Europe’s plot to regulate political speech in America

[Gunny]

Europe's plot to regulate political speech in America (thehill.com) (https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4831049-eu-threat-free-speech-america/)

[revelarts]

Europe's plot to regulate political speech in America (thehill.com) (https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4831049-eu-threat-free-speech-america/)

Sounds like global laws or something.
something an egghead my come up with.

[SassyLady]

Sounds like global laws or something.
something an egghead my come up with.
No such thing ... it's all a conspiracy theory Rev.

[Gunny]

Sounds like global laws or something.
something an egghead my come up with.


No such thing ... it's all a conspiracy theory Rev.Y'all are comedians now?:rolleyes: This article does not justify pedaling junk. It points to actual people doing real things that are on record.

[revelarts]

No such thing ... it's all a conspiracy theory Rev.
I know. I know.
no one is trying to make any global laws or global pandemic rules or world wide trade rules, or orders for a new world.
That's crazy talk.

It's just a few Euro trash in this one tiny area of free speech getting a bit out of hand.
I'm sure, The democratic systems we have in place will reign them in.
There are no real "plans" or decades of work towards this type of thing.

[Gunny]

I know. I know.
no one is trying to make any global laws or global pandemic rules or world wide trade rules, or orders for a new world.
That's crazy talk.

It's just a few Euro trash in this one tiny area of free speech getting a bit out of hand.
I'm sure, The democratic systems we have in place will reign them in.
There are no real "plans" or decades of work towards this type of thing.You're not adding to the conversation. As far as any of that stuff you just posted, I recall stating on more than one occasion those people have only as much power as they are given. In this case, all the US has to say is :fu:

If however the US government plays along, we're screwed.

It's all been said before by more than just me. You're just too busy going with your way or the highway on whatever trajectory you're off on at the moment to read and HEAR what anyone else is saying.

[Black Diamond]

You're not adding to the conversation. As far as any of that stuff you just posted, I recall stating on more than one occasion those people have only as much power as they are given. In this case, all the US has to say is :fu:

If however the US government plays along, we're screwed.

It's all been said before by more than just me. You're just too busy going with your way or the highway on whatever trajectory you're off on at the moment to read and HEAR what anyone else is saying.

I think the govt will eventually go along with it. It'll be too profitable not to.

[revelarts]

You're not adding to the conversation. As far as any of that stuff you just posted, I recall stating on more than one occasion those people have only as much power as they are given. In this case, all the US has to say is :fu:

If however the US government plays along, we're screwed.

It's all been said before by more than just me. You're just too busy going with your way or the highway on whatever trajectory you're off on at the moment to read and HEAR what anyone else is saying.

All I'm saying is this kinda crap has been in the works for decades.
And people have been saying it's crazy and 'NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT'... it can never happen here.

Yes this is the latest iteration.
and yes the U.S. can say Go to H3ll,
And If people understood the danger clearly rather than thinking it's a One Off and it just being a small story in "the HILL" Maybe there'd be some poltical traction against it.
rather than what's likely to happen is that it will slip in via bits & pieces and unresisted political inertia.
So we'll be under international law by default.
While folks are upset with "conspiracy theorist" for having our hair on fire & making too much of it.

[Gunny]

I think the govt will eventually go along with it. It'll be too profitable not to.There are enough people in this country that wish to silence others that we've been heading that way without Europe.

However, the US Federal government has a LOT to lose by signing on to such BS.

[Black Diamond]

There are enough people in this country that wish to silence others that we've been heading that way without Europe.

However, the US Federal government has a LOT to lose by signing on to such BS.

I can envision some horseshit treaty in which "we" all agree to outlaw "hate speech". Now the scotus at this point wouldn't allow it but dems can change who's on the court and even try what Biden did earlier this year (or what FDR tried for that matter). Or scotus justices will just get old.

[Gunny]

I can envision some horseshit treaty in which "we" all agree to outlaw "hate speech". Now the scotus at this point wouldn't allow it but dems can change who's on the court and even try what Biden did earlier this year (or what FDR tried for that matter). Or scotus justices will just get old.

It is possible. Never said otherwise. In question appears to be the idea that European countries/EU trying to prosecute Americans for what they say mostly on the internet. The Dems here would like to get away with that as well. They already prosecute selectively who they want for what is said on the internet.

How does that leftwingtard argument go? Just turn it off if you're offended.

As far as some EU shitheads not liking what I have to say?

:) I'm right here.

[Black Diamond]

It is possible. Never said otherwise. In question appears to be the idea that European countries/EU trying to prosecute Americans for what they say mostly on the internet. The Dems here would like to get away with that as well. They already prosecute selectively who they want for what is said on the internet.

How does that leftwingtard argument go? Just turn it off if you're offended.

As far as some EU shitheads not liking what I have to say?

:) I'm right here.

Okay. The question then becomes (or whose) law does the internet fall under?

[fj1200]

I think the govt will eventually go along with it. It'll be too profitable not to.


All I'm saying is this kinda crap has been in the works for decades.
And people have been saying it's crazy and 'NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT'... it can never happen here.

Yes this is the latest iteration.
and yes the U.S. can say Go to H3ll,
And If people understood the danger clearly rather than thinking it's a One Off and it just being a small story in "the HILL" Maybe there'd be some poltical traction against it.
rather than what's likely to happen is that it will slip in via bits & pieces and unresisted political inertia.
So we'll be under international law by default.
While folks are upset with "conspiracy theorist" for having our hair on fire & making too much of it.

No chance.

[Gunny]

Okay. The question then becomes (or whose) law does the internet fall under?As far I am aware, internet in the US is policed by the US, right, wrong or otherwise. That would be the whole point here.

Does the US tell Europe to pound sand? Or sign on to some universal law? Being that current regulation is arbitrary and selective to begin with. Ours and theirs. Third option which I consider worse is the US ignores all this big talk from across the Pond. Silence is usually considered consent in the civilian World.

[Black Diamond]

No chance.


As far I am aware, internet in the US is policed by the US, right, wrong or otherwise. That would be the whole point here.

Does the US tell Europe to pound sand? Or sign on to some universal law? Being that current regulation is arbitrary and selective to begin with. Ours and theirs. Third option which I consider worse is the US ignores all this big talk from across the Pond. Silence is usually considered consent in the civilian World.

Today or this year we will say pound sand. In 10 years?

[fj1200]

Today or this year we will say pound sand. In 10 years?

Ever.

[Black Diamond]

Ever.

Only way i agree with that is if we a nuclear war before it can happen . Which is becoming more and more likely so maybe you're right.

[SassyLady]

All I'm saying is this kinda crap has been in the works for decades.
And people have been saying it's crazy and 'NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT'... it can never happen here.

Yes this is the latest iteration.
and yes the U.S. can say Go to H3ll,
And If people understood the danger clearly rather than thinking it's a One Off and it just being a small story in "the HILL" Maybe there'd be some poltical traction against it.
rather than what's likely to happen is that it will slip in via bits & pieces and unresisted political inertia.
So we'll be under international law by default.
While folks are upset with "conspiracy theorist" for having our hair on fire & making too much of it.

Started way back with Bush Sr. signing Agenda 2021 in Brazil in 1982. Today it is called Agenda 2030.

[fj1200]

Started way back with Bush Sr. signing Agenda 2021 in Brazil in 1982. Today it is called Agenda 2030.

Please tie Agenda 21 to the Digital Services Act.

[fj1200]

Only way i agree with that is if we a nuclear war before it can happen . Which is becoming more and more likely so maybe you're right.

The US isn't going to enforce EU law.

[SassyLady]

Please tie Agenda 21 to the Digital Services Act.

Google is your friend.

[fj1200]

Google is your friend.

I was skeptical that you could do it. With good reason it seems.

[Kathianne]

I was skeptical that you could do it. With good reason it seems.

I'm not up to the minute on UN actions, I find the organization of little, if any use. I just did a quick perusal of the two, 30 'builds' on 21, the whole thing being non-bindable even on those that went along with it.

No thanks. More nothing.

[revelarts]

Started way back with Bush Sr. signing Agenda 2021 in Brazil in 1982. Today it is called Agenda 2030.

Please tie Agenda 21 to the Digital Services Act.

I was skeptical that you could do it. With good reason it seems.

the point is that Agenda 21 and the Digital Services Act are Both forms of international law/agreements set above U.S. laws.
Part of the long ongoing plans for a world federal government where our national law is merged with, aligned with or subsumed by international law.

They are using anything constitutional, unconstitutional, private, public, public private partnerships, emergency actions, whatever it takes to get it done.
They don't really care about legalities for them, laws & procedures just apply to those who are against it.
Front door, back door, side door, windows, by anything that sticks to the wall.
The tactics & programs used are multiple but the goal is the same, Personal, Local, State & national sovereignty suppressed & international law applied.
International law defined & run by rich unelected scumbags who think they know better.

[Black Diamond]

The US isn't going to enforce EU law.

I agree.

[fj1200]

I'm not up to the minute on UN actions, I find the organization of little, if any use. I just did a quick perusal of the two, 30 'builds' on 21, the whole thing being non-bindable even on those that went along with it.

No thanks. More nothing.

Yup.


the point is that Agenda 21 and the Digital Services Act are Both forms of international law/agreements set above U.S. laws.
Part of the long ongoing plans for a world federal government where our national law is merged with, aligned with or subsumed by international law.

They are using anything constitutional, unconstitutional, private, public, public private partnerships, emergency actions, whatever it takes to get it done.
They don't really care about legalities for them, laws & procedures just apply to those who are against it.
Front door, back door, side door, windows, by anything that sticks to the wall.
The tactics & programs used are multiple but the goal is the same, Personal, Local, State & national sovereignty suppressed & international law applied.
International law defined & run by rich unelected scumbags who think they know better.

No they're not.


I agree.

A voice of sanity? :eek:

;)

[Gunny]

I agree.I agree with your previous comment: not now. Who knows what's down the road.

One ting not mentioned is that it is not in the best interest of our own politicians to sign on to enforcing some Euro hate speech law. More than half of them would be signing their own death warrants. According to the hate-spewing, racist left, everything the right says or does is hate-spewing racism:rolleyes:

Not the I think the government is worried about foisting stupid laws on the People. It's just not in its best interest to cede control/judicial authority.

[revelarts]

No they're not.



I agree with your previous comment: not now. Who knows what's down the road.

One ting not mentioned is that it is not in the best interest of our own politicians to sign on to enforcing some Euro hate speech law. More than half of them would be signing their own death warrants. According to the hate-spewing, racist left, everything the right says or does is hate-spewing racism:rolleyes:

Not the I think the government is worried about foisting stupid laws on the People. It's just not in its best interest to cede control/judicial authority.

I hope you're both right, and i'm wrong.

Unlike when I warned that the patriot act & spying etc would be turned towards any/all citizens, even PTA moms.
Unlike when I warned that they were lying about various items about covid. That there was no need to lockdown, wear mask etc.

I admit that I did wrongly predict that Putin would not invade Russia.
And that Trump would turn out worse than he did.

But I have to say i did put far more time in looking a the 1st 2 issues than the last.
And I've spend far too much time looking at the "new world order", Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, WHO pandemic proposals, the SPP, and the ongoing work by the CFR & it's members for more international "cooperation".
The proposals for international "cooperation" is continual and ongoing.

Like the warnings from prudish mean ol Christians about the breakdown of the family and lowering sexual boundaries leading to more broken homes, more single mothers, school nurses handing out condoms, naked parades in the streets and the normalization & legalization of perverted "marriage".
International government is not an overnight process.
BTW, the "sexual revolution" movement and all the follow on issues didn't have that much to do with money, it had more to do with mindset & ideology. The forgetting or rejection of the old ideas of what makes for a good life.
Do people today really think a world govt would be bad? Could many people make a solid argument against it? Should the constitution stand in the way of world peace, unity & "free trade" any more than it should to block the govt from taking guns?

But hey, again, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

BTW, we have to say that umm, It's Not easy predicting the future, but we if we see storm clouds we shouldn't pretend that there's NO chance of rain.

[SassyLady]

Agenda 2021 was about pushing woke climate change and so is Agenda 2030. Pushing for compliance ... add in Covid and mass world wide migration to disrupt the balance and it's easy to slip in hate speech laws. People who can't make the connections would never give Jack Ryan competition. :slap:

[SassyLady]

I hope you're both right, and i'm wrong.

Unlike when I warned that the patriot act & spying etc would be turned towards any/all citizens, even PTA moms.
Unlike when I warned that they were lying about various items about covid. That there was no need to lockdown, wear mask etc.

I admit that I did wrongly predict that Putin would not invade Russia.
And that Trump would turn out worse than he did.

But I have to say i did put far more time in looking a the 1st 2 issues than the last.
And I've spend far too much time looking at the "new world order", Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, WHO pandemic proposals, the SPP, and the ongoing work by the CFR & it's members for more international "cooperation".
The proposals for international "cooperation" is continual and ongoing.

Like the warnings from prudish mean ol Christians about the breakdown of the family and lowering sexual boundaries leading to more broken homes, more single mothers, school nurses handing out condoms, naked parades in the streets and the normalization & legalization of perverted "marriage".
International government is not an overnight process.
BTW, the "sexual revolution" movement and all the follow on issues didn't have that much to do with money, it had more to do with mindset & ideology. The forgetting or rejection of the old ideas of what makes for a good life.
Do people today really think a world govt would be bad? Could many people make a solid argument against it? Should the constitution stand in the way of world peace, unity & "free trade" any more than it should to block the govt from taking guns?

But hey, again, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

BTW, we have to say that umm, It's Not easy predicting the future, but we if we see storm clouds we shouldn't pretend that there's NO chance of rain.

Even if it doesn't rain it's best to be prepared for a flood.... just saying.

[fj1200]

I hope you're both right, and i'm wrong.

Agenda 21 or 30 isn't even close to being a treaty that might be presented to the Senate but would never be enacted. The DSA is UK/EU law? Not even close to what you allege.


Agenda 2021 was about pushing woke climate change and so is Agenda 2030. Pushing for compliance ... add in Covid and mass world wide migration to disrupt the balance and it's easy to slip in hate speech laws. People who can't make the connections would never give Jack Ryan competition. :slap:

See above.


Even if it doesn't rain it's best to be prepared for a flood.... just saying.

One looks rather ridiculous wearing a rain poncho on a sunny day.

[Gunny]

Agenda 21 or 30 isn't even close to being a treaty that might be presented to the Senate but would never be enacted. The DSA is UK/EU law? Not even close to what you allege.



See above.



One looks rather ridiculous wearing a rain poncho on a sunny day.

You stole my line :laugh:

[revelarts]

Agenda 21 or 30 isn't even close to being a treaty that might be presented to the Senate but would never be enacted. The DSA is UK/EU law? Not even close to what you allege.


parts of Agenda 21 have been already been implemented voluntarily in several local counties & states where the global minded leftist have been able push the agenda through. Parts have had funding from various Federal depts like the EPA to implement the policies piecemeal around the country. A few states have made laws to stop the progress there.

You keep bringing up this straw man of it NOT BEING A TREATY or APPROVED.
you've beat that horse several times. Got it.
What you're avoiding over & over are other ways it gets done DESPITE not being a CONGRESSIONALLY approved treaty.

Did all of the mandates for covid that where implemented by cities, states, federal level and in private corps, that happened to agree with the international WHO recommendations get approved by congress?
The globalist DO NOT CARE how the edicts are implemented, as long as they are implemented and are binding by SOME authority.
Sure when they finally can get it all through congress... they'll push for that, but until then they'll beat on the other nations that are ready, and work in the U.S. on the local & state levels, in universities and with major corporations to get the rules in place here. All in SYNC with international policies.

the DSA is an EU law that they have already begun to threaten U.S. citizens with FJ.
Why are you pretending there's ZERO chance of any problem on any front?

UN website
...Paragraph 89 of the 2030 Agenda calls on major groups and other stakeholders, including local authorities, to report on their contribution to the implementation of the Agenda. Local and regional governments have a wealth of valuable experience in the "localization" of the 2030 Agenda, where they provide leadership in the mobilization of a wide range of stakeholders, the facilitation of "bottom-up" and inclusive processes, and the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships...
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainablecities
.
They're not asking for permission, and they don't think they'll ever need to ask for forgiveness.

[fj1200]

parts of Agenda 21 have been already been implemented voluntarily in several local counties & states where the global minded leftist have been able push the agenda through. Parts have had funding from various Federal depts like the EPA to implement the policies piecemeal around the country. A few states have made laws to stop the progress there.

You keep bringing up this straw man of it NOT BEING A TREATY or APPROVED.
you've beat that horse several times. Got it.
What you're avoiding over & over are other ways it gets done DESPITE not being a CONGRESSIONALLY approved treaty.

Did all of the mandates for covid that where implemented by cities, states, federal level and in private corps, that happened to agree with the international WHO recommendations get approved by congress?
The globalist DO NOT CARE how the edicts are implemented, as long as they are implemented and are binding by SOME authority.
Sure when they finally can get it all through congress... they'll push for that, but until then they'll beat on the other nations that are ready, and work in the U.S. on the local & state levels, in universities and with major corporations to get the rules in place here. All in SYNC with international policies.

the DSA is an EU law that they have already begun to threaten U.S. citizens with FJ.
Why are you pretending there's ZERO chance of any problem on any front?

UN website
...Paragraph 89 of the 2030 Agenda calls on major groups and other stakeholders, including local authorities, to report on their contribution to the implementation of the Agenda. Local and regional governments have a wealth of valuable experience in the "localization" of the 2030 Agenda, where they provide leadership in the mobilization of a wide range of stakeholders, the facilitation of "bottom-up" and inclusive processes, and the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships...
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainablecities
.
They're not asking for permission, and they don't think they'll ever need to ask for forgiveness.

Your novel doesn't disprove my post. Those are all things that we've chosen to do. Some voting bodies/elected officials thought they were good ideas and chose to implement them. The DSA is foreign law and does not cover actions by US citizens no matter how much they cry about it. Our government is bound by Constitution, others are not.

[Gunny]

parts of Agenda 21 have been already been implemented voluntarily in several local counties & states where the global minded leftist have been able push the agenda through. Parts have had funding from various Federal depts like the EPA to implement the policies piecemeal around the country. A few states have made laws to stop the progress there.

You keep bringing up this straw man of it NOT BEING A TREATY or APPROVED.
you've beat that horse several times. Got it.
What you're avoiding over & over are other ways it gets done DESPITE not being a CONGRESSIONALLY approved treaty.

Did all of the mandates for covid that where implemented by cities, states, federal level and in private corps, that happened to agree with the international WHO recommendations get approved by congress?
The globalist DO NOT CARE how the edicts are implemented, as long as they are implemented and are binding by SOME authority.
Sure when they finally can get it all through congress... they'll push for that, but until then they'll beat on the other nations that are ready, and work in the U.S. on the local & state levels, in universities and with major corporations to get the rules in place here. All in SYNC with international policies.

the DSA is an EU law that they have already begun to threaten U.S. citizens with FJ.
Why are you pretending there's ZERO chance of any problem on any front?

UN website
...Paragraph 89 of the 2030 Agenda calls on major groups and other stakeholders, including local authorities, to report on their contribution to the implementation of the Agenda. Local and regional governments have a wealth of valuable experience in the "localization" of the 2030 Agenda, where they provide leadership in the mobilization of a wide range of stakeholders, the facilitation of "bottom-up" and inclusive processes, and the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships...
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainablecities
.
They're not asking for permission, and they don't think they'll ever need to ask for forgiveness.Even a dead clock is right twice a day. Coincidentally agreeing with whoever on whatever does not mean the former has bought off on or signed up to the latter's agenda.

One can find whatever one wishes if one is determined to.

[SassyLady]

One looks rather ridiculous wearing a rain poncho on a sunny day.
Visitors who come to Arizona during monsoon frequently ate subject to the idiot law because they are unaware of the suddenness of flash flooding and have to be rescued. They will be charged for being an idiot and putting themselves in a life or death situation because they weren't smart enough to know the lady of the land so to speak.

You can be stupid if you want fj. Trying to shame the rest of us for having a raincoat won't keep you from getting wet when it rains

[SassyLady]

Your novel doesn't disprove my post. Those are all things that we've chosen to do. Some voting bodies/elected officials thought they were good ideas and chose to implement them. The DSA is foreign law and does not cover actions by US citizens no matter how much they cry about it. Our government is bound by Constitution, others are not.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? It (Agenda 21) started at the local government level. Cities and counties. Not laws .. just suggested policies that eventually became laws. It was designed to be implemented slowly so the masses didn't panic about all the regulations being imposed that would radically change things.

Like putting a frog in pot of Cold water and bringing to a boil slowly. Frog is dead by the time water is really boiling.

That's how communism and socialism takes place. You've lost your individual rights for the good of the whole.

[fj1200]

Visitors who come to Arizona during monsoon frequently ate subject to the idiot law because they are unaware of the suddenness of flash flooding and have to be rescued. They will be charged for being an idiot and putting themselves in a life or death situation because they weren't smart enough to know the lady of the land so to speak.

You can be stupid if you want fj. Trying to shame the rest of us for having a raincoat won't keep you from getting wet when it rains

Given the moronic nature of the things that you post... I'm good with where I'm at. Your shame is in having crappy arguments such as thinking that wearing a poncho on a sunny day is going to save you from a flash flood. I could have made a better flash flood/rainstorm analogy even I think your arguments are ridiculous.


Who is this "we" you're talking about? It (Agenda 21) started at the local government level. Cities and counties. Not laws .. just suggested policies that eventually became laws. It was designed to be implemented slowly so the masses didn't panic about all the regulations being imposed that would radically change things.

Like putting a frog in pot of Cold water and bringing to a boil slowly. Frog is dead by the time water is really boiling.

That's how communism and socialism takes place. You've lost your individual rights for the good of the whole.

The "we" is us. Things and ideas get implemented because people like that thing or idea. Your Agenda 21 arguments were a bit over the top when it was all your rage some years ago. The fact is that Agenda 21 =/= DSA otherwise you'd have drawn a straight line rather than no line at all.

The ridiculous of what I point out is that Agenda 21 and DSA are not global laws that are at our doorstep when they might be utterly stupid ideas put forth by moronic leftist European politicians. The trick is in knowing the difference. That's where I'm trying to help. :)

[SassyLady]

Given the moronic nature of the things that you post... I'm good with where I'm at. Your shame is in having crappy arguments such as thinking that wearing a poncho on a sunny day is going to save you from a flash flood. I could have made a better flash flood/rainstorm analogy even I think your arguments are ridiculous.



The "we" is us. Things and ideas get implemented because people like that thing or idea. Your Agenda 21 arguments were a bit over the top when it was all your rage some years ago. The fact is that Agenda 21 =/= DSA otherwise you'd have drawn a straight line rather than no line at all.

The ridiculous of what I point out is that Agenda 21 and DSA are not global laws that are at our doorstep when they might be utterly stupid ideas put forth by moronic leftist European politicians. The trick is in knowing the difference. That's where I'm trying to help. :)
If you know, you know.

[revelarts]

Given the moronic nature of the things that you post... I'm good with where I'm at. Your shame is in having crappy arguments such as thinking that wearing a poncho on a sunny day is going to save you from a flash flood. I could have made a better flash flood/rainstorm analogy even I think your arguments are ridiculous.

The "we" is us. Things and ideas get implemented because people like that thing or idea. Your Agenda 21 arguments were a bit over the top when it was all your rage some years ago. The fact is that Agenda 21 =/= DSA otherwise you'd have drawn a straight line rather than no line at all.

The ridiculous of what I point out is that Agenda 21 and DSA are not global laws that are at our doorstep when they might be utterly stupid ideas put forth by moronic leftist European politicians. The trick is in knowing the difference. That's where I'm trying to help. :)


FJ, I'm thinking you're the moron and an A55hole.
If you want to pretend that nothing is going on like Sargent Shultz fine, but please stop trying to gaslight others.
But maybe you are just that blind.


The Politicians, U.S. & otherwise, & the usual suspects of rich scumbags have made clear for decades their various plans.
and have been steadily moving the ball in that direction.
Some times at a glacier like pace and usually undercover.
Maybe it's the breath of the activity that makes it hard for you to see it.
Since you often seem overwhelmed if I post a list of more than 3 items to support my views.
But it's all of a piece, from the climate change agenda to vaccine passports. All are outright or have parts being used as tool to consolidate international control OUT of the hands of local & personal sovereignty into a few international hands.... for the greater good.


We all know that for years "one world govt" plans have been considered "conspiracy theory", but at this point even the people who have been working on it and LYING saying that they weren't are now saying it openly. (Seem I've been right 3 times a day, huh just lucky i guess)
But somehow YOU STILL pretend that they are not. or have ZERO ability to effect movement in that direction.

The greeting from the
World Government Summit 2022 Livestream: Day 1
"Highnesses excellencies ladies and gentlemen a very very good morning on what is the first official day of world government summit here at dubai expo 2020 and the title of this session are we ready for a new world order well the organizers here are nothing if not ambitious this is i think you will agree a daunting subject for discussion at just after 9 00 a.m on a wednesday morning here in the relative calm of expo 2020 but tackle it we must because i believe what is clear is that we have hit an inflection point we are certainly living in a unique age of uncertainty and volatility in global affairs whether you are from the global north or the global south we have all collectively lived through..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTDzH2A1tM


Just leaders from around the world (politics, biz, science, etc) talking about taking the sovereignty of everyone and putting it into some form of global authority. Bit by Bit, voluntarily... serendipitously.. if possible.
FJ says we should ignore it.
Fj doesn't get it... or doesn't mind it.
Either way he's not helping stand against it, & doesn't even wants others to think or talk about it seriously.
For some reason he enjoys standing around calling people names who are trying to help him & others see the problem.
Ignorance is no excuse at this point, moron may be right term.

[fj1200]

If you know, you know.

There lies the problem with your argument. You don't have one.

[revelarts]

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. Coincidentally agreeing with whoever on whatever does not mean the former has bought off on or signed up to the latter's agenda.

One can find whatever one wishes if one is determined to.

I dont know but maybe part of the issue here is that you have a very keen sense for the dangers of clear military power trying to take over nations.
But you don't have as clear a sense of dangers in the form of subtle infiltration, legal & economic manipulations being used to take control & sovereignty.

It's like the Difference between your neighbor Sam running towards you with a knife saying he's going to kill you and take your wife & house.
and a neighbor Tom who smiles at you, who brings you Ice tea all summer that has a lil' poison in it. & has been changing rules at city hall to control what you can do on your property, and moving the property lines.
& jokes with you about your brother who's been telling you that Tom wants to kill you and take your wife & house.

Somehow, even when Tom says "yes, do I want to take your house and change a few things", your brother is wrong when he says it.

[fj1200]

FJ, I'm thinking you're the moron and an A55hole.
...

That is very well possible but your post tells me that you really haven't understood where I'm coming from. You think that posting more than three things proves your posit but the individual items are largely unsupportable. You repeatedly expanding arguments from the specific to the general doesn't give me confidence in where you're coming from. I don't shy away from specific issues but when your defense reverts to your global(ist) argument I'm not really interested in further discussion.

It is provably false that A21 and DSA are global laws with enforcement provisions in the US which is something you can't/won't acknowledge. As I've stated before: Do I like many of those things that you rail against? No. Am I standing in the way of you or anyone? Am I not standing against stupid ideas? Am I keeping you from talking about it? Those are also no.

FWIW, I didn't call anybody any names. And for the billionth time don't try and sum up where I'm coming from. Many have tried and many have failed and it's a weak distraction from Debating Policy.

[Gunny]

The personal insults are getting a bit rough. Topic, please :)

[SassyLady]

There lies the problem with your argument. You don't have one.

I do have one but one has to understand the basics and I'm not going to retrace the last 20 years to bring you up to date. You are just not worth the time and effort.

[fj1200]

I do have one but one has to understand the basics and I'm not going to retrace the last 20 years to bring you up to date. You are just not worth the time and effort.

I'm sure you do. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

I dont know but maybe part of the issue here is that you have a very keen sense for the dangers of clear military power trying to take over nations.
But you don't have as clear a sense of dangers in the form of subtle infiltration, legal & economic manipulations being used to take control & sovereignty.

It's like the Difference between your neighbor Sam running towards you with a knife saying he's going to kill you and take your wife & house.
and a neighbor Tom who smiles at you, who brings you Ice tea all summer that has a lil' poison in it. & has been changing rules at city hall to control what you can do on your property, and moving the property lines.
& jokes with you about your brother who's been telling you that Tom wants to kill you and take your wife & house.

Somehow, even when Tom says "yes, do I want to take your house and change a few things", your brother is wrong when he says it.

Quite the imagination :smoke:

[Black Diamond]

Quite the imagination :smoke:

You don't have a neighbor named Sam?

[Gunny]

You don't have a neighbor named Sam?

One can be only so wrong:laugh:

[revelarts]

....

[revelarts]

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/25/nx-s1-5088676/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrested-france

Social media company Telegram CEO Pavel Durov arrested in France.
Apparently for Lack of control of the speech on his platform, and not giving govt enough access.

Is it wise to think it will never happen to any U.S. owners or employees?

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV3yjqFWYAAWUg6?format=jpg&name=900x900

Rumor so far, but not surprising. Apple executives are at all the right global meetings, in agreement with most of the plans.
(same with Mircrosoft of course.)

As I said elsewhere, the globalist do not care how the rules are enforced.
As long as various entity with control or authority comply with them. the control is still spread regardless of local or national laws.
Corporate "Stake Holders" doing things voluntarily. (like the vaccine mandates and lock downs)
If mega corporations comply but governments don't, that works fine too.
the govts can come later... to reign in the outliers.

[Kathianne]

Related, though not just Europe:

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4844641-could-elon-musk-actually-be-arrested-and-x-cancelled/


Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor - 08/24/24 12:00 PM ET


With each passing day, as the forces that control our nation and the world get more surreal and foreboding, the “unthinkable” suddenly morphs into the “inevitable.” At least for me.


As someone who pays close attention to the politics and the media in the United Kingdom and Europe, I began to notice a shocking narrative emanating from a growing number on the left there calling for the arrest of Elon Musk as well as the cancellation of X, the social media site he owns.


Surely, I thought, these people can’t be serious. But they were — and are — deadly serious. For them, Musk and X have become public enemy number one.


Before outlining the reasons for this, I have a serious question: Why have so many on the left and in the media seemingly fallen in love with censoring free speech or “canceling” those who hold different opinions from themselves? I am old enough to remember when Democrats, liberals and the media were all about free and protected speech.


This has become a chilling and dangerous trend. I am also old enough to remember when Democrats, liberals and the media raged against “totalitarian” regimes silencing the voices of the opposition and the calls for their arrest. Now, they seemingly choose to weaponize censorship and “lawfare” for their own means.


Now to address the line that Musk dared to cross that has many on the left calling for his cancellation, or worse. It all came in the wake of the horrific stabbing and killing of three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event on July 29 in Southport, England. Soon thereafter came massive unrest around the UK because of the attack.


Much of the left-leaning media and political intelligentsia in the country claimed the unrest began after “right-wing” activists used social media to spread “misinformation” about that knife attack.


But others wondered whether authorities, by deliberately keeping details of the attack and the attacker to themselves and shading some of the information they did put out, allowed needless speculation, causing “misinformation” to grow and spread.


The basis for much of the anger swirling around the killing of those three girls touched upon the open, unvetted and even illegal immigration (sound familiar?) which has been going on in that nation for years. Musk dared to touch that untouchable third rail by highlighting that issue while also questioning what seems to be a “two-tier” system of justice in the country.


What most set off the authorities and the cancel-pushing left in the UK was Musk posting, “Civil war in the country is inevitable.” Rather than address the concerns, results and legitimate fears that millions of their fellow citizens have with regard to unvetted and uncontrolled immigration, some authorities and media figures chose to lash out at Musk.


After Prime Minister Keir Starmer — whom Musk called “Two Tier Keir” — posted on X that his government “will not tolerate attacks on mosques or on Muslim communities,” Musk responded with the question, “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on *all* communities?”


Earlier this week, the left-of-center Guardian newspaper in the UK featured this ludicrous headline: “Inciting rioters in Britain was a test run for Elon Musk. Just see what he plans for America.”


The Guardian then went on to attack Musk with this incendiary bit of commentary: “This summer we have witnessed something new and unprecedented. The billionaire owner of a tech platform publicly confronting an elected leader and using his platform to undermine his authority and incite violence. Britain’s 2024 summer riots were Elon Musk’s trial balloon.”


Are you kidding me? “Musk’s trial balloon?” Is he about to unleash the Kraken upon the United States? As the left-of-center governments in the United Kingdom and Europe continually fail their own people, the left wants to train its fire on Musk as a distraction from their abject failures.


Do political correctness and “woke” policies now come before the safety of little girls or others in the U.K.? That is at the heart of some of the posts Elon Musk has been putting up on his feed — posts that have caused some in the U.K. to lose their minds and seemingly embrace draconian dictates.


Could these forces on the left actually stop Musk? Could they arrest and imprison him? Could they cancel X and silence the voices of hundreds of millions of citizens around the world? I would not be so fast to say “no.”


These are world “leaders,” powerful far-left media sites and far-left multibillionaires collectively marshalling their might against him. While many would label it a “token gesture” on my part, in solidarity with Musk, I finally activated my X account, simply to support his site and repost his warnings that freedom is under attack and censorship is on the rise.


We live in increasingly perilous times.

[revelarts]

Historically whenever a new tech has come around that gives more people the power of "free speech"/communication, those in power begin to move to monitor it & reign it in.
It happened with the
Printing Press, Telephone, Radio & TV (remember "public access" TV?)
And we've watched (are watching it) happen with the Internet.

Whats the old saying? "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
the barrier before was cost & training to use it,
now the cost is low so they have to throttle access on both ends.. "for the greater good"

[revelarts]

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/audio-pakistan-global-critics
Pakistani Ex-Pat's brother is kidnapped & beaten over the phone to coerce the Ex-pat to give up/edit his twitter account that's critical of the Pakistani govt.
Twitter is already banned in Pakistan but many Pakistanis use "VPNs" as a work around and still use it in country.
...a growing and worrisome phenomenon that goes by the fairly clinical term of “transnational repression”—which is when a government represses dissent from ex-pat citizens or residents of separate countries. The most infamous and extreme recent case came in Canada, where the Indian government assassinated a dissident in exile. More commonly, though, it involves a threat that if the ex-pat continues their criticism, harm will come to them even though they are outside their home country’s borders, or their family still in the country will be punished for it.

Dissidents who allege it are often viewed with skepticism. Are these real threats or are they just a little paranoid and overly self-important? What makes today’s article different is that we’ve obtained audio of an agent of the Pakistani state carrying out the mission of transnational repression. There’s no need to wonder if this threat is real....


We cant afford to play with the 1st amendment.

[Gunny]

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/audio-pakistan-global-critics
Pakistani Ex-Pat's brother is kidnapped & beaten over the phone to coerce the Ex-pat to give up/edit his twitter account that's critical of the Pakistani govt.
Twitter is already banned in Pakistan but many Pakistanis use "VPNs" as a work around and still use it in country.
...a growing and worrisome phenomenon that goes by the fairly clinical term of “transnational repression”—which is when a government represses dissent from ex-pat citizens or residents of separate countries. The most infamous and extreme recent case came in Canada, where the Indian government assassinated a dissident in exile. More commonly, though, it involves a threat that if the ex-pat continues their criticism, harm will come to them even though they are outside their home country’s borders, or their family still in the country will be punished for it.

Dissidents who allege it are often viewed with skepticism. Are these real threats or are they just a little paranoid and overly self-important? What makes today’s article different is that we’ve obtained audio of an agent of the Pakistani state carrying out the mission of transnational repression. There’s no need to wonder if this threat is real....


We cant afford to play with the 1st amendment.The First Amendment cannot enforce itself. It is words on paper. PEOPLE have to ensure it is enforced for ALL people. Anymore, in our society, people seem more and more approving of censorship that suits their agendas. Self-censorship is equally as bad as government/societal pressure. Result is the same. And we ALL self-censor.

[revelarts]

The First Amendment cannot enforce itself. It is words on paper. PEOPLE have to ensure it is enforced for ALL people. Anymore, in our society, people seem more and more approving of censorship that suits their agendas. Self-censorship is equally as bad as government/societal pressure. Result is the same. And we ALL self-censor.
"The... Amendment cannot enforce itself."
Whenever i hear this phrase, it makes me think the person using it means it's enforced by gun violence.
As if that's the ONLY way to defend it.
that may not be what you have in mind but the phrase always seems to have that connotation.

but seems you've mentioned the 1st line of defense in your comment too, and it's the USE of the right.
and reminding others to use it,
teaching others the importance.
After that reminding those that would try to censor that we will not allow it.
In small or large venues,
then taking it to the courts,
to name a few of the layers of "enforcing" the amendment BEFORE it comes to the use of violence.

Also teaching law enforcement and military that they've sworn and oath to defend the right.
And they can DISOBEY any orders that tells them to deny the rights of others.
If the LEOs and military understand their roles there's no need for violence.
Since the state is the only one the amendment is set up to protect the people from.

[Gunny]

"The... Amendment cannot enforce itself."
Whenever i hear this phrase, it makes me think the person using it means it's enforced by gun violence.
As if that's the ONLY way to defend it.
that may not be what you have in mind but the phrase always seems to have that connotation.

but seems you've mentioned the 1st line of defense in your comment too, and it's the USE of the right.
and reminding others to use it,
teaching others the importance.
After that reminding those that would try to censor that we will not allow it.
In small or large venues,
then taking it to the courts,
to name a few of the layers of "enforcing" the amendment BEFORE it comes to the use of violence.

Also teaching law enforcement and military that they've sworn and oath to defend the right.
And they can DISOBEY any orders that tells them to deny the rights of others.
If the LEOs and military understand their roles there's no need for violence.
Since the state is the only one the amendment is set up to protect the people from.

Naive idealism.

It IS enforced by violence. Men wrote those ideas down and decided to fight a war to ensure them and they are good as long as the US government keeps them that way. All the US government as to do is change the law and you no longer have that right. It's THAT simple. You can hang on to the idea all you want but you'll have no right to it, not what it infers.

Unless you want to fight with whoever, if anyone, takes a stand against the government and that WILL BE a violent confrontation.

What means do you think law enforcement and/or the military use to defend those rights? Violence.

I can promise you this: the military is a tool of the Federal government. So is Federal law enforcement. The government knows this. They ensure the people in both agencies believe what they are doing is right and ruthlessly crush anyone that doesn't go along.

The issue of swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution came up within the military in the not too distant past. Either with the Afghanistan debacle or Jan 6th. I think the later because it had to do with the oath keepers. What the wretched excuse for a human being Lloyd Astin came out with was more along the lines of "you do what you're told by your superiors" and was installed in some of his military reeducation training that included CRT.

Edit: seems to me he basically said orders are Constitutional. Troops are not trained to think beyond that.

[revelarts]

Naive idealism.

It IS enforced by violence. Men wrote those ideas down and decided to fight a war to ensure them and they are good as long as the US government keeps them that way. All the US government as to do is change the law and you no longer have that right. It's THAT simple. You can hang on to the idea all you want but you'll have no right to it, not what it infers.
Unless you want to fight with whoever, if anyone, takes a stand against the government and that WILL BE a violent confrontation.


Your saying the ONLY way to fight for rights is with weapons?
That was the way initially, at the founding, and a few other times since.
But even before the Revolution the colonies tried to TALK to the crown about their rights under magna carta & the like. Patrick Henry's speech addresses that.
But as a final resort at the founding, they wrote a letter of separation and had to defend it by violence.
But since then it's only been a few other times citizens have had to fight against the United State with violence for our rights.
Have you fought with weapons to use or protect your rights against the United States govt lately?

The non-naive reality is that most of the time over the pass 200+ years rights have been fought for in the courts & legislatures.
OR simply by using them to the point where the state backs off.

Civil rights movement wasn't fought with violence.
Even though the threat of violence for defense was promised by many including MLKing.

It's not naive, it's reality.
Courts, legislatures, civil disobedience, protest, & simply USING the rights are tools to promote and maintain rights.
Violence is ..and in all cases everywhere... should be a last resort for "the good guys".




What means do you think law enforcement and/or the military use to defend those rights? Violence.
the threat of violence is the LAST resort not the 1st.
Many people fold with a stern look from an "official" or a an "official" unconstitutional piece of paper that has the threat of Fine or jail... not even violence.



I can promise you this: the military is a tool of the Federal government.

Which is one of the main reasons why the founders never wanted, or authorized, a standing army.



So is Federal law enforcement.
Amazingly "Federal law enforcement" is NOT in the constitution either.



The government knows this. They ensure the people in both agencies believe what they are doing is right and ruthlessly crush anyone that doesn't go along.
The issue of swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution came up within the military in the not too distant past. Either with the Afghanistan debacle or Jan 6th. I think the later because it had to do with the oath keepers. What the wretched excuse for a human being Lloyd Astin came out with was more along the lines of "you do what you're told by your superiors" and was installed in some of his military reeducation training that included CRT.
Edit: seems to me he basically said orders are Constitutional. Troops are not trained to think beyond that.

That's is the problem.
The military and police leadership, civilian & military Brass on down the line, DO NOT want members who THINK.
They do not want members who think like citizens or think about constitutional rights.
They want them to be thugs, simply obeying orders like... well "just obeying orders". Which has never come across as a good excuse to most.

I'm well aware of the current piss poor reality,
People sometimes seem offended when i point it out though. Theoretically and by Sad real life examples.
As i said, LEO's & Military should be.. need to be trained to understand the constitution and the LIMITS of their authority.
And their rights even as members of the standing army that the founders never wanted.
It seems to me many local Sherifs seem to have MUCH better handle on this than many "well trained" military and cops.
All should be taught that keeping the OATH is the HIGHEST ORDER.
Not any unconstitutional BS orders from someone in a uniform or with an official title, appointed, elected or not.

I've mentioned this before, i've been on many military bases and seen the chain of command photos on the walls. I've long believed that above the picture of the current president should be a picture of the constitution.
That's the real final authority for any federal employee or soldier.
All orders are WORDS, if a soldier is just going to obey words anyway it should be the words of THAT document rather than any random BS that spits out of some official's mouth or some rando with the right stripes on their arms.

We should be moving/pushing towards that understanding rather than just assuming the Feds will always train the military & LEOs just to be blind paid enforcers for whatever group manages to get in power. Until we finally have to start shooting officials and their obedient enforcers.

your mileage may vary

[revelarts]

from

https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/teacher-enoch-burke-jailed-over-trans-pronouns-flap/

Enoch Burke, a teacher from Ireland, was suspended from school and then jailed for contempt of court for refusing to use a transgender student’s proper pronouns.

....
BREAKING: Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly and other politicians in Belfast refuse to answer questions on Enoch Burke

Enoch Burke has now spent over 400 days in Mountjoy Prison.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13313471/enoch-burke-family-legal-battle-trans-rights-row-prison.html

...


https://zenit.org/2024/07/10/victim-of-gender-ideology-400-days-in-prison-for-refusing-to-use-lgbt-pronouns/
Victim of Gender Ideology: 400 Days in Prison for Refusing to Use LGBT+ Pronouns
On June 28 of this year, Judge Mark Sanfey of Dublin’s High Court ordered Enoch Burke to be released from the Mountjoy Prison, where he had been an inmate since September 2022. He is out on conditional freedom, banned from returning to the school where he was teaching.

ZENIT - English
(ZENIT News / Australia, 10.07.2024).- Enoch Burke was released after spending 400 days in prison, for refusing to use transgender pronouns when the Director of his school ordered him to use a feminine name and pronoun for a male student in the process of gender transition. On June 28 of this year, Judge Mark Sanfey of Dublin’s High Court ordered Enoch Burke to be released from the Mountjoy Prison, where he had been an inmate since September 2022. He is out on conditional freedom, banned from returning to the school where he was teaching. Burke is a Christian teacher of History and German in Ireland. He was placed on paid administrative leave in August 2022, while the School Board proceeded on the disciplinary offense. He continued attending the school, although he was banned from entering it, an order he ignored. Then, on September 5, 2022, he was arrested and sentenced to prison for an indefinite period, until he paid the debt for his action or the Court decided otherwise. After 108 days in prison, he was given a temporary release, the Judge arguing that Burke used his imprisonment for his ends. In January 2023, the school fired Burke, but he continued to appear at the school, accumulating daily a 700-euro fine. He was imprisoned again in September 2023. Burke has repeatedly said that his imprisonment and dismissal are unjust, stating before the Judge in 2023 that “you want to fine me for my religious beliefs.” He has also denied that he has been in contempt of court. His arrest and imprisonment respond to his refusal to comply with the judicial order banning him from appearing in the school.



https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/irish-teacher-jailed-trans-pronouns-feat-image-1-1.jpg?resize=1024,682&quality=75&strip=all

Euro laws say the guy loses his job if he doesn't say the right pronouns.
He says it's an unlawful rule, goes to his job and is arrested and put in prison for a year plus.

Should he and other like him use the courts or start shooting to regain his right to free speech and religion?

Wouldn't court action or violence be unnecessary IF the cops simply refused to arrest him?

[Gunny]

from

https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/teacher-enoch-burke-jailed-over-trans-pronouns-flap/

Enoch Burke, a teacher from Ireland, was suspended from school and then jailed for contempt of court for refusing to use a transgender student’s proper pronouns.

....
BREAKING: Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly and other politicians in Belfast refuse to answer questions on Enoch Burke

Enoch Burke has now spent over 400 days in Mountjoy Prison.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13313471/enoch-burke-family-legal-battle-trans-rights-row-prison.html

...


https://zenit.org/2024/07/10/victim-of-gender-ideology-400-days-in-prison-for-refusing-to-use-lgbt-pronouns/
Victim of Gender Ideology: 400 Days in Prison for Refusing to Use LGBT+ Pronouns
On June 28 of this year, Judge Mark Sanfey of Dublin’s High Court ordered Enoch Burke to be released from the Mountjoy Prison, where he had been an inmate since September 2022. He is out on conditional freedom, banned from returning to the school where he was teaching.

ZENIT - English
(ZENIT News / Australia, 10.07.2024).- Enoch Burke was released after spending 400 days in prison, for refusing to use transgender pronouns when the Director of his school ordered him to use a feminine name and pronoun for a male student in the process of gender transition. On June 28 of this year, Judge Mark Sanfey of Dublin’s High Court ordered Enoch Burke to be released from the Mountjoy Prison, where he had been an inmate since September 2022. He is out on conditional freedom, banned from returning to the school where he was teaching. Burke is a Christian teacher of History and German in Ireland. He was placed on paid administrative leave in August 2022, while the School Board proceeded on the disciplinary offense. He continued attending the school, although he was banned from entering it, an order he ignored. Then, on September 5, 2022, he was arrested and sentenced to prison for an indefinite period, until he paid the debt for his action or the Court decided otherwise. After 108 days in prison, he was given a temporary release, the Judge arguing that Burke used his imprisonment for his ends. In January 2023, the school fired Burke, but he continued to appear at the school, accumulating daily a 700-euro fine. He was imprisoned again in September 2023. Burke has repeatedly said that his imprisonment and dismissal are unjust, stating before the Judge in 2023 that “you want to fine me for my religious beliefs.” He has also denied that he has been in contempt of court. His arrest and imprisonment respond to his refusal to comply with the judicial order banning him from appearing in the school.



https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/irish-teacher-jailed-trans-pronouns-feat-image-1-1.jpg?resize=1024,682&quality=75&strip=all

Euro laws say the guy loses his job if he doesn't say the right pronouns.
He says it's an unlawful rule, goes to his job and is arrested and put in prison for a year plus.

Should he and other like him use the courts or start shooting to regain his right to free speech and religion?

Wouldn't court action or violence be unnecessary IF the cops simply refused to arrest him?I consider this worthy of civil unrest/disobedience.

This is how government always wins, even here. They take one example and crucify it publicly to cower any would-be followers.

[Kathianne]

I consider this worthy of civil unrest/disobedience.

This is how government always wins, even here. They take one example and crucify it publicly to cower any would-be followers.
Actually civil disobedience, with amplification, nearly always works in the long run.

[Gunny]

Actually civil disobedience, with amplification, nearly always works in the long run.Agreed, BUT ... does it usually work for positive or negative? Seems to me, most of the civil unrest here in the US has been BS with nothing good coming of it. I'll give you civil rights, but how long ago was that? And the residual effect has been to teach people without a cause if they have enough people they can destroy all they want to.

In the case of Ireland specifically, how long did they spend their days killing each other and what was gained in the end?

More concerning to me is the overall, big picture. Supposedly democratic, Western countries becoming more and more authoritarian to enforce their intolerance in the name of tolerance. The Uk is looking more and more like the picture Orwell painted of it.

[Kathianne]

Agreed, BUT ... does it usually work for positive or negative? Seems to me, most of the civil unrest here in the US has been BS with nothing good coming of it. I'll give you civil rights, but how long ago was that? And the residual effect has been to teach people without a cause if they have enough people they can destroy all they want to.

In the case of Ireland specifically, how long did they spend their days killing each other and what was gained in the end?

More concerning to me is the overall, big picture. Supposedly democratic, Western countries becoming more and more authoritarian to enforce their intolerance in the name of tolerance. The Uk is looking more and more like the picture Orwell painted of it.


Civil unrest to me may or may not be related to civil disobedience. While Thoreau may not have invented it, he was the first I know to practice and willing to go to jail for his point. In his case, the spending of taxes for Mexican-American War. His was a lost cause, obviously the Feds even then could wage war without individual citizens input. His friends bailed him out, as he wouldn't pay. He did write "Civil Disobedience" which basically is a handbook and political treatise of why the individual is more important than the masses.

Civil unrest is what the anti-Semites are participating in. Not the same.

[Gunny]

Civil unrest to me may or may not be related to civil disobedience. While Thoreau may not have invented it, he was the first I know to practice and willing to go to jail for his point. In his case, the spending of taxes for Mexican-American War. His was a lost cause, obviously the Feds even then could wage war without individual citizens input. His friends bailed him out, as he wouldn't pay. He did write "Civil Disobedience" which basically is a handbook and political treatise of why the individual is more important than the masses.

Civil unrest is what the anti-Semites are participating in. Not the same.I'm not sure where you see civil disobedience working in the long run? Seems to me the government loves nothing better than individual civil disobedience. Your example and Rev's. What was/is being accomplished? Practically, not ideally. I take no issue with someone willing to stand up for a cause so long as they understand and are willing to accept the consequences.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure where you see civil disobedience working in the long run? Seems to me the government loves nothing better than individual civil disobedience. Your example and Rev's. What was/is being accomplished? Practically, not ideally. I take no issue with someone willing to stand up for a cause so long as they understand and are willing to accept the consequences.

Serious civil disobedience, that with a cause that others agree with, can grow and inspire. Yes, MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights movement in general are the most shining examples. OTOH, likewise serious disobedience, starting with 'peaceful-meaning without any violence and following laws with exception of dispersing', willing to go to jail for such refusals, is real disobedience. Such protest were also used to bring attention to Vietnam War, (yes, well aware of the more violent and have my own questions whether it was a good cause or not,) influencing the diminishing support of that war.

Was also successful in gaining approval for Title IX-prior to trans being more important. Took many years and many arrests, but the folly of the SCOTUS regarding Roe was finally realized. (Yes, aware of some that used violence, which is IMO, always wrong outside of war).

[Gunny]

Serious civil disobedience, that with a cause that others agree with, can grow and inspire. Yes, MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights movement in general are the most shining examples. OTOH, likewise serious disobedience, starting with 'peaceful-meaning without any violence and following laws with exception of dispersing', willing to go to jail for such refusals, is real disobedience. Such protest were also used to bring attention to Vietnam War, (yes, well aware of the more violent and have my own questions whether it was a good cause or not,) influencing the diminishing support of that war.

Was also successful in gaining approval for Title IX-prior to trans being more important. Took many years and many arrests, but the folly of the SCOTUS regarding Roe was finally realized. (Yes, aware of some that used violence, which is IMO, always wrong outside of war).In each instance you mention, the violence overshadowed any peaceful, civil disobedience, and it was the violence that gained most of the attention and forced lawmakers to act.

All that sacrifice for Title IX and look what Biden's done to it with the stroke of a pen:rolleyes: Unlawfully, IMO.

I would prefer all things be handled peacefully through thoughtful discourse by informed people with the best interest of all in mind. That is one of those areas where I have to temper my idealism with reality.

[Kathianne]

In each instance you mention, the violence overshadowed any peaceful, civil disobedience, and it was the violence that gained most of the attention and forced lawmakers to act.

All that sacrifice for Title IX and look what Biden's done to it with the stroke of a pen:rolleyes: Unlawfully, IMO.

I would prefer all things be handled peacefully through thoughtful discourse by informed people with the best interest of all in mind. That is one of those areas where I have to temper my idealism with reality.

I keep my idealism as long as possible, there comes a point though, where denial is no longer possible. There comes a point where violence is the only answer. I just believe in trying everything else first.

[Gunny]

I keep my idealism as long as possible, there comes a point though, where denial is no longer possible. There comes a point where violence is the only answer. I just believe in trying everything else first.I'm pretty sure my idealism started going down the tubes in 2008. Obama provably lied his ass off right and left, threw his reverend and white granny under the bus, and two Dem superdelegates voted against the wishes of their constituents to give him the Dem nod. Not that I wanted Hitlery, but the fact is, they screwed her over too.

Simultaneously, one day Mike Huckabee is leading all contenders and the MSM convinced everyone, to include the Republican voters that McCain was our boy. A sure loser. Did the same with Romney and look at NOW. The MSM is cheerleading Harris and convincing everyone she's got the lead. I don't believe it.

When the people who are supposed to support Constitutional idealism and peaceful resolution are the ones lying to the people, as an institution with the MSM happily spewing the lies for them, it's hard to believe any of the idealism is left anywhere but in the hearts and minds of some of us older folk.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWWs6CHagAANaR2?format=jpg&name=small


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power

The commentators and lawyers and legislators & "ruling claass" are bad but,
what if cops understood & respected freedom & "free speech" as well as they understand pensions?

[Gunny]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWWs6CHagAANaR2?format=jpg&name=small


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power

The commentators and lawyers and legislators & "ruling claass" are bad but,
what if cops understood & respected freedom & "free speech" as well as they understand pensions?Not sure where you are trying to go with your latest slant on "what if cops do/don't ...". Cops are enforcers and that's what they get paid to do. Your Rights, rightness or wrongness is up to the court.

You want cops to understand your idealism at the expense of their livelihoods. Your opinion is reversed. It's the "ruling class"/legislators that need to change/understand our Rights. Cops don't enforce orders they aren't given.

[revelarts]

Not sure where you are trying to go with your latest slant on "what if cops do/don't ...". Cops are enforcers and that's what they get paid to do. Your Rights, rightness or wrongness is up to the court.

You want cops to understand your idealism at the expense of their livelihoods. Your opinion is reversed. It's the "ruling class"/legislators that need to change/understand our Rights. Cops don't enforce orders they aren't given.

People are people and you know I do NOT give cops the benefit of doubt at anytime because they too often ignore or abuse their constitutional authority.
But not all, the thing is there are lot of tools communities can use to make cops more responsive to the community than the authorities.

But bottom line.
Everyone has to take personal responsibility.
Cops are not children or robots.
Like all of us they will be held accountable at down the line somewhere. And claiming they had to keep there livelihood isn't going to cut it.
Having to look at themselves in mirror is another basic level. But hey, like during the 'pandemic' & being a nazi soldier at the camps, people get into mindsets that's blind them what they're doing.
There's a personal slippery slope to doing wrong on a regular basis. A lil here a lil there, "everybody else was doing it", "I was just following orders" "I'd lose my friends or retirement if i didn't... if i said something... if i did the right thing".

You keep saying it's not realistic, Yes I know that, but does that mean we should stop pointing people in the direction of best practices. Never point cops in the direction of understanding & HONESTLY keep the sworn oaths they recited when they joined?
I know your aren't saying we should never point police & military to high morals? Because it's unrealistic, that they are ONLY ever going to be mindless thugs for the ruling class.

I don't think it unrealistic that SOME cops and military will THINK, & try to do right & follow their oaths every once in a while.
If enough really do it, those who simply "follow orders", and "follow the crowd" might follow them for a while.

If not, i guess we all may as well just start bribing cops and working things out in the corrupt system like the 'ruling class' does. since cops are only in it for self interest.

do we look to the extreme or hope we can move the needles at various points towards best practices.
not expecting perfection ever, but continually looking towards encouraging people to the light and exposing the darkness for what it is.

[Gunny]

People are people and you know I do NOT give cops the benefit of doubt at anytime because they too often ignore or abuse their constitutional authority.
But not all, the thing is there are lot of tools communities can use to make cops more responsive to the community than the authorities.

But bottom line.
Everyone has to take personal responsibility.
Cops are not children or robots.
Like all of us they will be held accountable at down the line somewhere. And claiming they had to keep there livelihood isn't going to cut it.
Having to look at themselves in mirror is another basic level. But hey, like during the 'pandemic' & being a nazi soldier at the camps, people get into mindsets that's blind them what they're doing.
There's a personal slippery slope to doing wrong on a regular basis. A lil here a lil there, "everybody else was doing it", "I was just following orders" "I'd lose my friends or retirement if i didn't... if i said something... if i did the right thing".

You keep saying it's not realistic, Yes I know that, but does that mean we should stop pointing people in the direction of best practices. Never point cops in the direction of understanding & HONESTLY keep the sworn oaths they recited when they joined?
I know your aren't should never point police & military to high morals? Because it's unrealistic, that they are ONLY ever going to be mindless thugs for the ruling class.

I don't think it unrealistic that SOME cops and military will THINK, & try to do right & follow their oaths every once in a while.
If enough really do it, those who simply "follow orders", and "follow the crowd" will follow them for a while.

If not, i guess we all may as well just start bribing cops and working things out in the corrupt system like the 'ruling class' does. since cops are only in it for self interest.

do we look to the extreme or hope we can move the needles at various points towards best practices.
not expecting perfection ever, but continually looking towards encouraging people to the light and exposing the darkness for what it is.

There's a difference between unrealistic and just flat backward. "Authorities" ae supposed to be, by design, responsible to the community. Police are merely the enforcement arm of the "authorities". The latter's autonomy has been so eroded they are pretty much locked into courses of action. After all, we've slapped cameras on their bodies. So much for letting anyone off with a verbal warning anymore.

It is fortunate for people like you that military and police DO have high morals and hold themselves to higher standards. Once again, you judge by the exception rather than the rule. I don't even know why anyone in their right mind would want to be military or police the way things are now. Always the bad guys.

You want some personal responsibility? How about if there aren't people breaking the law, the cops don't have anything to do but eat donuts and walk little old ladies across the street. Police do not exist because of good people doing the right thing. They exist because of bad people doing the wrong thing. You prefer to attack the symptom rather than the disease.

[revelarts]

There's a difference between unrealistic and just flat backward. "Authorities" ae supposed to be, by design, responsible to the community. Police are merely the enforcement arm of the "authorities". The latter's autonomy has been so eroded they are pretty much locked into courses of action. After all, we've slapped cameras on their bodies. So much for letting anyone off with a verbal warning anymore.

It is fortunate for people like you that military and police DO have high morals and hold themselves to higher standards. Once again, you judge by the exception rather than the rule. I don't even know why anyone in their right mind would want to be military or police the way things are now. Always the bad guys.

You want some personal responsibility? How about if there aren't people breaking the law, the cops don't have anything to do but eat donuts and walk little old ladies across the street. Police do not exist because of good people doing the right thing. They exist because of bad people doing the wrong thing. You prefer to attack the symptom rather than the disease.

seems like you just want me to be wrong, no matter what i say.
not sure, maybe i bring that out in people. maybe i dont word things properly.

Look, in one post you say I'm too idealistic to ever expect cops & military will really obey their oaths. That they aren't perfect they will obey orders and secure that paycheck.
Then I agree & say yes cops aren't perfect so lets everyone point towards the best & maybe enough will be better to make a real difference.
But You reply, most cops DO have high morals. why are you judging saying cops are ALL bad?
People are bad cops are good.

Sheesh.. man
Whatever... God bless ya Gunny.

[Gunny]

seems like you just want me to be wrong, no matter what i say.
not sure, maybe i bring that out in people. maybe i dont word things properly.

Look, in one post you say I'm too idealistic to ever expect cops & military will really obey their oaths. That they aren't perfect they will obey orders and secure that paycheck.
Then I agree & say yes cops aren't perfect so lets everyone point towards the best & maybe enough will be better to make a real difference.
But You reply, most cops DO have high morals. why are you judging saying cops are ALL bad?
People are bad cops are good.

Sheesh.. man
Whatever... God bless ya Gunny.Therein lies the biggest problem. Discussion is not about being right or wrong. It's about learning. How you got what you just posted out of anything I have stated is beyond me. People are people, good or bad, right or wrong. Most live in areas of gray rather than just black or white. Exceptions are not the rule, but exceptions exist. Sweeping generalizations don't cover any of that.

[revelarts]

Therein lies the biggest problem. Discussion is not about being right or wrong. It's about learning. How you got what you just posted out of anything I have stated is beyond me. People are people, good or bad, right or wrong. Most live in areas of gray rather than just black or white. Exceptions are not the rule, but exceptions exist. Sweeping generalizations don't cover any of that.


One can be only so wrong:laugh:

:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

:rolleyes:In context:


Rev: I dont know but maybe part of the issue here is that you have a very keen sense for the dangers of clear military power trying to take over nations.
But you don't have as clear a sense of dangers in the form of subtle infiltration, legal & economic manipulations being used to take control & sovereignty.

It's like the Difference between your neighbor Sam running towards you with a knife saying he's going to kill you and take your wife & house.
and a neighbor Tom who smiles at you, who brings you Ice tea all summer that has a lil' poison in it. & has been changing rules at city hall to control what you can do on your property, and moving the property lines.
& jokes with you about your brother who's been telling you that Tom wants to kill you and take your wife & house.

Somehow, even when Tom says "yes, do I want to take your house and change a few things", your brother is wrong when he says it.

When you presume to tell me what I'm thinking, when your responses are proof you barely read my posts or cherrypick them out of context, I consider that response the epitome of virtue for me:halo9:

Other choice was to go line by line and utterly destroy your commentary. It's not worth fighting about.

[revelarts]

In context:



When you presume to tell me what I'm thinking, when your responses are proof you barely read my posts or cherrypick them out of context, I consider that response the epitome of virtue for me:halo9:

Other choice was to go line by line and utterly destroy your commentary. It's not worth fighting about.

look gunny, seems you're not even reading the beginning of my post

"I dont know but maybe..."
how does that say I'm Presuming anything? or telling you what you think?
I start out saying that i'm making speculative assumptions based on what you've said is important.

Then i make a real observation, based on reading you for a few years now... not a guess about what you "THINK".

you have a very keen sense for the dangers of clear military power trying to take over nations.

That's simply a true observation of many of your post Gunny.
From there I comment on where I think your views falls short of reality.
Not about WHAT you are thinking.
But what I think you're underestimating since in this thread & elsewhere you (IMO) minimize the potential problem.

Not sure how you get the idea i'm presuming what you think.
I'm writing my opinion of what you think based on what you've written.

And you made it a point to highlight or correct what you thought I was WRONG about all through this thread.

Therein lies the biggest problem. Discussion is not about being right or wrong. ..

There's a difference between unrealistic and just flat backward. ".... You prefer to attack the symptom rather than the disease.


You want cops to understand your idealism at the expense of their livelihoods. Your opinion is reversed. ...

Naive idealism. ....

Quite the imagination :smoke:

Even a dead clock is right twice a day....
...One can find whatever one wishes if one is determined to...

sheesh
But it's cool.
like i said maybe it's the way i word things.
Since people feel they have to correct me or that im way out in left field...
even when I post agreement with major portions of what they say.




It is possible. Never said otherwise. In question appears to be the idea that European countries/EU trying to prosecute Americans for what they say mostly on the internet. The Dems here would like to get away with that as well. They already prosecute selectively who they want for what is said on the internet.

How does that leftwingtard argument go? Just turn it off if you're offended.

As far as some EU shitheads not liking what I have to say?

:) I'm right here.


Agreed.
I'd just Add that many republicans wouldn't mind it either.

[revelarts]

Former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee Keith Ellison thanks the Tyrants of Brazil for banning 𝕏
The Party of Censorship

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWhLt1hXYAE1uFJ?format=jpg&name=small

[Gunny]

look gunny, seems you're not even reading the beginning of my post

how does that say I'm Presuming anything? or telling you what you think?
I start out saying that i'm making speculative assumptions based on what you've said is important.

Then i make a real observation, based on reading you for a few years now... not a guess about what you "THINK".


That's simply a true observation of many of your post Gunny.
From there I comment on where I think your views falls short of reality.
Not about WHAT you are thinking.
But what I think you're underestimating since in this thread & elsewhere you (IMO) minimize the potential problem.

Not sure how you get the idea i'm presuming what you think.
I'm writing my opinion of what you think based on what you've written.

And you made it a point to highlight or correct what you thought I was WRONG about all through this thread.







sheesh
But it's cool.
like i said maybe it's the way i word things.
Since people feel they have to correct me or that im way out in left field...
even when I post agreement with major portions of what they say.






Agreed.
I'd just Add that many republicans wouldn't mind it either.There's another thread on that very topic. Somewhere around here. It was a poll/survey about free speech where more than one majority thinks it's okay to censor others. he left is just worse than the right.

From MY observation, seems it's always the left defining what speech is what. The right is either reacting or going along to get along.

I've seen two articles the same number of days where leftards are ringing the "We need a new Constitution" bell. I kid you not that the reasoning in both is because the riht has any power at all. The constitution is failing because Trump was elected President and the Supreme Court has an alleged conservative majority. Setting up their usual pre-protest in case Trump wins the electoral college but not the popular vote again.

Seems most nobody's for anyone's Rights but their own.