favoured competition even between smallest neighbouring regions. No renaissance and what came in its aftermath without the Italian city states. And the Hanse in its time and region (Baltic, Northern continental Europe) was an economical and fiscal superpower like the US was in the past 70 years. No national states headed any of these.

In the past, Hope also points out, the usual wars between rivalliung dukedoms that sometime sbroke out, most of the time were short, differentiated clearly between miliary target and porivate property of the people, and were ended soon. That was because the feudal lords of the worrying sides both had their very own property ta stake, and they wanted it undamaged a smuch as possible, aqlso, ioften ignored, kings and dukes were usually e,mbedded in a very tight corsett of legal respinsibilities and did not have just the freedom to explpoit their subordjnates at will. They were accoutnable to the next higher, and finally to a king. High ranking adminiostrators and officials serving in hgihb ranks also were expected to not live at the cost of the public, but to finances themselves. the also often had to pay for the costs that their hjigh ranks caused in obligations.

On a side note, during the crusades the huge majority of crusading knights did not go there to become rich and exploit the foreign land. It was a moral or religious obligation, a decision based on their conscience indeed. One did not allowed to say it today without getting burnt by the stake: but the biggest group of crusading noble men had to sell all their land property at home and had to give away their family wealth to finance their expedition. Many left (or fled) from Europe in a state bancrupcty. - I just finiihed reading a new book on the crusades, by an American author. It was just translated into German. Very good book, byRodney Stark: http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/394298928X/sr=8-1/qid=1371043502/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1371043502&seller=&sr=8-1

Anyhow, I have just posted in reply to Oberon, so I am leaving here. I am certain that you will not like it one bit.