Big Brother Growing

[Kathianne]

So far some things are being uncovered thanks to FOIA requests by consumer groups-not MSM-which is dangerous in and of itself. Without transparency 'we the people' cannot be informed. There is evidence as explained in article of government redactions to cover themselves. So far they've not totally succeeded.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/09/22/new-foia-docs-dhs-claimed-authority-to-regulate-public-discussions-of-covid-racial-justice-ukraine-and-irregular-immigration-n579799



New FOIA docs: DHS claimed authority to regulate public discussions of COVID, "racial justice," Ukraine, and "irregular immigration"
ED MORRISSEY 11:21 AM on September 22, 2023

New FOIA docs: DHS claimed authority to regulate public discussions of COVID, "racial justice," Ukraine, and "irregular immigration"
Remember the defunct “Disinformation Governance Board” at the Department of Homeland Security? The overt Big Brother agency eventually crumbled under public scrutiny, but not before the mainstream media tried desperately to keep it alive. NPR and other outlets insisted that DHS only meant to fight “misinformation” and that the DGB and its appointed head Nina Jankowicz had themselves fallen victim to “misinformation” about their purposes.


Advertisement
A new tranche of documents from a FOIA action by Americans for Prosperity Foundation sheds more light on DHS’ intent and actions. Jonathan Turley reports that the agency had granted itself very broad authority to regulate public comment, and not just on the COVID-19 pandemic. They claimed the power to regulate speech on just about every front, especially on topics that generated massive criticism of the Biden administration:


New documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency could regulate speech related to “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.”


Those subjects stretch across much of the “space” used for political speech in the last few years.


That’s clearly no accident. The inclusion of Afghanistan on this list, which has been previously reported, is the clearest indicator that the DGB’s true purpose was to quash dissent and criticism of the Biden administration. The board itself didn’t get launched until after Biden’s disgraceful bug-out from Kabul, abandoning 14,000 Americans by the State Department’s account to Congress. What possible ’emergency’ situation would have justified regulating debate on that point almost a year later?


The only ’emergency’ was Biden himself, which was also the case on all the other topics listed. This claim of authority flew in the face of the First Amendment as well as any claim to fealty to a free society. Rather than deal with that, DHS claimed that “malinformation” was a threat to our “cognitive infrastructure” and therefore public debate needed government gatekeeping:


Advertisement
Notably, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”


Try to mull over the irony of a claim about protecting “cognitive infrastructure” by … Joe Biden. We don’t even have a functional cognitive infrastructure in the Oval Office. Shouldn’t that be a more significant national-security concern?


And now apply a claim about defending “cognitive infrastructure” to the topic of “racial justice” and the Orwellian term “irregular immigration.” It’s absolutely absurd. The DGB was created to impose the administration’s propaganda and to silence its critics, and the topic list makes that very clear.


Not only that, but DHS clearly understood that their effort would get perceived as a Big Brother effort. They are still redacting information in these releases in a very telling manner, Turley points out:


What is also troubling is the continued effort to conceal these censorship activities. Homeland redacted much of this information on a now defunct board under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations.” That claim is itself chilling.


Advertisement
Indeed, but also very telling. Citing law enforcement techniques and procedures makes clear that this was no public-rebuttal mechanism. DHS intended to use the DGB as a law-enforcement mechanism, turning debate and dissent into crimes to be prosecuted.


Meanwhile, the Protection Racket Media continues to assert that the criticism of the DGB and Jankowicz’ appointment was based on “misinformation.” What does that say about the credibility of our mainstream media, which apparently couldn’t be bothered to file a FOIA demand to get these documents themselves? They aren’t interested in reporting; they’re interested in pushing their own critics out of the public square. And they’re partnering with Big Brother to accomplish it.

[AHZ]

So far some things are being uncovered thanks to FOIA requests by consumer groups-not MSM-which is dangerous in and of itself. Without transparency 'we the people' cannot be informed. There is evidence as explained in article of government redactions to cover themselves. So far they've not totally succeeded.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/09/22/new-foia-docs-dhs-claimed-authority-to-regulate-public-discussions-of-covid-racial-justice-ukraine-and-irregular-immigration-n579799


next they'll be claiming populism and morality as topics they can intervene on. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

So far some things are being uncovered thanks to FOIA requests by consumer groups-not MSM-which is dangerous in and of itself. Without transparency 'we the people' cannot be informed. There is evidence as explained in article of government redactions to cover themselves. So far they've not totally succeeded.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/09/22/new-foia-docs-dhs-claimed-authority-to-regulate-public-discussions-of-covid-racial-justice-ukraine-and-irregular-immigration-n579799

IMO, this started with Clinton more than anyone else. Or one could say LBJ. Obama ramped it up. Biden and his mafia have made very little pretense about their fascist antics. As with everything Dem, they overload their unconstitutional crap and by the time it gets to court, if it ever does, it's already accepted as fact and too late.

One person alone can't fix this. It would take a sweep of the WH and Congress that in turn focused unwaveringly on undoing it to even make a dent.

[revelarts]

IMO, this started with Clinton more than anyone else. Or one could say LBJ. Obama ramped it up. Biden and his mafia have made very little pretense about their fascist antics. As with everything Dem, they overload their unconstitutional crap and by the time it gets to court, if it ever does, it's already accepted as fact and too late.

One person alone can't fix this. It would take a sweep of the WH and Congress that in turn focused unwaveringly on undoing it to even make a dent.

we can't be honest and pretend that GWBush and crew didn't ramp this up with the patriot act, the "war on terror" & "Free Speech Zones".
The right's never taken the 1st amendment as seriously as it takes the 2nd.
But the left used to love the 1st amendment... as long as it didn't apply to religion... just p0rn and the like, but since Obama & Trump the left has lost it freaking mind and can't even understand what freedom of speech is.


But it would make it easier to clean up if we don't pretend that it's all someone else's fault. No one's hands are clean here.

[Black Diamond]

Did the Bush administration imagine it would go this far?

[SassyLady]

Did the Bush administration imagine it would go this far?
I would say yes they did.

[revelarts]

Did the Bush administration imagine it would go this far?
Critics loudly warned that once you open that door there's no real line.
the writers of constitution made the line hard for a reason.

But most folks seemed to think "they'd never do that" or "they'll only use it against the 'bad guys'".
As if tradition or common sense would stop politicians and LEOs from going too far.
For whatever reason it's hard for people to really understand the fact that once you tell politicians, police or the military they have the legal authority to ignore one group's/person's rights to free speech, privacy, property, trials, no searches, no torture, etc.. that the precedent is SET.
The only thing that needs to change is the name of the so-called "threat".

Could be right wing 'insurrectionist' at the capitol, or protesters at a school board meeting or people at prayer at a mosque or church or people without a vaccine ID.
Anyone threatening the peace or Law Breakers or "a SUSPECT" of any kind are subject too whatever is "legal".
"for our safety" or "for democracy" notice it's never for "freedom" .
(except when we're bombing people overseas of course)
And Many people think constitutional freedom is TOO MUCH FREEDOM. It's not safe.
Can't just walk around possibly getting grandma sick, Or owning a guns, Or using a gas stove, Or talking about things that the gov't or "science" doesn't agree with etc.





(But frankly I think Chenney knew exactly what he was doing. He said, in so many ways, that he wanted the president to basically have unlimited powers)

[icansayit]

https://icansayit.com/icsi/bigbrother.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

IMO, this started with Clinton more than anyone else. Or one could say LBJ. Obama ramped it up. Biden and his mafia have made very little pretense about their fascist antics. As with everything Dem, they overload their unconstitutional crap and by the time it gets to court, if it ever does, it's already accepted as fact and too late.

One person alone can't fix this. It would take a sweep of the WH and Congress that in turn focused unwaveringly on undoing it to even make a dent.

That is why they play games and laugh at we American citizens. The have been inching in this tyrannical shat for at least 6 decades now. They the ffin treasonous lib/Dem party.. ffing scoundrels the entire lot of them. --Tyr
.

[icansayit]

That is why they play games and laugh at we American citizens. The have been inching in this tyrannical shat for at least 6 decades now. They the ffin treasonous lib/Dem party.. ffing scoundrels the entire lot of them. --Tyr
.


While Bubba Clinton played president with Monica. President Hillary was WHITE WATERING
as Bubba sold the Chinese Our Missile tech, and gave away military secrets...Because they were

THE CLINTON FRIENDS.

[Gunny]

Did the Bush administration imagine it would go this far?IMO, probably not. On a good day, how easy is it to predict unintended consequences? What have we listened to for the past 50 years when warning of even the possibility of such? There's no slippery slope. That's just your right wing extremist, paranoid conspiracy theories again. Go back to hugging your guns and Bibles. It is only what it is as presented. The willing accomplice MSM ensures that is the public narrative and we have what we have.

Thing is, can't prove them wrong until after the fact, then it's too late and all they say is whoops and move on like it never happened. Doesn't get near the coverage for the colossal. bureaucratic waste and f- up as it got when being pushed.

The People are complicit. The usual cast of vocal crybabies that screeches for Big Brother to save them from whatever comes into play. I for one recall how unwaveringly uncompromising the leftwingnuts, Dems and MSM were right up GWB's ass to do something so they could feel safe enough to come out of their basements.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. People need to think before asking government to help because the price of government help is paid in freedoms.

[revelarts]

IMO, probably not. On a good day, how easy is it to predict unintended consequences? What have we listened to for the past 50 years when warning of even the possibility of such? There's no slippery slope. That's just your right wing extremist, paranoid conspiracy theories again. Go back to hugging your guns and Bibles. It is only what it is as presented. The willing accomplice MSM ensures that is the public narrative and we have what we have.

Thing is, can't prove them wrong until after the fact, then it's too late and all they say is whoops and move on like it never happened. Doesn't get near the coverage for the colossal. bureaucratic waste and f- up as it got when being pushed.

The People are complicit. The usual cast of vocal crybabies that screeches for Big Brother to save them from whatever comes into play. I for one recall how unwaveringly uncompromising the leftwingnuts, Dems and MSM were right up GWB's ass to do something so they could feel safe enough to come out of their basements.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. People need to think before asking government to help because the price of government help is paid in freedoms.
really?
People keep pointing to left on this crap.
If we took a poll here today how many on this board would repeal all of the "war on terror" powers the gov't has?
Starting with the patriot act? DHS, TSA etc?

Not sure how you can be so wrong Gunny. Or what news you were looking at the time.

Personally I was yelling at the TV screen in anger as mostly Republicans and FOX news talking heads were cheering for the Patriot Act and all kinds of Orwellian actions. I remember the establishment liberals basically falling in line not wanting to be left off the band wagon. And the few others liberals who didn't join in, were shouted down by Republicans Shouting "SOFT ON TERRORIST!!""Do YOU want another 911!!!?".

But mainly all the critics were labeled "unrealistic" or KOOKS or told things like "I love the Constitution BUT, the Constitution is not a suicide pack!".
In Congress Ron Paul on the Right & Dennis Kucinich on the left were 2 of the main people that were against things like the
patriot act, domestic spying, spying on places of worship, free speech limitations, watch list, taping all Americans phones, reading all Americans emails, "indefinite detention", torture, renditions, targeted killings of citizens.
Gunny, it wasn't a slippery slope. It was over the cliff FROM THE GIT-GO. It was CLEARLY unconstitutional. And based on overhyped fears.
Bush's lawyers wouldn't even say that crushing a child's testicles was legally out of bounds to get info from a terror "suspect".

And There was never anything in the words "terrorism" or "terrorists" that defined the limits of it meaning or that anyone was excluded.
Many civil liberties group on the left and the libertarian right pointed out the problems with the new laws & edicts from their inception. And then for years pointed out how they were being used on citizens from the start. With some of the lightest offenses being things like "terror watch list" being BLOATED with grandmas, veterans & the handicapped.
They detailed in lawsuits and articles the misuse of the new legal tools in various ways against citizens. But they rarely got coverage and when they did it was... like today with vaccine deaths... not covered by "sources" that people who didn't want to hear it anyway would accept.
And many just saw it as a bit of "unintended" overreach... but ultimately do not care and assume the loss of freedoms and the Bloated unconstitutional gov't power are the price of "keeping us safe".

some like yourself even question if any freedoms were lost.

[Kathianne]

I understand why people wanted the post-9/11 laws and other means of dealing with terror. As both Rev and Gunny said/implied, over time it became obvious that much was 'over the cliff' reactionary means.

Here's the real issue, imo. Mistakes, well meant or not are going to happen. WE do not have to let them stand. It's time that the American citizens stop just complaining and get more PTA like actions going-if the FBI wants to write down license plates-do the same and take pics/record them. Be ready to get arrested and go to court. Fight to overturn and regain our freedoms.

I seriously believe that since the 1900s most laws pertaining to government law enforcement and tax collections/redistributions need to be rescinded. Do away with SSI, Medicaid/Medicare. Not all at once, but over as short of timeline possible.

Government at it's best is the one with least impact on citizens lives. It should have the most impact on enemies-foreign and domestic. Protecting our borders.

[Gunny]

really?
People keep pointing to left on this crap.
If we took a poll here today how many on this board would repeal all of the "war on terror" powers the gov't has?
Starting with the patriot act? DHS, TSA etc?

Not sure how you can be so wrong Gunny. Or what news you were looking at the time.

Personally I was yelling at the TV screen in anger as mostly Republicans and FOX news talking heads were cheering for the Patriot Act and all kinds of Orwellian actions. I remember the establishment liberals basically falling in line not wanting to be left off the band wagon. And the few others liberals who didn't join in, were shouted down by Republicans Shouting "SOFT ON TERRORIST!!""Do YOU want another 911!!!?".

But mainly all the critics were labeled "unrealistic" or KOOKS or told things like "I love the Constitution BUT, the Constitution is not a suicide pack!".
In Congress Ron Paul on the Right & Dennis Kucinich on the left were 2 of the main people that were against things like the
patriot act, domestic spying, spying on places of worship, free speech limitations, watch list, taping all Americans phones, reading all Americans emails, "indefinite detention", torture, renditions, targeted killings of citizens.
Gunny, it wasn't a slippery slope. It was over the cliff FROM THE GIT-GO. It was CLEARLY unconstitutional. And based on overhyped fears.
And there was never anything in the words "terrorism" or terrorists that defined the limits of it meaning or that anyone was excluded.
Many civil liberties group on the left and the libertarian right pointed out the problems with the new laws & edicts from their inception. And then for years pointed out how they were being used on citizens from the start. With some of the lightest offenses being things like "terror watch list" being BLOATED with grandmas, veterans & the handicapped.
They detailed in lawsuits and articles the misuse of the new legal tools in various ways against citizens. But they rarely got coverage and when they did it was... like today with vaccine deaths... not covered by "sources" that people who didn't want to hear it anyway would accept.Context is key. I pointed to events immediately following the attacks.

You are pointing to events that occurred following the Patriot Act being implemented. All the Monday morning quarterbacks came out with their buyer's remorse. The very same people crying for Big Brother to protect them wailed and gnashed teeth over the cure. Lose/lose for GWB.


Not everyone's a paranoid conspiracy theorist, Rev. Not everyone believes the government can do no right. It is people like you in fact that think the Constitution is a suicide pact. You demand all it offers but cry about doing anything to protect it. Just like now, you're arguing with me on something we agree about for the simple reason that I disagree with it for different reasons than you.

[revelarts]

I understand why people wanted the post-9/11 laws and other means of dealing with terror. As both Rev and Gunny said/implied, over time it became obvious that much was 'over the cliff' reactionary means.

I understand why people wanted the post-9/11 laws and other means of dealing with terror.
What i never understood was people wanting to do it UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.
James Madison
it's not just a "nice quote". Is the constitution the law of the land or just until we get afraid?
Many Civil libertarians and Strict Constitutionalist saw it from the very beginning Kath. That's just the facts.
But like with the vaccines, FEARS + gov't hype seems to really make the herd run away from the values they claim to have.
And even turn on neighbors with the power of the state & Big Biz.

But simply put there's NO TIME when we should ever drop our constitutional rights.
Theres no such thing as months or years of a 'state of emergency'.
2 weeks tops... maybe.





Here's the real issue, imo. Mistakes, well meant or not are going to happen. WE do not have to let them stand. It's time that the American citizens stop just complaining and get more PTA like actions going-if the FBI wants to write down license plates-do the same and take pics/record them. Be ready to get arrested and go to court. Fight to overturn and regain our freedoms.

I seriously believe that since the 1900s most laws pertaining to government law enforcement and tax collections/redistributions need to be rescinded. Do away with SSI, Medicaid/Medicare. Not all at once, but over as short of timeline possible.

Government at it's best is the one with least impact on citizens lives. It should have the most impact on enemies-foreign and domestic. Protecting our borders.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

I understand why people wanted the post-9/11 laws and other means of dealing with terror.
What i never understood was people wanting to do it UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.
James Madison
it's not just a "nice quote". Is the constitution the law of the land or just until we get afraid?
Many Civil libertarians and Strict Constitutionalist saw it from the very beginning Kath. That's just the facts.
But like with the vaccines, FEARS + gov't hype seems to really make the heard run away from the values they claim they have.
And even turn on neighbors with the power of the state & Big Biz.

But simply put there's NO TIME when we should ever drop our constitutional rights.
Theres no such thing as months or years of a 'state of emergency'.
2 weeks tops... maybe.





:clap::clap::clap:


Both of us at heart are quite similar, though we so often disagree on particulars. I always enjoy sparing with you, though I do like when we agree more. ;)

[revelarts]

Context is key. I pointed to events immediately following the attacks.

You are pointing to events that occurred following the Patriot Act being implemented. All the Monday morning quarterbacks came out with their buyer's remorse.

Many civil libertarians and others like myself were yelling at the TV shortly after 911 about this Crap Gunny... and BEFORE the Patriot Act .
As I said I don't know what you were watching, but My stomach SANK days after 911 when some people attacked random Muslims willy nilly and I heard people talk about "what needed to be done".
I never saw a reason to go beyond the constitution to "fight terror" and it was CLEAR where BUSH and others were doing it.
Some people were resigning over Bush's actions!

You're making up crap about Monday morning or
Maybe you just didn't hear about it until Monday morning but it was happening from day 1.

Look, I was stilled pissed about the unconstitutional acts at WACO under Clinton!
I'd voted for Bush because he was the closet thing to a constitutionalist.



The very same people crying for Big Brother to protect them wailed and gnashed teeth over the cure. Lose/lose for GWB.

Did he swear an oath to win the affection of the people or follow the constitution gunny?



Not everyone's a paranoid conspiracy theorist, Rev. Not everyone believes the government can do no right. It is people like you in fact that think the Constitution is a suicide pact. You demand all it offers but cry about doing anything to protect it. Just like now, you're arguing with me on something we agree about for the simple reason that I disagree with it for different reasons than you.
When the gov't obeys the constitution it's doing right.
When it doesn't it's doing wrong.
Do we agree?

[Kathianne]

Many civil libertarians and others like myself were yelling at the TV shortly after 911 about this Crap Gunny... and BEFORE the Patriot Act .
As I said I don't know what you were watching, but My stomach SANK days after 911 when some people attacked random Muslims willy nilly and I heard people talk about "what needed to be done".
I never saw a reason to go beyond the constitution to "fight terror" and it was CLEAR where BUSH and others were doing it.
Some people were resigning over it!

You're making up crap about Monday morning or
Maybe you just didn't hear about it until Monday morning but it was happening from day 1.

Look, I was stilled pissed about the unconstitutional acts at WACO under Clinton!


Did he swear an oath to win the affection of the people or follow the constitution gunny?


When the gov't obeys the constitution it's doing right.
When it doesn't it's doing wrong.
Do we agree?


Here's where we run into our conflicts. I too remember that early on there were many Muslim citizens, both in US-like Dearborn and abroad-like Palestinians and Iranians and Pakistanis that were celebrating the fall of the towers. Those images disappeared from tv coverage and all subsequent video much more quickly than the crazy Americans that were blaming all Muslims. In fact, our president within days started reprimanding anyone voicing such against the 'religion of peace.'

[revelarts]

Both of us at heart are quite similar, though we so often disagree on particulars. I always enjoy sparing with you, though I do like when we agree more. ;)
:cool:
Well it's pretty it's easy to agree with me.
If someone agrees that we should treat everyone fairly and the constitution trumps on all occasions, then we probably agree.
;)

[revelarts]

Here's where we run into our conflicts. I too remember that early on there were many Muslim citizens, both in US-like Dearborn and abroad-like Palestinians and Iranians and Pakistanis that were celebrating the fall of the towers. Those images disappeared from tv coverage and all subsequent video much more quickly than the crazy Americans that were blaming all Muslims. In fact, our president within days started reprimanding anyone voicing such against the 'religion of peace.'

No conflict. I saw those too. And Bush did EXACTLY RIGHT on that occasion (except for calling islam a religion of peace).
And he did it many times after that. That was a proper tone to set.

But the things he did LEGALLY were the problem Kath.

[Kathianne]

No conflict. I saw those too. And Bush did EXACTLY RIGHT on that occasion (except for calling islam a religion of peace).
And he did it many times after that. That was a proper tone to set.

But the things he did LEGALLY were the problem Kath.

I too think those things not done legally should be reversed, we do agree. Where we differ I suppose is that I understand expediency in a situation like 9/11. I even understand, while condemning anything like the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Note, we did not repeat that after 9/11, though some were calling for such.

Presidents are human, they make mistakes. My point is and always has been to correct ASAP and not repeat.

[Gunny]

Many civil libertarians and others like myself were yelling at the TV shortly after 911 about this Crap Gunny... and BEFORE the Patriot Act .
As I said I don't know what you were watching, but My stomach SANK days after 911 when some people attacked random Muslims willy nilly and I heard people talk about "what needed to be done".
I never saw a reason to go beyond the constitution to "fight terror" and it was CLEAR where BUSH and others were doing it.
Some people were resigning over Bush's actions!

You're making up crap about Monday morning or
Maybe you just didn't hear about it until Monday morning but it was happening from day 1.

Look, I was stilled pissed about the unconstitutional acts at WACO under Clinton!
I'd voted for Bush because he was the closet thing to a constitutionalist.


Did he swear an oath to win the affection of the people or follow the constitution gunny?


When the gov't obeys the constitution it's doing right.
When it doesn't it's doing wrong.
Do we agree?I'm not a "civil libertarian" looking for excuses to be offended. Be that as it may, not sure what you aren't reading, I was never "for" the Patriot Act. The name itself is stupid. "Appeasing Paranoid Chickenshits Act" sounds better and more appropriate to me.

I am never "for" government expanding the federal army (its way around posse comitatus) in any way. What I DID agree with was all these federal, alphabet alleged-intelligence agencies getting on the same sheet of music.

Other side of the coin: Had they been on the same sheet of music and identified the terrorists beforehand and arrested and charged them, what would "civil liberties" groups reactions have been? The heavy-handed Federal government overreacted and violated these people's rights:rolleyes: Lose/lose.

No one, even you civil liberties alarmists in your wildest dreams could foresee the extent of abuse the Patriot Act has brought down on us. Why do we need DHS AND ICE? What good is either with Mayorkas doing the double-talking? And how the Hell do we get from 9/11 to that idiot in the WH trying to use part of the Patriot Act to absolve students of the debt they incurred borrowing money for school?

We can agree that there is no part of this that has turned out right. I'm just not absolving the crybabies for their part in the play.

When shit hits the fan (regardless what it is), the people click all eyeballs onto the leader to fix it. You seem to think all people are as obsessed with their civil liberties as you are. Open your eyes and look around. Whatever your stance, or mine, there are those willing to give up their freedom and mine/yours for protection/safety. SInce they're pissing their diapers and crying like babies, their wants are the ones tended to.

[Gunny]

I too think those things not done legally should be reversed, we do agree. Where we differ I suppose is that I understand expediency in a situation like 9/11. I even understand, while condemning anything like the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Note, we did not repeat that after 9/11, though some were calling for such.

Presidents are human, they make mistakes. My point is and always has been to correct ASAP and not repeat.

Wow. Did you ever dust the cobwebs off an antiquated notion:laugh:

I've never been a blame first person. Fix the damned problem. It of course depends on what the problem is whether or not there is accountability required. I've gotten into serious arguments with people at times who were focused solely on getting a piece of ass on a platter to show the boss that they completely forgot there was still an error to correct and a job to be done. People who don't learn by making mistakes are so afraid of making them they paralyze themselves.

[revelarts]

I too think those things not done legally should be reversed, we do agree. Where we differ I suppose is that I understand expediency in a situation like 9/11. I even understand, while condemning anything like the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Note, we did not repeat that after 9/11, though some were calling for such.

Presidents are human, they make mistakes. My point is and always has been to correct ASAP and not repeat.
I get it.
But my point is those 'mistakes' would not have been made if the Constitution had simply been followed.

[Kathianne]

I get it.
But my point is those 'mistakes' would not have been made if the Constitution had simply been followed.

True, that is where suicide pact admonishment comes in.

[revelarts]

True, that is where suicide pact admonishment comes in.
Would it have been suicide Kath?
really?
Is it your view that there's was no way to protect ourselves from 'terror' 'the japs' a 'virus' EXCEPT by unconstitutional means?

[Kathianne]

Would it have been suicide Kath?
really?
Is it your view that there's was no way to protect ourselves from 'terror' 'the japs' a 'virus' EXCEPT by unconstitutional means?

Again, I understand the expediency in times of crisis-which as you pointed out has led to many more issues down the road. It's hard for anyone, president, scientist, citizen to see the correct path in crisis-be it Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Covid, etc.

The real challenge is to recognize mistakes and return to the right path.

[Gunny]

Would it have been suicide Kath?
really?
Is it your view that there's was no way to protect ourselves from 'terror' 'the japs' a 'virus' EXCEPT by unconstitutional means?What is the first thing that goes out the window once we are attacked? The Constitution. What protects criminals more than law-abiding citizens and allows our enemies to always attack first? The Constitution.

I am a firm believer in the Constitution. It is not perfect and through its flaws do we always get attacked. Our enemies make better use of it than we do.

Is it a suicide pact? When it is being used to destroy it, I say yes. There is no other answer than to address the threat by whatever means necessary to neutralize that threat, even it it means suspending some or all of it as long as it takes to do so.

Other option: One is so inflexible that they cannot understand the above resulting in the Constitution's erosion and eventual destruction and you have no Constitution and no rights. So long as one does not lose sight of what one is fighting for, Constitutional law can be returned. If one doesn't fight for it, there isn't one to worry about.

I think we're past the part of expecting common sense from government who are the ones charged with the Constitution's protection. They wipe their backsides with it daily.

Here's a good for instance for you: I spent 21 years in the Marine Corps, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. At which point during that time do you think I was allowed all the freedoms and rights civilians claim to have? 0. The cause was greater than the individual (me).

[AHZ]

True, that is where suicide pact admonishment comes in.


but who went too far?

who overstepped? was it law enforcement/military personnel or was it "all of us"?

[revelarts]

Again, I understand the expediency in times of crisis-which as you pointed out has led to many more issues down the road. It's hard for anyone, president, scientist, citizen to see the correct path in crisis-be it Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Covid, etc.

The real challenge is to recognize mistakes and return to the right path.
I do not understand the expediency in times of crisis.
I do understand the fear in times of crisis.
I do not understand the expediency in times of crisis. Especially on the part of those in leadership.

Do we want people in every crisis operating out of expediency ...or by best practices?
Firemen, soldiers, police, doctors... leaders, etc?
Do we want them operating out of panic or do we want them calm and as rational as possible.
Emergency in the field?. ok triage yes, but standard operating procedure, absolutely As-Soon-As-Possible.

And It's not much of a challenge to recognize the right path. we have the constitution.
no challenge at all.
People on the right see that clearly with 2nd amendment but somehow get wishy washy in other areas, or in "times of crisis".


getting people to really embrace the right path is the problem.

[Kathianne]

I do not understand the expediency in times of crisis.
I do understand the fear in times of crisis.
I do not understand the expediency in times of crisis. Especially on the part of those in leadership.

I we want people in every crisis operating out of expediency or best practices?
Firemen, soldiers, police, doctors etc?
We don't want them operating out of panic, we want them calm an as rational as possible.
Emergency in the field?. ok triage yes, but standard operating procedure absolutely ASAP.

And It's not much of a challenge to recognize the right path. we have the constitution.
no challenge at all.
People on the right see that clearly with 2nd amendment but somehow get wishy washy in other areas, or in times of "crisis".

getting people to really embrace the right path is the problem.

I'm not going to disagree with you in ideals. We differ in what we see in times of crisis. Now when we have governors declaring states of emergency over criminal behaviors and suspend the rights of the law abiding, I'll march with you. I'll do that too, to protest the special warrants and fallout from special acts via 9/11. What I won't do is condemn actions in immediate aftermath-even those I agree should be undone.

[revelarts]

What is the first thing that goes out the window once we are attacked? The Constitution. What protects criminals more than law-abiding citizens and allows our enemies to always attack first? The Constitution.
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. It is not perfect and through its flaws do we always get attacked. Our enemies make better use of it than we do.
Is it a suicide pact? When it is being used to destroy it, I say yes. There is no other answer than to address the threat by whatever means necessary to neutralize that threat, even it it means suspending some or all of it as long as it takes to do so.
Other option: One is so inflexible that they cannot understand the above resulting in the Constitution's erosion and eventual destruction and you have no Constitution and no rights. So long as one does not lose sight of what one is fighting for, Constitutional law can be returned. If one doesn't fight for it, there isn't one to worry about.
I think we're past the part of expecting common sense from government who are the ones charged with the Constitution's protection. They wipe their backsides with it daily.

Seems like you don't mind wiping your butt with it when you feel there's a threat to neutralize.
Contributing to the erosion. the left uses the same logic. just points to different real or imagined threats than you do.

I say there was NEVER a threat where it had to be suspended.
(except maybe that time around 1860)


...

Here's a good for instance for you: I spent 21 years in the Marine Corps, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. At which point during that time do you think I was allowed all the freedoms and rights civilians claim to have? 0. The cause was greater than the individual (me).

So are you saying that the rules the military & congress set up for military personnel are unconstitutional?
i'm not in disagreement with that assessment.

In fact, is there anything in the constitution about standing armies?

[Black Diamond]

Didn't Lincoln put critical journalists in jail without trial?

[revelarts]

Didn't Lincoln put critical journalists in jail without trial?
Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson... to name 2 i know of.

[Black Diamond]

Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson... to name 2 i know of.

And what about wilson treatment of labor unions ? I feel like I heard about the use of Billy clubs.

[AHZ]

Didn't Lincoln put critical journalists in jail without trial?


wow. cool.

that's really "making the hard decisions" and "doing what everyone asked for".......

[Black Diamond]

wow. cool.

that's really "making the hard decisions" and "doing what everyone asked for".......

It's been defended and attacked. It brings up interesting questions and debate. That's why i asked about it.

[Gunny]

Seems like you don't mind wiping your butt with it when you feel there's a threat to neutralize.
Contributing to the erosion. the left uses the same logic. just points to different real or imagined threats than you do.

I say there was NEVER a threat where it had to be suspended.
(except maybe that time around 1860)



So are you saying that the rules the military & congress set up for military personnel are unconstitutional?
i'm not in disagreement with that assessment.

In fact, is there anything in the constitution about standing armies?I didn't figure we were going to agree and you are wrong. The Constitution cannot and does not defend itself. Words on paper are only as good as the force that backs them.

As far as me wiping my butt with Constitution? That's flat bullshit. Try saying it correctly: I'm willing to do what it takes to preserve it while you will sit in the window waiting on it to protect itself, or a miracle. You seem confused as to who is attacking it. It isn't me.

Always comes down to the same thing: the real world vs utopian, unrealistic idealism.

I did not state the rules set up for military personnel are unconstitutional. They are not. Again, real World vs words on paper. I don't live on a piece of paper and neither do you.

[Gunny]

Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson... to name 2 i know of.FDR was as bad or worse.

[Black Diamond]

FDR was as bad or worse.

Expansion of the court attempt?

[Gunny]

Expansion of the court attempt?He had a government vise on anti-war publicity and used government agencies to ensure the MSM or any said groups knew it was in their best interest to bust out the pom poms or keep the zipper shut. Remember, he had no qualms with locking up Japanese Americans?

Woodrow Wilson was piece of work whose BS still lingers:rolleyes:

[Black Diamond]

He had a government vise on anti-war publicity and used government agencies to ensure the MSM or any said groups knew it was in their best interest to bust out the pom poms or keep the zipper shut. Remember, he had no qualms with locking up Japanese Americans?

Woodrow Wilson was piece of work whose BS still lingers:rolleyes:

Yeah internment camps

[revelarts]

I didn't figure we were going to agree and you are wrong. The Constitution cannot and does not defend itself. Words on paper are only as good as the force that backs them.
As far as me wiping my butt with Constitution? That's flat bullshit. Try saying it correctly: I'm willing to do what it takes to preserve it while you will sit in the window waiting on it to protect itself, or a miracle. You seem confused as to who is attacking it. It isn't me.
Always comes down to the same thing: the real world vs utopian, unrealistic idealism.
I did not state the rules set up for military personnel are unconstitutional. They are not. Again, real World vs words on paper. I don't live on a piece of paper and neither do you.

Then what are we talking about?
might makes right then Gunny.

If that's the case you have nothing to complain about at all.
the military should rule. the constitution is just a piece of paper. GWB said the same.

USMil ...gunnys and above... don't need to recognize utopian words or any words on pieces of paper.
Becasue they are in the real world. They just need the words of COs to neutralize threats to America. whatever they think they are.

Do the uniforms mean they have to fight together? just pieces of cloth btw.
Any oaths (words) you say mean anything in the real world?
Since they are just words. In fact oaths aren't even on a piece of paper.
Words of the law used in court martials mean anything?
Words of an officer mean anything? Aren't they are just words.

Seems they all mean something. If people follow them.
And It's my understanding that when orders are given they are supposed to be followed.
Even if the soldiers don't agree with the words.
So if someone doesn't agree that the words of the Constitution can be followed ...in some cases...
But they swore an oath to OBEY IT,
and swore an oath to protect it.
What do those oaths even mean... in the real world?

If they don't want to obey it what does it make them?

[AHZ]

I didn't figure we were going to agree and you are wrong. The Constitution cannot and does not defend itself. Words on paper are only as good as the force that backs them.

As far as me wiping my butt with Constitution? That's flat bullshit. Try saying it correctly: I'm willing to do what it takes to preserve it while you will sit in the window waiting on it to protect itself, or a miracle. You seem confused as to who is attacking it. It isn't me.

Always comes down to the same thing: the real world vs utopian, unrealistic idealism.

I did not state the rules set up for military personnel are unconstitutional. They are not. Again, real World vs words on paper. I don't live on a piece of paper and neither do you.


https://www.robshep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Handle-the-Truth.jpg

[revelarts]

Kath Gunny

I think Black Diamond posted this @me not long ago.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14388&d=1693519914


Seems that's where we are in this discussion.

[AHZ]

Then what are we talking about?
might makes right then Gunny.

If that's the case you have nothing to complain about at all.
the military should rule. the constitution is just a piece of paper. GWB said the same.

USMil ...gunnys and above... don't need to recognize utopian words or any words on pieces of paper.
Becasue they are in the real world. They just need the words of COs to neutralize threats to America. whatever they think they are.

Do the uniforms mean they have to fight together? just pieces of cloth btw.
Any oaths (words) you say mean anything in the real world?
Since they are just words. In fact oaths aren't even on a piece of paper.
Words of the law used in court martials mean anything?
Words of an officer mean anything? Aren't they are just words.

Seems they all mean something. If people follow them.
And It's my understanding that when orders are given they are supposed to be followed.
Even if the soldiers don't agree with the words.
So if someone doesn't agree that the words of Constitution can be followed ...in some cases...
But they swore an oath to OBEY IT,
and swore an oath to protect it.
What do those oaths even mean... in the real world?

If they don't want to obey it what does it make them?

You're god damned right I did!

https://www.robshep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Handle-the-Truth.jpg

[Gunny]

Then what are we talking about?
might makes right then Gunny.

If that's the case you have nothing to complain about at all.
the military should rule. the constitution is just a piece of paper. GWB said the same.

USMil ...gunnys and above... don't need to recognize utopian words or any words on pieces of paper.
Becasue they are in the real world. They just need the words of COs to neutralize threats to America. whatever they think they are.

Do the uniforms mean they have to fight together? just pieces of cloth btw.
Any oaths (words) you say mean anything in the real world?
Since they are just words. In fact oaths aren't even on a piece of paper.
Words of the law used in court martials mean anything?
Words of an officer mean anything? Aren't they are just words.

Seems they all mean something. If people follow them.
And It's my understanding that when orders are given they are supposed to be followed.
Even if the soldiers don't agree with the words.
So if someone doesn't agree that the words of the Constitution can be followed ...in some cases...
But they swore an oath to OBEY IT,
and swore an oath to protect it.
What do those oaths even mean... in the real world?

If they don't want to obey it what does it make them?Trying to shoot the messenger doesn't change the message a bit. You know what turns the ideal embodied in the Constitution into mere words? People who won't defend those ideals.

Attacking me is pointless. I did not create Man. I did not create society. I did not create the 7 deadly sins. What I did, unlike you, was see the reality that those ideals have to be defended by more than words because all those bad guys with guns don't care what you have to say. They respect force superior to their own.

Don't like it? Wave your magic wand and make it different. Until you can, your ideals and freedom to have them come at the expense of those wiling to die for them. You seem to think they are inherent. Because you exist; therefore, it must be so. It's called forgetting who brung you to the dance.

How again was it this Nation was formed? All that idealism the Founding Fathers put into action came AFTER established the right to do so by defeating Great Britain in a war. They risked being hanged as traitors and the people risked dying in battle and/or atrocities at the hands of the British soldiers. What would those ideals be worth had they not won?

Not a lot of reality to your argument. It's nice to have dreams. Not at the expense of understanding the real world you live in.

[icansayit]

https://icansayit.com/icsi/lawless joe.png

[revelarts]

Trying to shoot the messenger doesn't change the message a bit. You know what turns the ideal embodied in the Constitution into mere words? People who won't defend those ideals.

Attacking me is pointless. I did not create Man. I did not create society. I did not create the 7 deadly sins. What I did, unlike you, was see the reality that those ideals have to be defended by more than words because all those bad guys with guns don't care what you have to say. They respect force superior to their own.

Don't like it? Wave your magic wand and make it different. Until you can, your ideals and freedom to have them come at the expense of those wiling to die for them. You seem to think they are inherent. Because you exist; therefore, it must be so. It's called forgetting who brung you to the dance.

How again was it this Nation was formed? All that idealism the Founding Fathers put into action came AFTER established the right to do so by defeating Great Britain in a war. They risked being hanged as traitors and the people risked dying in battle and/or atrocities at the hands of the British soldiers. What would those ideals be worth had they not won?

Not a lot of reality to your argument. It's nice to have dreams. Not at the expense of understanding the real world you live in.

Here's the thing gunny you seem to think the constitution is JUST Ideals and NOT the LAW.
Not ORDERS to follow.
You think you know better.
And have a better way because somehow the founders who fought the largest empire in the world to create the country didn't understand human nature.
Sorry, but you've got it completely backwards.
the Constitution understands human nature better than nearly all laws that come after.
That's the reason it does NOT give gov't the power to do certain things. Why it leave it in the hands of the States and the People. Because it understands the nature of men with power.
It's the main thing document tries to reign in. And why It DID NOT grant the federal gov't certain powers. even in emergencies.

It seems the real problem is you simply do not TRUST that the constitution can be implemented in "real world" and think you have a better way. A way where you ignore it in certain places and certain times because "Human NATURE".
But somehow when the left says & does just the same thing, ignores parts of the constitution, because of some other negative aspect of human nature that the GOV"T HAS TO deal with. You act like they've done something wrong. They are Eroding the constitution. But you are preserving when you ignore it... in the real world.:rolleyes:

You keep talking about fighting for the the constitution, but don't think it's practical or "real" enough to follow.
So what are you really fighting for? Some bits and pieces of it? Your idea of the "real world" parts?
I don't get it.

But you're not the only one, many people do not really believe the constitution should be followed.
But say they love it. and will fight for it.
OK really? the Constitution? Just a bunch of idealitic words on a piece of paper.
the idea of AMERICA. and of course their families. I think is more what many are thinking of. what they'll fight for.
Or the FLAG, can't have anyone besmirch the FLAG. Folks fight for that i guess. People have died for the FLAG.
it's NOT just a piece of Cloth.

But the constitution? naaaw. It's an idealistic unrealistic piece of paper that can't defend itself and no one should try to live by because it doesn't account for the horror show of human nature and it's often just a suicide pack.

that's what I'm hearing here.
GWB HAD TO spy on every American and do everything in the patriot act, torture, jail without trial, etc.
eventhough it ALL was unconstitutional.... it was the ONLY way to save America. :rolleyes:
"Granting" people trials and privacy and such would not work. Because Human Nature.
You know I hear the PTA meetings really get outta hand, human nature.
Can't let the constitution HANDCUFF the gov't..
"do you want people to die?"

[Gunny]

Here's the thing gunny you seem to think the constitution is JUST Ideals and NOT the LAW.
Not ORDERS to follow.
You think you know better.
And have a better way because somehow the founders who fought the largest empire in the world to create the country didn't understand human nature.
Sorry, but you've got it completely backwards.
the Constitution understands human nature better than nearly all laws that come after.
That's the reason it does NOT give gov't the power to do certain things. Why it leave it in the hands of the States and the People. Because it understands the nature of men with power.
It's the main thing document tries to reign in. And why It DID NOT grant the federal gov't certain powers. even in emergencies.

It seems the real problem is you simply do not TRUST that the constitution can be implemented in "real world" and think you have a better way. A way where you ignore it in certain places and certain times because "Human NATURE".
But somehow when the left says & does just the same thing, ignores parts of the constitution, because of some other negative aspect of human nature that the GOV"T HAS TO deal with. You act like they've done something wrong. They are Eroding the constitution. But you are preserving when you ignore it... in the real world.:rolleyes:

You keep talking about fighting for the the constitution, but don't think it's practical or "real" enough to follow.
So what are you really fighting for? Some bits and pieces of it? Your idea of the "real world" parts?
I don't get it.

But you're not the only one, many people do not really believe the constitution should be followed.
But say they love it. and will fight for it.
OK really? the Constitution? Just a bunch of idealitic words on a piece of paper.
the idea of AMERICA. and of course their families. I think is more what many are thinking of. what they'll fight for.
Or the FLAG, can't have anyone besmirch the FLAG. Folks fight for that i guess. People have died for the FLAG.
it's NOT just a piece of Cloth.

But the constitution? naaaw. It's an idealistic unrealistic piece of paper that can't defend itself and no one should try to live by because it doesn't account for the horror show of human nature and it's often just a suicide pack.

that's what I'm hearing here.
GWB HAD TO spy on every American and do everything in the patriot act, torture, jail without trial, etc.
eventhough it ALL was unconstitutional.... it was the ONLY way to save America. :rolleyes:
"Granting" people trials and privacy and such would not work. Because Human Nature.
You know I hear the PTA meetings really get outta hand, human nature.
Can't let the constitution HANDCUFF the gov't..
"do you want people to die?"You're the one so lost in trying to be right you're not reading a single word. The Constitution is law. And?

I didn't say the Founders didn't understand human nature. I said YOU don't. The rest is you building a story on your incorrect assumptions.

Think what you want. I'll die defending the Constitution if need be while you can try and talk to death the people wiping their feet on it.

[revelarts]

You're the one so lost in trying to be right you're not reading a single word. The Constitution is law. And?

I didn't say the Founders didn't understand human nature. I said YOU don't. The rest is you building a story on your incorrect assumptions.

Think what you want. I'll die defending the Constitution if need be while you can try and talk to death the people wiping their feet on it.

So you're saying that since you say that you are ok with wiping your feet on the constitution... for emergencies... in the real world.
That i should shoot you instead of talk to you?
Seriously?

[Gunny]

So you're saying that since you say that you are ok with wiping your feet on the constitution... for emergencies... in the real world.
That i should shoot you instead of talk to you?
Seriously?Blow things out of proportion much? You're being ridiculous and emotional and not at all discussing a an issue. God is absolute. Government is not. Your very argument is what makes the Constitution a suicide pact. You use the Constitution to allow it to be destroyed.

I'm all for people using common sense and logic and never getting it to the point of it being torn down one piece at a time. Still waiting for your chitty-chatting to work on those doing the destroying. They just say "no we're not" and continue on.

Great ideas, Rev. Wrong point in history.

[revelarts]

Blow things out of proportion much? You're being ridiculous and emotional and not at all discussing a an issue. God is absolute. Government is not. Your very argument is what makes the Constitution a suicide pact. You use the Constitution to allow it to be destroyed.

I'm all for people using common sense and logic and never getting it to the point of it being torn down one piece at a time. Still waiting for your chitty-chatting to work on those doing the destroying. They just say "no we're not" and continue on.

Great ideas, Rev. Wrong point in history.
lol.
You're the one that implied i needed to "fight for it", like you, rather than just talk people to death while they ignore it.

We agree Gov't is not absolute, and is not God, that's why it should not have the power to spy on our phone conservations and toss people in jail without due process etc etc..
If enough people like yourself took fighting for THAT as seriously as whatever you say you'll fight for then it would not have happened or would have been repealed by now.

but at this point people are still looking for "viable" candidates, not demanding candidates that will fight for constitutional law and limited gov't.

but hey, that's human nature too. go along to get along.

[Gunny]

lol.
You're the one that implied i needed to "fight for it", like you, rather than just talk people to death while they ignore it.

We agree Gov't is not absolute, and is not God, that's why it should not have the power to spy on our phone conservations and toss people in jail without due process etc etc..
If enough people like yourself took fighting for THAT as seriously as whatever you say you'll fight for then it would not have happened or would have been repealed by now.

but at this point people are still looking for "viable" candidates, not demanding candidates that will fight for constitutional law and limited gov't.

but hey, that's human nature too. go along to get along.Re-circling the wagons?

We've been through this. What we agree on is the US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. THE inherent weakness to the Constitution is it has to be protected by government. When government is the biggest abuser, yet can declare itself Constitutional, there's an obvious problem.

You need to read more of what is in my posts. I have steadfastly, since the dawn of whenever been for small government and government at the lowest level. I will vote for candidates who are for that so long as they aren't whacky about something else. When exactly was the last time we have heard this idea even mentioned by a political candidate? Kind of hard to vote for something not there.

I have railed about the choices voters make and the consequences they bring at each and every turn. Much to the chagrin and angst of the board "everybody's a victim" poster. Not sure how you can have missed THAT:rolleyes: What those morons in DC do might not be the peoples' fault, but putting them there to do it damned sure is.

I vote every election. Not sure how much more serious you think your voting is than mine, but both equal the same number in the end. Your dancing in and out between reality and idealism doesn't do anything but present a flawed picture.

Like I said, we agree on the law, but we don't agree that voting is going to pull us out of where we are and cure all ills. That doesn't mean I don't vote. It just means I', waiting for the next hammer to fall instead of placing all my hopes in a broken, corrupt system.

[revelarts]

Re-circling the wagons?

We've been through this. What we agree on is the US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. THE inherent weakness to the Constitution is it has to be protected by government. When government is the biggest abuser, yet can declare itself Constitutional, there's an obvious problem.

You need to read more of what is in my posts. I have steadfastly, since the dawn of whenever been for small government and government at the lowest level. I will vote for candidates who are for that so long as they aren't whacky about something else. When exactly was the last time we have heard this idea even mentioned by a political candidate? Kind of hard to vote for something not there.

I have railed about the choices voters make and the consequences they bring at each and every turn. Much to the chagrin and angst of the board "everybody's a victim" poster. Not sure how you can have missed THAT:rolleyes: What those morons in DC do might not be the peoples' fault, but putting them there to do it damned sure is.

I vote every election. Not sure how much more serious you think your voting is than mine, but both equal the same number in the end. Your dancing in and out between reality and idealism doesn't do anything but present a flawed picture.

Like I said, we agree on the law, but we don't agree that voting is going to pull us out of where we are and cure all ills. That doesn't mean I don't vote. It just means I', waiting for the next hammer to fall instead of placing all my hopes in a broken, corrupt system.

"... government is the biggest abuser.... morons in DC... I'm waiting for the next hammer to fall instead of placing all my hopes in a broken, corrupt system."

what?!
Hmm, sounds like you're just paranoid and "hate everything about the gov't" Gunny.
Looks like we do have a lot in common so, why when i point out things the gov't has done wrong, you're johnny on the spot to defend it and condemn ME.
As if I've done wrong by pointing out the clear flaws of the broken & corrupt system... too much. do you think it's LESS flawed than i do? and want to defend the "good parts" or working parts?
What's up with that man?

You just making conversation? it is kinda fun though right?
"As Rome burns" as they say.

[Gunny]

"... government is the biggest abuser.... morons in DC... I'm waiting for the next hammer to fall instead of placing all my hopes in a broken, corrupt system."

what?!
Hmm, sounds like you're just paranoid and "hate everything about the gov't" Gunny.
Looks like we do have a lot in common so, why when i point out things the gov't has done wrong, you're johnny on the spot to defend it and condemn ME.
As if I've done wrong by pointing out the clear flaws of the broken & corrupt system... too much. do you think it's LESS flawed than i do? and want to defend the "good parts" or working parts?
What's up with that man?

You just making conversation? it is kinda fun though right?
"As Rome burns" as they say.

I've been saying the same thing for years, long before you came along. I defend against your broad brush.

If you look at a lot of what I have posted over the last few months, what is the general theme(s)? Social science. The people. Government. Where we are as a nation. Where we are heading. Possible ways to change what is and affect what will be.

You want to read between the lines :slap: