Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243
Results 421 to 427 of 427

Thread: Texas Senate confiscates tampons while debating anti-abortion bill [W:155]

  1. #421
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    It's very easy to Monday-morning quarterback. As I've said, I don't the DPS troopers, who are primarily male, were even thinking about women needing these products for the usual purpose. They were tasked with searching for possible projectiles. And again, when women complained, the DPS reversed the decision. Somehow this continues to be forgotten.

    Also forgotten is what really matters here: That we are a nation of laws and that your First Amendment rights stop at hurling anything at anybody, particularly if your intent is to prevent the business of your elected reps from being conducted.
    Which is why you arrest and charge those people who are throwing such items. You do not assume guilt or confiscate innocent items. I don't agree with it by the TSA or others for terrorists threats, and I'm not going to agree with it in this instance either. The unsanitary and plain disgusting things, sure, take them. Not only that, I'd probably say keep them out of the place just for bringing such things to a legislative meeting. But other, small, unopened, harmless items should not be taken just because some believe they may be used, especially when you are allowing real weapons (guns) into the building. It is stupid and it costs people (wrongly) money. If those people throw those items actually at someone, then by all means, arrest them. It would have been a much better use of time to have the cops looking out for such people rather than confiscating tampons and snacks.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #422
    Advisor Morrigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    10-13-14 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    351

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    The key word is "prolonged". If you'd really read Sun Tzu's the Art of War, you'd have seen that he was quite "pro-standing-army". In fact, that's how he got his first job as general. He offered his services to the local king, and the king told him, "if you can get my concubines to act as if they were in the army, I'll accept you". Tzu ordered the concubines into ranks and attempted to drill them, and of course they giggled and paid him not so much attention. So Tzu said, "If the army fails to obey the general's orders, it is the general's fault because he has failed to ensure discipline among the ranks" (or words to that effect - I'm doing this from memory), and ordered one of them - the king's favorite - to be beheaded. The king tried to intervene to save his favorite concubine, and Tzu looked at him and said, "It is obvious the king does not want a proper general, for he insists on interfering in the general's efforts to maintain discipline in the ranks." The king realized he had no honorable choice and allowed Tzu to proceed in the beheading. After the concubine was beheaded, the rest of the concubines - each shedding tears of terror and sadness - performed the drill commands quite well.

    So...got any other quotes on war?

    Also, Sun Tzu - as is made obvious by his descriptions of the importance of spies and intelligence - would obviously have thought my fellow progressives (and libertarians like yourself) as quite silly concerning the current brouhaha over a certain traitor named Edward Snowden. I am progressive - very liberal - and would love to slash our defense budget, starting with my - MY - beloved aircraft carriers (it's a retired Navy thing)...but when it comes to our intelligence services, I strongly disagree with my fellow progressives - Snowden and Manning are traitors.
    He was only for a standing army during a time of potential invasion which quickly became a reality. He trained the troops, led them on an incredibly successful guerrilla campaign, and then quietly retired to write his Art of War. If Sun Tzu was so pro-standing army then why did he not stay as General?

    He would find our general cluster****s in Afghanistan and Iraq comical at the least. We largely failed to engage the enemy on our own terms, failed horribly in winning over the population, fought when we could have avoided it, failed in keeping public support and even that of much of our own military, and are engaged in a series of prolonged wars that may escalate yet again.

    Moving on to the Constitutional level, our own Founding Fathers would and have vehemently argued that every American has an individual duty to uphold the Constitution and no duty to support the government itself, rather the opposite. The Bill of Rights is specifically stated to be made up of inalienable (rights that can and shall not be taken away from the people and upheld by any means necessary) rights. Between the NSA's usual bull****, PRISM, the Patriot act, the 2013 NDAA, etc. etc. the government has explicitly and inarguably violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments as well as Article III of the Constitution in thirteen years alone.

    Snowden has a duty, as an American citizen, to uphold the Constitution by any means necessary. That makes him a hero and a patriot, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of the American public are too ignorant, unwilling, or in denial to do what needs to be done to uphold the supreme law of the land.

    If you would like sources regarding the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution, I would be happy to provide them.

  3. #423
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,472

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrigi View Post
    He was only for a standing army during a time of potential invasion which quickly became a reality.
    And your proof for this is...what, exactly? And don't give me what you personally think he meant - give me QUOTES.

    Oh, I figure you're thinking of his quote that the acme of generalship is to win without fighting - but that doesn't at all mean that he didn't believe in standing armies. It means he (quite rightly) believed that it was best if an army could win without bloodshed. He would have loved one of the early battles by Genghis Khan in northern China wherein they approached a fortified city with an army in front of it that was significantly larger than his own. The city - like most cities - was built next to a river, so Genghis Khan had the river dammed - he was going to dam it to the point that when he knocked down the dam, it would wash away the opposing army. The dam gave way ahead of time and the opposing army was suddenly covered in waist-deep water, and they knew that if Genghis Khan wanted to, he could do it all over again and more effectively...so they surrendered. That is a prime example of Sun Tzu's "acme of generalship".

    He trained the troops, led them on an incredibly successful guerrilla campaign, and then quietly retired to write his Art of War. If Sun Tzu was so pro-standing army then why did he not stay as General?
    Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was getting OLD???? You're comparatively quite young - otherwise you wouldn't have said that. This may come as a surprise to you, but generals - the ones who live - always retire sooner or later. Always. The wise ones don't wait too long to retire, for there are many examples of generals who were brilliant at first, but grew too cautious or too arrogant in their power as they grew older. That, and no matter how much one loves the military, one gets tired of being part of it, as this retired Navy man can tell you from first-hand experience.

    He would find our general cluster****s in Afghanistan and Iraq comical at the least. We largely failed to engage the enemy on our own terms, failed horribly in winning over the population, fought when we could have avoided it, failed in keeping public support and even that of much of our own military, and are engaged in a series of prolonged wars that may escalate yet again.
    I quite agree, with the exception of your last phrase. We're not going to war again anytime soon unless we're forced to do so, thanks to the fact that in the modern democratic world, the will of the people whether or not to go to war is a MUCH stronger determinant than it was in the days when the king could wake up one day and say, "let's go invade somebody!" Here's an example: ten DAYS after he was sworn in to office in 2001, Bush 43 had a cabinet meeting concerning the invasion of Iraq...but even then he knew that he couldn't just up and invade. Then, a few days (or was it weeks) after 9/11, he told Bush that 9/11 was his opportunity to invade Iraq. Obama ended the war in Iraq and stopped most combat ops in Afghanistan...and when it came to Libya he put no boots on the ground at all. And according to polls, Americans are strongly against us getting directly involved in Syria. I sure don't want to see us putting boots on the ground there!

    Moving on to the Constitutional level, our own Founding Fathers would and have vehemently argued that every American has an individual duty to uphold the Constitution and no duty to support the government itself, rather the opposite. The Bill of Rights is specifically stated to be made up of inalienable (rights that can and shall not be taken away from the people and upheld by any means necessary) rights. Between the NSA's usual bull****, PRISM, the Patriot act, the 2013 NDAA, etc. etc. the government has explicitly and inarguably violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments as well as Article III of the Constitution in thirteen years alone.
    You should read a bit more American history - our politicians have a long and storied past of violating the Constitution. When it comes to the First Amendment, there were people sentenced to prison during WWI for a decade for merely speaking out against the war. When it comes to surveillance, you should read up on what J. Edgar Hoover did sometime. You can pontificate all you want, all day long about the Constitution this and the Constitution that, but you'll find out as the years go by that when the government (rightly or wrongly) perceives a threat, it will address that threat and will find a way (legal or not) to ignore the Constitutional rights of those involved.

    And here's a story for you - back in 2000, I was in Security on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, and my office got a call from someone with a foreign accent who told us that when we pulled in next time in the Middle East, they were going to blow up a vessel next to us. Of course we made sure that everybody and his brother were informed. We deployed and pulled in to Dubai in early October, and we kept a sharp eye out for any possible threat. Nothing happened and we pulled out. Four days later the USS Cole was bombed in the same way that we were told we'd be bombed. I'm sure the Feds eventually found the phone records of the individual who called, but if we'd had PRISM then, even if the person called from overseas we'd have had his phone number and everyone who had called or had been called by that phone number, and quite possibly identified those people using those phones. Seeing as how one of the people involved in the planning of the attack on the USS Cole was later one of the hijackers on 9/11, if we'd had PRISM, we might've forestalled the 9/11 attacks and the decade of national insanity that followed.

    So now that you know this story, would you personally be willing to let the government know your phone records (never mind that your phone company already does (and so do all the other corporations your phone company sells your number to)) if it might forestall another 9/11 or worse?

    Snowden has a duty, as an American citizen, to uphold the Constitution by any means necessary. That makes him a hero and a patriot, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of the American public are too ignorant, unwilling, or in denial to do what needs to be done to uphold the supreme law of the land.
    Snowden is a traitor. Dude, he went to China (Hong Kong is STILL China) and then to Russia. Come now, do you REALLY think that their intelligence agencies weren't all over his computers? Are you really so naive as to think that? And if you've read Sun Tzu, you'd know that he held the nation's intelligence services in highest regard and of prime importance.

    And then there's Snowden's brother-in-treason, Bradley Manning. If Manning had only released the video of the civilians getting killed, he'd be a hero and I'd call him a hero. But that's not all he released. He also released (in addition to hundreds of thousands of military communiques) a quarter million diplomatic messages and cables. Do you remember what happened to Valerie Plame thanks to Cheney and company? Remember how she - a CIA agent - was publicly exposed, and as a result her entire operation and all the agents she'd worked with in that operation were exposed and no longer of any use? Cheney quite literally committed treason...and every one of those quarter million diplomatic messages and cables that Manning released had the potential for exposing an agent or informants just as Cheney had exposed Valerie Plame. Manning didn't understand this - he thought he was doing the right thing - but he was a low-level wonk. He could not have known which messages would have endangered agents and informants...but it's all but certain that we had agents and informants (and their families) die thanks to what Manning did.

    And what do you think Sun Tzu would have said about Snowden and Manning? Again, read about how important he felt a nation's intelligence was to the preservation of that nation.

    If you would like sources regarding the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution, I would be happy to provide them.
    Sure - go ahead...and bear in mind that you'd be hard-pressed to find any major nation that actually abides by the freedoms that we still have. For instance, if you lived in China or Russia - you know, those nations that Snowden ran away to - just what you've written in this post I'm replying to would have been enough to place you on a watch list of possible insurgents. You really, truly have no conception of the degree of freedom you now have. Yes, it's always en vogue to claim "They're taking our freedoms away!!!!" but in reality you're much freer than most. This is not to say we're perfect - we're certainly not, and especially towards minorities. There's always room for improvement.

    And realize that times change, threats change. You see, there's this thing called 'evolution', and it basically goes like this: those creatures who don't adapt to changes in their environment, changes to their world...such creatures die off and go extinct. Just as this principle applies to anthills and herd animals, it also applies to nations. This is why absolute monarchies used to be the rule - now they're almost extinct. Economies used to be almost solely libertarian in character - now the economies with the highest standards of living in the world are almost exclusively socialized democracies.

    Either adapt to the new world - and the changing nature of threats therein - or go extinct.
    Last edited by Glen Contrarian; 07-17-13 at 12:49 PM.

  4. #424
    Advisor Morrigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    10-13-14 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    351

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    And your proof for this is...what, exactly? And don't give me what you personally think he meant - give me QUOTES.

    Oh, I figure you're thinking of his quote that the acme of generalship is to win without fighting - but that doesn't at all mean that he didn't believe in standing armies. It means he (quite rightly) believed that it was best if an army could win without bloodshed. He would have loved one of the early battles by Genghis Khan in northern China wherein they approached a fortified city with an army in front of it that was significantly larger than his own. The city - like most cities - was built next to a river, so Genghis Khan had the river dammed - he was going to dam it to the point that when he knocked down the dam, it would wash away the opposing army. The dam gave way ahead of time and the opposing army was suddenly covered in waist-deep water, and they knew that if Genghis Khan wanted to, he could do it all over again and more effectively...so they surrendered. That is a prime example of Sun Tzu's "acme of generalship".



    Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was getting OLD???? You're comparatively quite young - otherwise you wouldn't have said that. This may come as a surprise to you, but generals - the ones who live - always retire sooner or later. Always. The wise ones don't wait too long to retire, for there are many examples of generals who were brilliant at first, but grew too cautious or too arrogant in their power as they grew older. That, and no matter how much one loves the military, one gets tired of being part of it, as this retired Navy man can tell you from first-hand experience.



    I quite agree, with the exception of your last phrase. We're not going to war again anytime soon unless we're forced to do so, thanks to the fact that in the modern democratic world, the will of the people whether or not to go to war is a MUCH stronger determinant than it was in the days when the king could wake up one day and say, "let's go invade somebody!" Here's an example: ten DAYS after he was sworn in to office in 2001, Bush 43 had a cabinet meeting concerning the invasion of Iraq...but even then he knew that he couldn't just up and invade. Then, a few days (or was it weeks) after 9/11, he told Bush that 9/11 was his opportunity to invade Iraq. Obama ended the war in Iraq and stopped most combat ops in Afghanistan...and when it came to Libya he put no boots on the ground at all. And according to polls, Americans are strongly against us getting directly involved in Syria. I sure don't want to see us putting boots on the ground there!



    You should read a bit more American history - our politicians have a long and storied past of violating the Constitution. When it comes to the First Amendment, there were people sentenced to prison during WWI for a decade for merely speaking out against the war. When it comes to surveillance, you should read up on what J. Edgar Hoover did sometime. You can pontificate all you want, all day long about the Constitution this and the Constitution that, but you'll find out as the years go by that when the government (rightly or wrongly) perceives a threat, it will address that threat and will find a way (legal or not) to ignore the Constitutional rights of those involved.

    And here's a story for you - back in 2000, I was in Security on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, and my office got a call from someone with a foreign accent who told us that when we pulled in next time in the Middle East, they were going to blow up a vessel next to us. Of course we made sure that everybody and his brother were informed. We deployed and pulled in to Dubai in early October, and we kept a sharp eye out for any possible threat. Nothing happened and we pulled out. Four days later the USS Cole was bombed in the same way that we were told we'd be bombed. I'm sure the Feds eventually found the phone records of the individual who called, but if we'd had PRISM then, even if the person called from overseas we'd have had his phone number and everyone who had called or had been called by that phone number, and quite possibly identified those people using those phones. Seeing as how one of the people involved in the planning of the attack on the USS Cole was later one of the hijackers on 9/11, if we'd had PRISM, we might've forestalled the 9/11 attacks and the decade of national insanity that followed.

    So now that you know this story, would you personally be willing to let the government know your phone records (never mind that your phone company already does (and so do all the other corporations your phone company sells your number to)) if it might forestall another 9/11 or worse?



    Snowden is a traitor. Dude, he went to China (Hong Kong is STILL China) and then to Russia. Come now, do you REALLY think that their intelligence agencies weren't all over his computers? Are you really so naive as to think that? And if you've read Sun Tzu, you'd know that he held the nation's intelligence services in highest regard and of prime importance.

    And then there's Snowden's brother-in-treason, Bradley Manning. If Manning had only released the video of the civilians getting killed, he'd be a hero and I'd call him a hero. But that's not all he released. He also released (in addition to hundreds of thousands of military communiques) a quarter million diplomatic messages and cables. Do you remember what happened to Valerie Plame thanks to Cheney and company? Remember how she - a CIA agent - was publicly exposed, and as a result her entire operation and all the agents she'd worked with in that operation were exposed and no longer of any use? Cheney quite literally committed treason...and every one of those quarter million diplomatic messages and cables that Manning released had the potential for exposing an agent or informants just as Cheney had exposed Valerie Plame. Manning didn't understand this - he thought he was doing the right thing - but he was a low-level wonk. He could not have known which messages would have endangered agents and informants...but it's all but certain that we had agents and informants (and their families) die thanks to what Manning did.

    And what do you think Sun Tzu would have said about Snowden and Manning? Again, read about how important he felt a nation's intelligence was to the preservation of that nation.



    Sure - go ahead...and bear in mind that you'd be hard-pressed to find any major nation that actually abides by the freedoms that we still have. For instance, if you lived in China or Russia - you know, those nations that Snowden ran away to - just what you've written in this post I'm replying to would have been enough to place you on a watch list of possible insurgents. You really, truly have no conception of the degree of freedom you now have. Yes, it's always en vogue to claim "They're taking our freedoms away!!!!" but in reality you're much freer than most. This is not to say we're perfect - we're certainly not, and especially towards minorities. There's always room for improvement.

    And realize that times change, threats change. You see, there's this thing called 'evolution', and it basically goes like this: those creatures who don't adapt to changes in their environment, changes to their world...such creatures die off and go extinct. Just as this principle applies to anthills and herd animals, it also applies to nations. This is why absolute monarchies used to be the rule - now they're almost extinct. Economies used to be almost solely libertarian in character - now the economies with the highest standards of living in the world are almost exclusively socialized democracies.

    Either adapt to the new world - and the changing nature of threats therein - or go extinct.
    We aren't adapting, we're regressing. Our bull**** towards Iran has gotten Russia directly threatening a nuclear attack if we invade Iran. We're also sending weapons to Syrian rebels, in response to which Iran is sending in 4,000 troops. This has a very real possibility to evolve into a regional, cold-war style proxy war if not worse. Iran and Syria have mutual defense agreements. If we ever get caught with troops in Syria, it's going to cause a cluster**** of global proportions.

    There is no evidence showing that a libertarian society could not exist in the modern world. The problem is that people have, over time, gained power over these societies and slowly turned them over to socialism.

    Also, it is not the practical aspect of freedom but the theoretical one. Just because I am not personally affected by a new, illegal ruling does not mean that it is harmless. These have been and are steadily accumulating and now allow for any and all U.S. citizens to be placed in what are effectively concentration camps. Meanwhile, the DHS has bought over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of armored military transports. Furthermore, constant drone surveillance is legal as is using said drones to kill anyone the President wants to.

    Do you honestly find that acceptable? Historically speaking, those murdering in the name of government as opposed to in spite of it have killed over 260 million people in the last century alone between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others.

    The point is, telling the people that they are threatened by an outside force and calling those who don't follow along unpatriotic while increasing restrictions and introducing new laws infringing on rights is a textbook beginning to an authoritarian state.
    Rome was a republic. Under the influence of war with barbarian states, they became an empire. Hitler started his whole campaign by blaming the Jews and fabricating their threat to Germany out of thin air, while an earlier law had conveniently banned and confiscated all firearms from the civilian populace. They then went to war in the name of "national security" and the rest, as we say, is history.

    Now, the United States has found itself at war with nations of Islam for twelve years now. There has been controversy, racial profiling and targeting, and of course the constant "terrorist threat". Thus, the government justifies relatively minor restrictions on freedom and rights such as the Patriot act, the new airport scanners, PRISM, legal drone surveillance and attacks on U.S. citizens.... It is quite clear that as time progresses they're trying to get away with more and more and no one has the spine to try and stop them yet.

    There is also the fact that the U.S. Dollar is literally based on nothing but faith at the moment. If that faith collapses, the dollar collapses. If the dollar collapses, America collapses.

    In what way is this adaptation? It looks a whole lot to me like the death throes of a once-great nation. Those in power know that the dollar is doomed but they don't want to lose that power so they will attempt to keep it by force of arms.

    If they aren't, then why did the DHS buy over one and a half billion rounds of hollowpoint handgun ammunition? That's five or six bullets for every man, woman and child in the entire country. Why is there so much of a push against the Second Amendment? Why is the news media focusing on the Zimmerman case but not the countless cases of police brutality and government misconduct? Why is so much of the civil unrest going on in the rest of the world going uncovered?

  5. #425
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,472

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrigi View Post
    We aren't adapting, we're regressing. Our bull**** towards Iran has gotten Russia directly threatening a nuclear attack if we invade Iran.
    And your proof of intention on our part and of such a threat by Russia is what, exactly?

    We're also sending weapons to Syrian rebels, in response to which Iran is sending in 4,000 troops. This has a very real possibility to evolve into a regional, cold-war style proxy war if not worse. Iran and Syria have mutual defense agreements. If we ever get caught with troops in Syria, it's going to cause a cluster**** of global proportions.
    And that's why Obama's not going to put boots on the ground there. He'll give the rebels military support, he might even put a no-fly zone in place...but he's not about to put boots on the ground there.

    There is no evidence showing that a libertarian society could not exist in the modern world. The problem is that people have, over time, gained power over these societies and slowly turned them over to socialism.
    Oh yes, libertarian societies DO exist today - just go to most of the worst-off third-world nations and you'll find small, weak government, low effective taxes, little or no regulation, and little or no social safety net. Ask me how I know.

    Also, it is not the practical aspect of freedom but the theoretical one. Just because I am not personally affected by a new, illegal ruling does not mean that it is harmless. These have been and are steadily accumulating and now allow for any and all U.S. citizens to be placed in what are effectively concentration camps. Meanwhile, the DHS has bought over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of armored military transports. Furthermore, constant drone surveillance is legal as is using said drones to kill anyone the President wants to. Do you honestly find that acceptable? Historically speaking, those murdering in the name of government as opposed to in spite of it have killed over 260 million people in the last century alone between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others.
    Ah, so you've bought into the right wing's OMG-the-DHS-bought-AMMO!!!! faux conspiracy. Here - edjimicate yourself on what's completely false about this conspiracy. Dude, there's a way to tell when Alex Jones is full of crap - if he's breathing, he's full of crap.

    The point is, telling the people that they are threatened by an outside force and calling those who don't follow along unpatriotic while increasing restrictions and introducing new laws infringing on rights is a textbook beginning to an authoritarian state. Rome was a republic. Under the influence of war with barbarian states, they became an empire. Hitler started his whole campaign by blaming the Jews and fabricating their threat to Germany out of thin air, while an earlier law had conveniently banned and confiscated all firearms from the civilian populace. They then went to war in the name of "national security" and the rest, as we say, is history.
    Dude - get off the OMG-the-DHS-bought-AMMO crazy train, okay? It's a false conspiracy, and you bought into it.

    Now, the United States has found itself at war with nations of Islam for twelve years now. There has been controversy, racial profiling and targeting, and of course the constant "terrorist threat". Thus, the government justifies relatively minor restrictions on freedom and rights such as the Patriot act, the new airport scanners, PRISM, legal drone surveillance and attacks on U.S. citizens.... It is quite clear that as time progresses they're trying to get away with more and more and no one has the spine to try and stop them yet.
    You really think there's no threat? Really? Picture this - you're the president, you're in charge of it all. And you've got a choice: you can (1) maintain the surveillance as it presently stands (plus whatever programs going on that we don't know about), or (2) you can get rid of all the surveillance and make libertarians and most liberals happy...and when - when! - a major attack happens (like 9/11 or worse) that the above surveillance might have given you the tools to prevent, you will have to deal with a change in the national psyche not unlike how it was immediately after 9/11. Oh, and you can tell the families of those killed in the attack how the privacy of their phone records was more important than preventing the deaths of a few thousand people (including their family members). That was the point of the story I told you about the phone call we got on board the USS Abraham Lincoln.

    There is also the fact that the U.S. Dollar is literally based on nothing but faith at the moment. If that faith collapses, the dollar collapses. If the dollar collapses, America collapses.
    Care to show me a single currency in all human history - even solid gold currency - that was based on anything but faith? Even the value of gold is based on nothing more than faith and perception. Dude, you've got some real fear issues - it would behoove you to recognize them and realize how they're affecting your outlook on the world.

    In what way is this adaptation? It looks a whole lot to me like the death throes of a once-great nation. Those in power know that the dollar is doomed but they don't want to lose that power so they will attempt to keep it by force of arms.
    Guy, every single year since I was young I've seen people crying to the rooftops that "the dollar is DOOOOOOMED!!!" Yeah, that might happen. And we might get struck by a previously-undetected asteroid tomorrow. Or the nascent supervolcano that dwells beneath Yellowstone might erupt tomorrow and take most of America with it.

    I used to be a bit of a survivalist - my friends and I were Absolutely Sure that the Soviet Union was going to launch any day now...and while we sat wasting our time worrying about that, the rest of the world went along just fine without us. Likewise, while you're sitting there frozen in fear about what might happen to the dollar, the vast majority of humanity is going along just fine without you. Here's a valuable tip from someone who's been there: forget about what is very unlikely to happen, and concentrate on what is happening. The destruction of the dollar has been foretold since before the Civil War - it's extremely unlikely to happen. Global warming, on the other hand, IS happening. If you've just got to worry about something, worry about something that's real, that's happening today.

    If they aren't, then why did the DHS buy over one and a half billion rounds of hollowpoint handgun ammunition? That's five or six bullets for every man, woman and child in the entire country. Why is there so much of a push against the Second Amendment? Why is the news media focusing on the Zimmerman case but not the countless cases of police brutality and government misconduct? Why is so much of the civil unrest going on in the rest of the world going uncovered?
    1. Read the reference above that shows what a boondoggle the faux DHS conspiracy is.

    2. The greater the number of loaded firearms you put into a populace, the greater the degree of needless death in that populace. Go live in Australia sometime - or better yet, Switzerland, where gun regulations are much stricter than our own. And get off the "the-guv'mint's-a-comin'-ta-GIT-me!-where's-my-AR-15?" crazy train...because all it is, is a crazy train.

    3. Why is there a greater degree of police brutality? Because so many of the people who break the law are better-armed than they are! When you're a policeman and you've got a job to do, you also have to prepare that every freaking traffic stop might be the time when you get shot to death. That knowledge - and it is very, very real - is affecting the psychology of the police as a whole. The 300 million-plus guns that are spread out among the American populace are the root cause of the increase in the level of police brutality, because of the fear they feel, the fear they MUST feel, every single day they go to do their jobs.

    4. You can thank the corporate media for that last one...but fortunately we have the internet where we can hear about most of the civil unrest. But you know what? If you look back at history - and this will drive you nuts - if you look back at history, you'll find that - relative to population - RIGHT NOW is the most peaceful time in human history. Yes, that's right - RIGHT NOW. There's one significant - but still not truly major - civil war going on right now...and there are ZERO major wars going on right now. There's some degree of genocide by starvation going on in Sudan, which is tragic and hopefull we and the other nations can get together to stop it...but can you name any other time in history where - again, relatively speaking - the world was as peaceful as it is right now?

    In other words, if you'll think about it, things are really good right now - and they're getting better. If you keep listening to Alex Jones, however, you'll never be able to escape the fear that you've shown in this post. Recognize your fear for what it is, reject the fear of the extremely unlikely and of the demonstrably false conspiracies...and get on with your life - you'll be a lot better of for it.

  6. #426
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    How the HELL did this turn into a discussion about the NSA spying on everyone and their brother thing.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #427
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

    What? They haven't gotten their tampons and pads back yet?

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •