How Many Constitutional Freedoms Have We Lost?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Oct 27, 2013.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
  2. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of those sources I don't necessarily agree with most of the time, Ponch, but nonetheless on the mark. We don't agree completely on which laws and judicial rulings constitute a blatant erosion of our freedoms, but we do agree that they are being eroded.

    For example, you and I disagree on the Patriot Act, I know, because I believe we have to do something to protect ourselves from the plotting of the terrorists. I agree with you it is used against ordinary Americans, but if one reviews the law itself, such usage is a violation of that law. President Bush insisted on excluding natural-born and naturalized American citizens from the law, but since 2009, it has been used in absolute violation of the tenets within the law.

    An excellent "mainstream" source -- if I can use that word for what many on here consider a non-news organization -- is a piece in The National Review, written by Scripps-Howard columnist Deroy Murdock. It deals more with the deterioration of economic freedoms, but touches on the others as well:


     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Our disagreement on the patriot acts boils down to this TND, you believe the "war on terror" is real I don't. Does that mean I don't think there are Islamic extremists out there that want to do us harm? No, I believe there are and I believe also that we should take precautions to protect ourselves. However I believe the "war on terror" is a cover for an American imperial mobilization.

    Why do I believe that? Because I've read the neocons documents that spelled it out. I've read their white papers like "Clean break securing the realm" I've listened to what Henry Kissinger has been saying and I've read his reports I even read "The Grand Chessboard" that was written by Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama's top foreign policy advisor that lays all it out there for anyone to read.

    It's practically a step by step guide on how to pull off an imperial mobilization using American military might. You should read it for yourself. Here's a few quotes from the book.

    Why would they make their plans public ahead of time? Because they know no one will take the time or have the interest to read the stuff!

    Have you read any of it?

    That's one reason I am against the patriot acts. The other? Put simple it's crazy to believe that government can protect us from harm.

    We had the world"s biggest most technologically advanced best equipped intelligence apparatus in the world and yet a small group of terrorists "allegedly" pulled off the biggest terror attack ever with box cutters while they were under surveillance by several intell agencies. Why would I believe that it was all a big "goof" or "they slipped through the cracks" or as Bush and Rice favored saying "we had no idea". Bull. The lied right through their teeth. There were six drills involving planes flying into buildings at ground zero on 9/11. They had no idea people would fly planes into buildings? Uh huh.

    I'm supposed to believe Al Qaeda a joint CIA/ISI creation during the Afghan - Soviet war or basically a rag tag group of cave dwellers hoodwinked the CIA, ISI, Mossad, MI5, MI6 the FBI, Scotland Yard etc., etc. while they were under surveillance the whole time? Give me a break.
    .,
    But for the sake of argument let's "assume" our huge high tech intelligence apparatus did goof big time. No one was held responsible for the "failures" (oopsies we're so inept doh) so what was the fix to this big government failure?

    Bigger more powerful government! So the idea that a 50% bigger government (yes Bush increased the size of government by 50%) can keep us "safer" than the big government that acted like it couldn't even tie it's own shoelaces was born and conservatives swallowed hook line and sinker. Except for me and a few other conservatives that thought we were all about limited accountable government not bigger more intrusive government to "keep us safe" which has always been a fallacy conservatives traditionally were against. We weren't "neoconned" like the majority of republicans. So much for the conservative idea of limited constitutional government. It was nice while it lasted.

    Government thrives on crisis TND. The bigger the better. Why? Because it always get's the three things it covets most. More money, more power and more control. (oopsies we're so inept, but we can fix it we just need more money more and more control) Think about that for awhile. How many times has the government said that? Oopsies, we're so inept but we can do better just give us more money more power and more control. Don't you think the people n government figured out that acting inept always brings them the three things they covet most? What are those three things again? More money more power and more control.

    Look at the people in positions of power all over the world. What do they all have in common? They're all sociopaths. The world is literally run by sociopaths. They lie with straight faces they cheat and violate the law and think nothing of it they have no problem sending thousands to their death and lying through their teeth.

    I understand that to be a good republican we have to stick up for Bush and to be a good democrat we have to stick up for Obama. That's why there are endless leftie vs rightie arguments here.

    I don't care about being a good republican or a good democrat TND. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever man none of it means anything if we have a lawless government that spies on and tracks our every move and gathering all the information on us it can.

    None of that is being used to keep us safe. It's being used to protect the ruling elite's control over us and to reduce or destroy their competition. I make no distinction between Bush and Obama as far as their crimes go. They are both usurpers. We're supposed to protect and defend the constitution not the usurpers reputations who act above and beyond their constitutional authority. They aren't about protecting us from terrorists they are using our wealth and our military to protect their ill gotten wealth and power. I know that doesn't follow the red white and blue line we're all taught to walk growing up but that's the way it is.

    That is the definition of tyranny. There's no middle ground with tyrants. There's no excusing usurpations because I happened to vote for the usurper. Remember what the founders said about government? George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."" Government is supposed to be our servant not our master!

    And our government has been hijacked by a group of private international bankers and multinational corporations that are only loyal to their bottom line. If a corporation were a person as Romney claimed it would be a sociopath and these huge sociopathic monsters own the GLOBAL economy and our military to protect their assets and expand their holdings.

    There is no "war on terror" there is only an out of control elite on a global feeding frenzy using our wealth and military might to secure the blessings of boundless greed for the few at the expense of the many.

    The Thomas Jefferson Papers


    Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, June 24, 1813
     
    #4 poncho, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...