H. Rollins-Freedom Under Attack

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]DS 007 wrote:

And I don’t think that you should be ‘scared’. These people are the the booooger man. They are not the devil. They don’t want to kill you in your sleep. They might simply want a good place for their kids to grow up in. So they seek certain community standards. Now, my guess is that if these standards consist of gun-control and abortion on demand, you are all for them. If they consist of a ban on pornography or parental notification for minor seeking abortions then, well, that probably scares the hell out of you. Is that about right?

[/quote]

LOL!!! About right? I guess I should have included vowels in my screen name…In case you haven’t noticed, I’m a libertarian, so, no, gun control would not be one of the things I’m “all for.”

I don’t know what abortion policy–especially on the state level–has to do with anything. I’m more concerned about the gradual erosion of our civil liberties at the federal level–all done, supposedly, in protection of our way of life.

Now, how does that saying go about making assumptions?

42

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
JD430 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
I think Rollin’s attitude and verbiage exactly echo the majority of people’s inner thoughts who are fed up with pseudo religious wackos and propagandists dominating the MSM who practically giggle and piss their pants with excitement at the prospects of WWIII.

The village idiot has been “elected” President TWICE. The system is broken.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-John F. Kennedy

You actually believe the religious right dominates the mainstream media?

How can anyone take you seriously?

Oh, right. Bush got elected twice IN SPITE OF the ‘liberal media’.

This is so dead on…
http://www.theyoungturks.com/tag/Cenk%20Mainstream%20Press
[/quote]

Exactly. In spite of the SS(secular socialists)at CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and so on.

Sure, Fox and a good amount of conservative talk radio is run by the religious right(who are also doing damage to the country in some ways).

Your conspiracy theories are warping your mind.

43

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Yeah. I didn’t get most of that.

Probably because it involved simple reasoning.[/quote]

LOL. JTF is puttin a hurtin on him today…

I will reiterate, Rollins was great on this…

44

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

And I don’t think that you should be ‘scared’. These people are the the booooger man. They are not the devil. They don’t want to kill you in your sleep. They might simply want a good place for their kids to grow up in. So they seek certain community standards. Now, my guess is that if these standards consist of gun-control and abortion on demand, you are all for them. If they consist of a ban on pornography or parental notification for minor seeking abortions then, well, that probably scares the hell out of you. Is that about right?

LOL!!! About right? I guess I should have included vowels in my screen name…In case you haven’t noticed, I’m a libertarian, so, no, gun control would not be one of the things I’m “all for.”

I don’t know what abortion policy–especially on the state level–has to do with anything. I’m more concerned about the gradual erosion of our civil liberties at the federal level–all done, supposedly, in protection of our way of life.

Now, how does that saying go about making assumptions? [/quote]

It says that DS ain’t all that bright.

Good post LBRTRN. I’m not a libertarian as far as economics goes, but I love how think as far as the continuing erosion of civil liberties that George II has tried to make permanent.

45

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

And I don’t think that you should be ‘scared’. These people are the the booooger man. They are not the devil. They don’t want to kill you in your sleep. They might simply want a good place for their kids to grow up in. So they seek certain community standards. Now, my guess is that if these standards consist of gun-control and abortion on demand, you are all for them. If they consist of a ban on pornography or parental notification for minor seeking abortions then, well, that probably scares the hell out of you. Is that about right?

LOL!!! About right? I guess I should have included vowels in my screen name…In case you haven’t noticed, I’m a libertarian, so, no, gun control would not be one of the things I’m “all for.”

I don’t know what abortion policy–especially on the state level–has to do with anything. I’m more concerned about the gradual erosion of our civil liberties at the federal level–all done, supposedly, in protection of our way of life.

Now, how does that saying go about making assumptions? [/quote]

I read posts, not screen names. I don’t care what name you have on the screen, it’s all the same to me. It’s not your real name. So who cares.

That’s all fair enough. I’m just saying that it bugs the hell out of me when people say things ‘scare’ them, when all they really mean is that they don’t agree. If you sit around afraid of what some regious zelot or child advocate is saying or doing, well, I’d say you have a whole other thing going on.

And while my comparisons might not have applied to you, as you are a Libertarian, I know plenty of self described liberals who that description fits to a T.

46

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

And I don’t think that you should be ‘scared’. These people are the the booooger man. They are not the devil. They don’t want to kill you in your sleep. They might simply want a good place for their kids to grow up in. So they seek certain community standards. Now, my guess is that if these standards consist of gun-control and abortion on demand, you are all for them. If they consist of a ban on pornography or parental notification for minor seeking abortions then, well, that probably scares the hell out of you. Is that about right?

LOL!!! About right? I guess I should have included vowels in my screen name…In case you haven’t noticed, I’m a libertarian, so, no, gun control would not be one of the things I’m “all for.”

I don’t know what abortion policy–especially on the state level–has to do with anything. I’m more concerned about the gradual erosion of our civil liberties at the federal level–all done, supposedly, in protection of our way of life.

Now, how does that saying go about making assumptions?

It says that DS ain’t all that bright.

Good post LBRTRN. I’m not a libertarian as far as economics goes, but I love how think as far as the continuing erosion of civil liberties that George II has tried to make permanent.[/quote]

Yeahyeahyeah. I’m stupid. All that. I’m not a Libertarian but I have respect for anyone’s right to believe whatever they wish. Conservative. Liberal. Whatever.

And I also believe that we must protect our civil liberties. For me that means civil liberties for everyone, no matter if I value them or not.

That’s why I do not oppose abortion other than to say that it’s not something I agree with, but I do not consider it my business to decide what someone else does. But that’s a much bigger issue than we need to discuss here.

Often times I simply have a problem with the words we use in our discourse. And the whole ‘scare’ thing bugs me. It’s a sound bite. And more often than not, it’s not true. The more appropriate word might be ‘angers’ or even ‘concerns’. To me, when someone says “So and so scares me” it’s just a buzz-word.

In any event, I did not mean to insult anyone. I just enjoy debate.

47

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Yeah. I didn’t get most of that.

Probably because it involved simple reasoning.[/quote]

Ouch. You got me.

I’m being honest in saying that I find your thinking kind of out there. But it’s certainly food for thought and fuel for discourse.

But to say that anyone other than people that are fundementally NOT religous and NOT conservative “control” the media is really, really out there.

48

[quote]DS 007 wrote:

Yeahyeahyeah. I’m stupid. All that. I’m not a Libertarian but I have respect for anyone’s right to believe whatever they wish. Conservative. Liberal. Whatever.

And I also believe that we must protect our civil liberties. For me that means civil liberties for everyone, no matter if I value them or not.

That’s why I do not oppose abortion other than to say that it’s not something I agree with, but I do not consider it my business to decide what someone else does. But that’s a much bigger issue than we need to discuss here.

Often times I simply have a problem with the words we use in our discourse. And the whole ‘scare’ thing bugs me. It’s a sound bite. And more often than not, it’s not true. The more appropriate word might be ‘angers’ or even ‘concerns’. To me, when someone says “So and so scares me” it’s just a buzz-word.

In any event, I did not mean to insult anyone. I just enjoy debate. [/quote]

Ahh no harm man. That’s just the politics forum. You didn’t insult anyone.

To me, it does scare me. The things that were passed in the PATRIOT Act are fucking scary, to the point where they are allowed to ask libraries what books you take out. It reminds of the KGB, when everyone who’s linked to anyone bad became an enemy of the state, including former soldiers and other folks that proved their loyalty.

To think that any government would not abuse it’s power is asinine. That’s what they do. If it scares people like Rollins…good. It should.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

Yeahyeahyeah. I’m stupid. All that. I’m not a Libertarian but I have respect for anyone’s right to believe whatever they wish. Conservative. Liberal. Whatever.

And I also believe that we must protect our civil liberties. For me that means civil liberties for everyone, no matter if I value them or not.

That’s why I do not oppose abortion other than to say that it’s not something I agree with, but I do not consider it my business to decide what someone else does. But that’s a much bigger issue than we need to discuss here.

Often times I simply have a problem with the words we use in our discourse. And the whole ‘scare’ thing bugs me. It’s a sound bite. And more often than not, it’s not true. The more appropriate word might be ‘angers’ or even ‘concerns’. To me, when someone says “So and so scares me” it’s just a buzz-word.

In any event, I did not mean to insult anyone. I just enjoy debate.

Ahh no harm man. That’s just the politics forum. You didn’t insult anyone.

To me, it does scare me. The things that were passed in the PATRIOT Act are fucking scary, to the point where they are allowed to ask libraries what books you take out. It reminds of the KGB, when everyone who’s linked to anyone bad became an enemy of the state, including former soldiers and other folks that proved their loyalty.

To think that any government would not abuse it’s power is asinine. That’s what they do. If it scares people like Rollins…good. It should.[/quote]

It’s become pretty obvious we have a system that is operated by people with no imagination, foresight, insight, or management ability. Our governement is 100% reactionary. There is no sensible application of thought to law, direction, or much of anything else. A lot of the Patriot Act makes sense to me. A lot of it does not. A lot of it is just a lazy, heavy-handed approach taken because, well, they couldn’t come up with anything else.

We had a guy try to blow up a plane with a “shoe bomb”. So now we all have to take our shoes off before getting on a plane. We had a guy try to get on with a dangerous liquid. So no water, no liquids of any kind. Breast milk or baby formula? Only if you DRINK it in front of the security person. Yeah. That’s a smart application of policy. It’s a stupid policy to begin with.

I think we need people (and I’m not talking about Dems or Repubs here) who have a fresh vision and can take an intelligent approach to these new problems. I meet brilliant people all the time (I work in the private sector but deal with fed and state government regularly) and very, very, very few of them work for the government. It’s just stale, tired thinking. I guess THAT does scare me a little when I think about it.

50

Maybe using “scare” isn’t the best way of describing the way I feel; but still, when I say “scare,” and I’m sure the same goes for orion and Irish, I don’t mean “cowering in a corner with my tin foil hat on.” I assure you, I don’t see black helicopters on my way to work. What scares me, and therefor pisses me off–much like with Henry Rollins, I imagine–is the shortsightedness exhibited by many Americans. Let me explain…

In pre-WWII Nazi Germany–no, I’m not comparing Hitler to Bush–Hitler acquired dictatorial power through completely legal channels. There was no military coup: the Nazi party simply pushed through the Reichstag laws like the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act–the formal title: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich. Hello Orwell!-- by appealing to exactly the same sentiments as is Bush.

I don’t think Bush has any nefarious ambitions, as many have argued–he is no Hitler. That doesn’t make the present situation any less dangerous in the long run. It all goes back to the discussion had in another thread about the increasing power of the executive, and federal government as a whole. I argued, a little more emphatically than most, that Bush is just one more in a series of American presidents who have used crisis to expand the power and scope of the executive far beyond its just limits. TR used the threat of Big Business; Wilson expanded on TR’s policies and used WWI; FDR used the Great Depression and WWII; Bush 9-11; etc, etc.

I don’t think any of these men, nor those I failed to mention, intended to do anything other than what they thought best for America. But they, and those who supported them–myself included, in-so-far as Bush is concerned–have short changed our freedom in the long run for a little more security in the short run. That this has been going on for over 100 years and we haven’t yet slipped into tyranny only speaks to the resiliency of the system our founders implemented, but it can’t continue forever–there is a tipping point. And considering gov’t tends to operate on one universal maxim–once given power, it almost never gives it up except by force–any step in that direction scares me.

Forgive me if I sound paranoid, but hey, if only there were a few more paranoid people in 1930…

51

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Maybe using “scare” isn’t the best way of describing the way I feel; but still, when I say “scare,” and I’m sure the same goes for orion and Irish, I don’t mean “cowering in a corner with my tin foil hat on.” I assure you, I don’t see black helicopters on my way to work. What scares me, and therefor pisses me off–much like with Henry Rollins, I imagine–is the shortsightedness exhibited by many Americans. Let me explain…

In pre-WWII Nazi Germany–no, I’m not comparing Hitler to Bush–Hitler acquired dictatorial power through completely legal channels. There was no military coup: the Nazi party simply pushed through the Reichstag laws like the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act–the formal title: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich. Hello Orwell!-- by appealing to exactly the same sentiments as is Bush.

I don’t think Bush has any nefarious ambitions, as many have argued–he is no Hitler. That doesn’t make the present situation any less dangerous in the long run. It all goes back to the discussion had in another thread about the increasing power of the executive, and federal government as a whole. I argued, a little more emphatically than most, that Bush is just one more in a series of American presidents who have used crisis to expand the power and scope of the executive far beyond its just limits. TR used the threat of Big Business; Wilson expanded on TR’s policies and used WWI; FDR used the Great Depression and WWII; Bush 9-11; etc, etc.

I don’t think any of these men, nor those I failed to mention, intended to do anything other than what they thought best for America. But they, and those who supported them–myself included, in-so-far as Bush is concerned–have short changed our freedom in the long run for a little more security in the short run. That this has been going on for over 100 years and we haven’t yet slipped into tyranny only speaks to the resiliency of the system our founders implemented, but it can’t continue forever–there is a tipping point. And considering gov’t tends to operate on one universal maxim–once given power, it almost never gives it up except by force–any step in that direction scares me.

Forgive me if I sound paranoid, but hey, if only there were a few more paranoid people in 1930…[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation. I’d say, though, that the Weimar Republic which enabled Hitler proved a more unstable governement than today’s American democracy. It was fairly new and not well established (post WWI). Also, the German popluation would have gone for just about anything at that point. The economy was in ruins - beyond anything we’ve known save, perhaps, the Great Depression. National pride was crushed. I could go on. A good source for a description of all this can be found in Ian Kershaw’s Hitler (Volume 1: Hubris).

So while I understand the bulk of your point, I’m not really accepting of Germany/US (and with that Bush/Hitler) comparisons (not that you made a Bush/Hitler thing).

52

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
So while I understand the bulk of your point, I’m not really accepting of Germany/US (and with that Bush/Hitler) comparisons (not that you made a Bush/Hitler thing). [/quote]

I agree 100%–which is why I made the point about America’s resiliency in the face of over 100 years of executive power grabbing. Obviously, there are vast differences between the Germany of 1930 and present day America. I was only using it as an example–the most vivid in recent history–of a democracy decaying into a dictatorship through a largely peaceful, and piecemeal, process.

It becomes all the more difficult to recognize in our case because that process has been extended over a period of decades. It will take much more time for America to decay into anything remotely like Nazi Germany; but I’m not eager to even flirt with the possibility any more than we already have. There is a point of no return; at what point do we say “enough?”