Earlier today I heard John Gibson on Fox say torture is great, it protects american lives, and that liberals are to blame for our bad image. For those of you who still remember me, I have kind of made a 360 politically, from neocon warmonger to libertarian so I was already a bit upset at his comments. P.S. I apologize to all the 9/11 truthers I bashed. So then I picked up an old movie I hadn't watched in like 6 years, The Siege (1999) with Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, involving terrorists in New York (odd to see the WTC towers still there). There was a nightmare scenario in the film, and I can't believe I forgot it. Almost every single one of their "worst fears" about a police state has now been realized in our own. Film worry #1. The CIA operated domestically (check) Current reality: Not only does the CIA LEGALLY operate domestically, now the FBI, CIA, and NSA were PERMANENTLY merged into Homeland Security even though the film shows how critical checks and balances are in the intelligence community, to stop rogue agencies and unconstitutional procedures. 2. Military operated domestically in violation of Posse Comitatus (check) Current reality: Military polices us on regular even non-emergency basis, posse comitatus act removed, president authorized to use military force in cases of domestic insurrection. 3. the government tortured to get info, didn't work well, because they just tell you what you want to hear (check). current reality: "enhanced interrogation techniques" basically enhancing the questions with a fist in their face. Habeas corpus gone, men held for years without charges. Whatever your opinion of the individual actions, please discuss only whether or not you think the police state fears of "The Siege" have been realized. I think, for better or worse, the nightmare scenario of "The Siege" is reality.
First, these aren't hard and fast Libertarian sub-sects. The Libertarian party itself is quite a mess, consider that trying to organize a group of people who all believe in freedom, liberty and shun group think. Makes it hard for the party to progress. Common themes are civil liberties and free markets, but as with all issues, one is more absolute than the other. There are lots of sub sects of libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Rothbardians are for sound money, limited government, low or no taxes and maximum free market liberty. Cato libertarians are less concerned with sound money, but more concerned with civil liberty. Frankly, I'm for Rothbard. The Cosmopolitan libertarians don't have a holistic philosophy, more like a high standard with a collection of acceptable (minor) compromises.
I like Rothbard. I favour the Ludwig von Mises, Austrian school of economics, and despise Keynesians to the point of wanting to shoot them. How can you be libertarian yet abdicate control of the currency, the most important aspect of our lives, to the government? It flies in the face of logic. If you want true stability you legalize all competitive forms of currency such as the liberty dollar, and allow gold and silver as legal tender as well. This allows the market to completely stabilize and eliminates inflation, allows your savings to increase in value over time, etc. And who really knows the rate of inflation, all governments in the world use fiat currency and have socialist spending policies, so our say 30% decline versus the euro is on top of a natural 5-8% yearly decline in currency "real" value regardless! Anyways.... back on topic? Guess my findings weren't that interesting
Awesome. Yeah, back on topic, if you listen to enough Alex Jones, you won't be able to think straight anymore. And that's not a joke about Alex Jones. I watched Endgame, and I couldn't sleep that night. I spent the whole night laying in bed, freaked out. The sad thing about the whole state of affairs (as chronicled in Andrew Napolitano's "Nation of Sheep") is that the laws have been changed quickly, quietly and most Americans aren't even aware of what Posse Comitatus is, let alone that it has been compromised. And when you try to tell people, they think you're crazy, when all of the legislation and analysis is out there, it's just been intentionally covered over. I find it pretty disturbing that neither Barack nor Hillary have stood up for collapsing the Patriot Act. So much for classic liberalism.
Anyone curious about this, thinking it is nuts or not sure what to make of it, please check out the MP3 of this from RonPaulRadio posted on this blog http://www.libertymaven.com/2007/11/30/judge-napolitano-interview-on-ron-paul-radio-audio-11292007/ Andrew Napolitano is a famous judge and Fox News Judicial analyst.
It is encouraging to see that a lot more people have become more aware about the changes in our government and how they affect our lives. A lot more people are doing research, abandoning main stream media and turning to alternative online sources for information. There is nothing more than the government hates than a informed and educated citizen. We can all turn this ship around. To get back to the thread topic, it is sad but true that since 9/11 the the process has been expedited. People need to know more about the shady deals concucted behind closed doors. We all need to wake up and establish a transparent government that is lean, fiscally responsible and for the people and not major corporations.
That's irrelevant, even if a situation can be dredged up. The government has changed a lot of things. Habeus Corpus, warrantless wiretaps, torture, Rendition, aggressive war, martial law, being declared a military combatant, suspension of congress under martial law, deploying Blackwater to Katrina, secret evidence, destruction of evidence, black sites, military tribunals etc. They don't change all of these laws, without a purpose for them. 19 hijackers. Total abuse of civil liberties and the rule of law by the state.
Even BEFORE the removal of the posse comitatus act, I was used to watching many military police the airports, even saw them question people, etc. And that was not legal, under that act. NOWadays, I just went to a football stadium and there are military patrols there. And how about Katrina? Where military along with police were disarming law-abiding citizens? Or how about Waco, where it was ADMITTED, that Delta Force donned on police outfits in the assault (which is a violation of sooo many laws and treaties). There were two dozen children with bullets to the heads. "House investigators determined that "someone" at BATF lied to the military about the Davidians being involved with drugs in order to get U.S. Army Special Forces and other military aid, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act." - Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary at the Oversight Hearings on Federal Law Enforcement Conduct in Relation to the Branch Davidian Compound near Waco, Texas, and appended documents, Congressional Record, July, 1995 Need more? I can give it to you. Or go ahead and deny it and keep watching Fox. Although even there you might see info you don't like. Might want to avoid this one. I PROMISE you if you actually digest the info, it'll change your perspective, and that would be such a horrible thing wouldn't it? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html I used to think Bush could do no wrong too. But the whole zero border security, pissed me off. waging two wars, but leaving our borders open made no sense to me. Not to mention, training Iraqi armies which are probably gonna be at war with us when we back Israel in the next Israeli-Arab war that Israel starts up (don't get me wrong I love the jewish people, but when you shell arab neighborhoods that have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, on purpose, you're being evil, not just bad) ...
Sorry for pulling this a bit off topic, but so I understand, Cyrus, you're no longer a fascist? You are a libertarian, the polar opposite of someone into a statist economic policy to "optimize the common good?" Also, a bit unclear on your position on Jews in a kind of global conspiracy. I hear you say: But you also wrote: And really pulled out the stops with: (By the way - debunked. The Washington quote is a widely known misstatement of Washington's views: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington#Misattributed This is from Washington: -A well known response by Washington to the Rabbi of the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, who had sent Washington a goodwill-letter. (See Library of Congress, for one). Franklin is well known to have believed in religious liberty, and gave funds to the building of a Philedelphia Synagogue. The "Franklin Prophecy" is another hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Franklin_Prophecy See here for a site and facsimile image bearing Franklin's signature in support of the building of Congregation Mikveh Israel Synagogue.
Yes. I'm not. *sigh* I really didn't want to have to go through all that. I apologize deeply. I was in an agnostic, maybe even pseudo-christian (no love) nationalist phase, angered by all of the going ons. Angered by millions of illegal immigrants, who Bush refused to protect our borders from. Angry because in 20 years whites will be a minority, and in 100 years will be only like 20%. Angry because of "muslim terrorists". Angry because it seemed our politicians would do nothing to help OUR interests, and do everything to handout our finances, and sellout (note: kiss) the kings of arabian countries where the "terrorists" come from. Fascism and Communism are inventions of the state for people who want to vent their anger against the system. Control valves. I wasn't really a Christian at the time, and I apologize for alot of things I said. I wish this thread didn't have to be about it. Should I go on a list? 1. I should apologize to blacks because I bought into Evolution and Eugenics (Darwin's cousin was Galton, father of Eugenics) and James Watson, head of the genome project's statements that they were scientifically speaking, inferior. 2. I should apologize to the 9/11 truthers for attacking them, and in an ironic turn of fate now I am one of them, if you had told me that I would become one 2 years ago, I would of thought you were insane. 3. I should apologize to the Ron Paul supporters, because I opposed them (I was in the process of creating a website against him even) and called them crazy, until I realized I had been brainwashed to argue against my own self-interests. I generally saw reason in Ron Paul's views, except on the "one important issue of our time" as Hannity would say (and I foolishly listened) of "Islamo-fascism", all the while ironically myself leaning towards fascism. 4. I should apologize to Muslims, because I bought into the Bush regime's subtlely crafted situation (where they foster the feelings, but do not themselves advocate the point, in order to avoid appearing fascist/nazi) they were all infidel-haters hell-bent on the destruction of western society. I didn't realize that most "terrorists" were just militia-type fighters and almost 99% of them have at one point or other been funded by the CIA. Even now MSM reported, we fund sunni "Al Qaeda" groups in Iran to cause "instability" there. I had scapegoated their entire religion for what a few extremists and/or CIA agents were doing. Many irrational, angry politics emerged from my agnostic, non-loving state I was in. That was atleast a year ago, right? 5. Lastly, I should apologize to Jews, because I scapegoated an entire race for what a few elite members are doing.
Cyrus, you certainly owe me nothing, and I owe you and apology for being a judgmental prick. I know what time and reflection can do for a man. A deep and heartfelt congratulations on undertaking what seems to me some serious and sincere conversations with yourself, which isn't easy for any of us. We're all just on a planet trying to figure things out, and I'm just searching, like you. Best wishes.
Thank you. I really was judgemental. My family remarks how I have changed from the most "you're gonna burn in the fires of hell" crusader-jingo type person to a "love and freedom" type person. To be honest, I don't care what anyone says I didn't want to say it, but I had a vision where Jesus told me "the most revolutionary thing you can do is to love Muslims", and I had just the week before advocated turning Iran into a sheet of glass. Whether or not it was a real vision or just a dream, it had a profound effect on me. So emotionally I was changing. Then soon enough, I discovered Alex Jones a few weeks later, and we all know how that goes. I began logically changing too, seeing other perspectives. You know, I was "christian" but love was not in my heart really. I was usually such a happy and nice person to people but when it came to POLITICS I got angry, and I didn't realize how it was changing me. I even had a few muslim friends, but I still believed most to be "infidel-haters", I just wrote off my friends as secular muslims. On the Jewish stuff, I just felt angry at the media, still do, but I didn't realize the "apologetic Jews" were really the ones on my side. They were sometimes the only people speaking out against war and loss of liberties, which ironically I ascribed to the weak "cowards". *sigh* White, black, hispanic, asian, jewish, they have been dividing us into groups to fight each other. Divide and conquer. I mean, think about it, if you are an angry, white person and you believe the government story of muslims attacking you, and a jewish media who refuses to "fight back" (i.e. like Colmes, lol, never did I imagine that now I agree with him more than Hannity, my friggin God have I changed) and a GOP president who refuses to protect the border from millions of another race... If you believe that scenario, well fascism seems like the only answer now doesn't it? Only in America our fascism comes wrapped in the American flag and claims to be about "freedom", while torturing arabs who did nothing wrong in secret prisons. It's Soccer-Mom fascism. The kind that tells them, "hey look we're keeping YOU safe and spreading Democracy around the globe! Sleep easy tonight!"
Maybe I should change this to "Cyrus255 conversion from angry neocon, to freedom-loving libertarian thread"
Personally I don't think Eugenics should be taken off the table just yet. True I believe essentially all man is equal by theory, however, I also believe a majority are equally stupid. Without competition, without survival, and without the natural thinning of man's numbers we have begun our own devolution - or as people call it now "a new phase in evolution to a simpler state" and want to say devolution does not exist - I say we have begun devolution and that furthermore the reasons for many of the slow dull witted folk who blindly follow in spite of information being freely available is just a symptom. Those who utilize the information are obviously smarter than their fellow man and are not subject. By all means I believe everyone has and should have social freedoms, a good life, and also happiness - however I think some people just shouldn't be able to breed. A kind of revocation of reproductive rights if you will. Sometimes it makes me wonder how far backwards we take steps when a man fathers 6 illegitimate children and skips town, or when a mother who is already on state sponsored welfare continued to have more children regardless of her fiscal situation. It is not these people who end up suffering the most? The children raised in a horrid environment that continues to degrade their experiences and only feeds them into crime. This goes for any ethnicity and any group of people. Eugenics is not a racist tool, because there is but one race, and eugenics is not an ethnicist tool either, because it applies across the board and can be simplified down to one statement. Dumb people shouldn't have kids - whether or not if they are stupid genetically or if by choice. As for Fascism, this is a perverted state of it that could happen. Just as NAZIs was a perverted state of fascist socialism. Taking away personal and social freedoms will never work for any government in a permanent way, by limiting social freedoms you sow the seeds of revolt and revolution, by saying you are taking away the freedoms to protect the populace you are starting your own demise... Rather than take away freedoms, they should add freedoms. I'll take the risk if I go on a plane, let me carry my salt rock shotgun just in case. A few stunning blasts, and then a butt to the teeth will deter any *hijacker*. Let me own my own arsenal, I'll pay for it, and stay away from me. Let me keep my freedom to speak, and everyone else to keep theirs, and to hell with the PC police. The more social freedoms, the better. Now, if a government (here we enter theory) were to keep and add as many social freedoms as is possible (you know you do have to limit the freedom to kill each other, do harm, etc etc, human sacrifice, destructive behavior) that would ensure a populace that was somewhat more satisfied. Besides the fact that all most people want to do is earn an income that lets them stay fiscally afloat. Now then, if the government were to be dictator run, but allow all these social freedoms - where would the populace stand? So, the populace cannot vote - as there are no elections, and the populace cannot be elected for the same reason... would they revolt? Would they rise up? They have total economic and social freedom and the country is by far capitalist, but run by a small dictatorial government. Just a pondering. Anyways, welcome back from blind faith to Bush.
Great post Jackuul, and while I disagree on Eugenics, I appreciate your being honest about your P.O.V.