Our government seeks to strip away more rights

Woody, you're wasting your time.

 

I hope everyone fully understands what just happened on the previous page.

FreeAtLast called a decorated member of the U.S. Army "dishonorable" for espousing an opinion.

FreeAtLast then asked that same member to provide his commanding officer's information so FAL could report this member's opinion, given freely on a public message board.

FAL has accused this member of our armed forces of proposing to change the constitution...which, as the member pointed out, is not only legal, it's actually provided for within that same constitution.

SO -- FAL has previously proposed that the military is brainwashed into blindly following orders; but when a military member exercises his right to have an opinion, FAL calls that opinion socialist and unconstitutional. By his request for the individual's commanding officer information, FAL is attempting to squash this military member's right to free speech through intimidation.

In the meantime, FAL continues to refer to military as "brutal" and unfit for duty as civilian policemen, when the evidence is that youth and inexperience are the causal factors for police brutality, not prior military duty.

FAL also espouses the need for police snipers to execute civilians who are committing petty larceny, or merely breaking curfew.

Conclusion: FAL is double-minded, hypocritical, and a liar.

Please feel free to provide proof to the contrary.

 

I feel no need to apologize for my previous statements. But, for clarification, let me add some explanation.

I feel that we have too many people who do nothing with their lives once they get out of high school. They become a drain on society, rather than productive, adding to society. My viewpoint is, that if someone is not preparing to be a productive member of society, it would be better that they should be conscripted into the military in order to give back to society and not be a drain.

However, me saying this is similar to someone saying "I wish we could force people to get saved." I realize that what I am saying (concerning conscription into the military) is basically an impossibility, and would violate most of their rights. (Rights that they don't deserve if they are capable of contributing to society, but choose not to. But that's another discussion.) That is why I am saying that I wish we could enact a law, while understanding that we cannot.

If that is socialist, then so be it. But I don't see it that way.

 

You may be right.

However it depends a lot on the next election and the next administration's foreign policy.

If we trend toward isolationism we will not need to have a draft but if we the people continue to allow the US military to be used for political advancement agendae and UN pawns then we will need a draft for the resultant bloodletting.

I think it will be the latter after the election.

On your other point, I'm with you Sapper, I am a veteran and totally support the military. Everyone who is able needs a military indoctrination (or something comprable)Regular, National Guard or Reserve Service.

HankD

 

Is there anyone on the board who is not throughly disgusted and offended by the trash that freeatlast is vomiting here?

 

All I really noticed is that the legislation or it's ramifications never got discussed.

You do all understand that these alleged "terrosists" that our loving government keeps refering to are actually you and me right? The "war on terror" is a war on us.

Y'all do realize that now right? No? Wait a bit you will.

In my humble opinion FAL raised one good question and it demands an answer I think. How can anyone who swore an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America continue to follow the orders of people who are ripping it to shreds, using our military for corporate gain and turning the USA into a militarized police state?

I mean c'mon. We're playing some big checkers here. These guys aren't fooling around and when I say these guys I mean the radical "internationalist" faction that has hijacked our legit government and will settle for nothing less than total control over all our lives.

Our liberty as individuals is at stake here not to mention our idependence as a nation and all y'all can think to do is chunk on poor FAL page after page?

I do like Sapper's "Standard Of Credibility" though. Here it is.

If this standard were applied fairly and evenly here on BB discussions would be a whole lot more interesting and informative. As it is now only those few individuals outside the mass mainstream corporate consensus have the burden of proof laid on them. Those who hold to the mass corporate consensus, the same that usually demand to see the "proof" the longest and loudest are evidently immune from the burden of proof, or so it would seem.

"Duh! It's consensus dummy! It's already been proven! The corporation's talking suits said it we beleive it and that's the end of it. And no matter what you "claim" or link to you can never unprove the mass corporate consensus. That's just how it is."

Hypocrites.

 

That was answered. Do you really want those people who see this as bad legislation, as only one small piece of a much larger puzzle, leaving the military, thus leaving the only people in the military the ones who don't see the problems?

There's absolutely no question that this legislation is bad, is unconstitutional, violates the 4th amendment, and should be challenged in every possible way.

There is absolutely no question that FAL's continued derogatory characterization of military members is based on uninformed opinion with no evidence to support that opinion. Such things must be challenged, or others might mistake them for truth (Proverbs 26:4-5).

Poncho, the things you say are easy to prove. I can easily find the stories, news reports, and articles that show what our society is becoming. I can easily point people to the proof of cameras being used on street corners; of the indoctrination of our citizens through the public schools; of the electronic surveillance of each of us daily. You'll recall my comments about the Panopticon, which you've never responded to.

HOWEVER, FAL has made two specific claims: that military members are brainwashed into being brutal; and that most policemen guilty of police brutality are prior military. When asked to provide his proof of these claims, and thereby persuade us of the truth of the matter, he was unable to do so. In fact, much evidence was provided to the contrary; yet he continues to hold to those claims. Such a position is intellectually dishonest.

Your claims have always been along the lines of how government is eroding away our freedoms and rights, and even I can provide proof of your claims. FAL can provide no proof for his claims, and thus why we "chunk" on him. If his claims are true, then he should easily be able to prove them. Since he can't, he should reconsider his position, rather than continue to espouse them as truth.

There's a world of difference between hypocrisy and lying. One is applying a standard to others but not yourself; the other is the continued engagement in espousing as truth those things that have been disproven. Before you accuse anyone of the first, please ensure those you are defending aren't guilty of the second.

 

Anyone should know that the claims that ALL military personal and law enforcement officers being brainwashed into brutality is simply not true

Granted---both agencies(military & civilian law enforcement) realize that a certain percentage of personal WILL be prone toward unethical behavior(not sure of the percentages)---and that's why the military has a MP Corps and law enforcement has its own Internal Affairs---the MP "polices" the military personal---and Internal Affairs "polices" their personel

 

Good distinction.

Another is that people can be honestly mistaken and espouse what they believe to be true even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Many/most of us are stubborn critters.
Not necessarily liars or hypocrites (though a definite possibilty) - just mistaken.

HankD

 

Before you go calling anyone a hypocrite, maybe you should do some research. Here is where I posted my proofs against FAL's lies: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1751284&postcount=60

So you don't have to take the time to look it up, here it is:

Here is where Don proved FAL's lies wrong: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1750939&postcount=48

So, we have posted our facts and our proofs. But have not been answered by FAL at all. He still holds to his opinions (which he is entitled to), and touts them as fact (which is lying).

Where's your proof, FAL? We have shown our proof, prove us wrong.

 

We are ex-military who became police officers and committed a majority of the acts of brutality? You're not making any sense.

 

Understand what you're trying to say, Hank; and I've considered whether I'm being too harsh in calling FAL a liar. All I can come up with is, if you're stubbornly holding on to something that has been proven to be untrue, then you're lying to yourself as well as those around you.

 

I'd rather work with an ex-military person than an ex-preacher.

 

Or an ex-cop with a MENSA IQ from Seattle.

 

I would not call a nameless and faceless person that I know only from anonymous discussions over the internet.

Such a judgement would require a knowledge that the person that one is communicating with has a grasp of reality.

No, I would not call freeatlast a liar since I have no reason to believe that he is grounded in reality.

 

Um. . .apparently Targus is correct about your grasp on reality, because how many times have I called you a liar in the recent past? 3? 4? More?

BTW: Woody and I are proving what, exactly? My contention has always been regarding your comments that many police who are guilty of brutality are ex-military; after your initial such comment, I was able to spend 15 minutes and debunk that statement. It's been weeks, and you have yet to provide any substantive proof; if anyone's providing proof of anything, it's you and your continued slander.