What are you "willing to give up"?

You want evidence? Question a zionists motives and see how fast you get shouted down, called names and banned from discussion boards. Some topics are off limits. That ain't free speech.

The real greatest threat to our security is Al cia duh blowing things up and blaming others for it. That's what most of the evidence points too.

Constitutionalists are a threat to the government also. Read the FBI phamphlet. Notice the rifle is being pointed at you!

 

You're right in some respects, poncho, because this is a privately owned/paid for board. And there are posting rules that each member signs and agrees to when they join this board.

However, if you want to pay for a domain name and a hosting company, you can still use your First Amendment rights to blast away at the pro-Zionists. So those First Amendment rights are still very much intact.

Good grief, I posted a list of jihadists (on another thread), who have their web sites up, hosted from American servers and hosts and they blast away about doing us all in and how they want to take over our country and slit our throats and the government hasn't seen fit to take most of them out of cyberspace.

Well, believe all the left-wing rhetoric you want to believe. I believe some things are covered up and conspiracies, but not everything. There are a lot of good people who work for the CIA and FBI and other intelligence agencies who are very patriotic and care about this country very deeply. They give up a lot to do what they do (I happen to know a few of them) and many do so under very dangerous, life-threatening conditions.

If you choose to believe that OBL doesn't claim responsibility for 09/11 or for the attack in 1993 or other terrorist attacks, then you must not be paying attention. He has clearly and definitely, on numerous occasions, claimed he or his jihadists are behind them. Unless, you believe the CIA funds al Qaeda and the other jihadists. Is that what you are implying?

Personally, it is more of a stretch of my imagination to blame the CIA for all the terrorist attacks all over the world, than to accept the truth of where they are instigated from, which is Islam & Satan. Even that is hard for me to digest, that people would be so blind, perhaps drug-induced, that they would willingly blow up themselves in order to kill others. It is hard for my mind to leap to such extremes.

 

Throughout history good governments have been hard to maintain. We have been blessed in this country to have had such wise founding fathers that each despite each jab to the republic that we know as America, she still manages to live on. We haven't seen a despotic empire. But think how some of these provisions given in the Patriot Act for example would work if the government fell into the wrong hands. Some people are making the mistake I think of feeling okay with it because George Bush is in charge. But even if that is justified, what's going to happen when George Bush isn't in charge anymore? What happens if fifty years from now, some person who doesn't care at all about preserving America's heritage of freedom gets in charge and abuses those provisions in the Patriot Act and causes Christians to be the new terrorists? I'm not saying it will happen, but we've got to consider that it could be a possibility. Would those who accept the Patriot Act as normal and reasonable feel the same way if Nero was in charge? I know that's a far-fetched example, but I think it's something we as a nation need to consider before we jump in with both feet and say that such a measure is justified in light of the war on terror. Would the Founding Fathers really have wanted the Patriot Act, especially when we've seen cases of it being used against people who have nothing to do with terrorism as such? I don't think so.

 

I understand discussion boards are privately owned and I believe the owner has the right to do whatever he or she wishes to do with their property.

I guess we'll see when the hate laws are passed who is allowed to say what.

Where is your evidence that these are real jihadist websites and not more cia/mossad/mi6 sites set up to propagandize for the global autocrats?

I thought you and I were passed politicizing issues? I no longer look at issues through the false left right paradigm. Not since I figured out that the global elite fund both sides. If I remember correctly we had this discussion before. The democrats are put into power to chance domestic policy and the republicans are put into power to change the foreign policy on the whole it's the policies of the elite that get forwarded to the detriment of the people. Else one party would be repealing the EXO's of the other.

Those few good people that I readily admit are there are being marginalized and even gagged if they speak out against the criminals in government they're called whistle blowers. The problem is that most will go along to get along even if that means doing something against their better judgement, morals and country.

I don't believe I've ever implied it LE, I've come right out and said it. The history of state sponsored terror and declassified government documents make a more solid case than a fat Bin Laden (poor look alike) on a grainy video tape that anyone can fake and claim as being real. Where is your proof that these videos are real BTW?

I never said the cia was behind all of them LE. There are some real terrorists out there no doubt in my mind that Satan has deluded. There is also a mountain of evidence that points to false flag terror attacks carried out by intell agencies. I've posted alot of it right here on BB the Northwoods document for one.

Jiminy Cricket LE, Aldous Huxley told us in 1967 the elite were planning to use terrorism to bring in their one world government.

Problem Reaction Solution.

 

Good response, poncho.

 

By then, it may be a moot point, for it will be too late.

 

Would you have a problem with the FBI and police breaking into your home and turning it upside down without a search warrent? That happened to a friend of mine. The FBI did that because they saw him talking to some suspicious looking people on the street. It turns out he was evangelizing.

The FBI finally admitted they were wrong but refused to pay for the damage and told him he couldn't tell anybody about this or he would go to jail. He chose to tell me. Is this America or the former Soviet Union?

 

The government can, under the Patriot Act, arrest anyone they think is related to terrorism without due cause and without charging them with anything. They can keep that person in jail indefinitely without giving him the right to communicate with a lawyer. None of this requires any proof.

 

The government has admitted that they are spying on anti-war groups. One was a group of about a dozen Quakers in their 60's down in Florada. Of course, this is really nothing new since it was done during the Viet Nam war.

 

Who's talking about hecklers? I'm talking about having to think twice about what we have to say so we don't offend someone especially those with massive PR organizations, lawyers, bankers, judges, the media and politicians in every pocket and the power to drain your bank account by trying to defend yourself. Even if you win the court battle you are left broke and marginalized.

 

We would, by giving up our rights, have surrendered to the terrorists. It is their stated goal to use terror to bring down democracy.

And to the degree we give up those rights, they have won. The administration sees a chance to get some more power. It's a heady thing for any politician, much less ones with no observable principles. This is the last bunch we to which we should be surrendering our rights.

People came here and braved the wilderness and enemies, and privation, because they valued freedom over security.

Have we become so soft and decadent that we no longer keep those American values?

God help us all, if we have.

 

4. COERCION VS FREEDOM

The fourth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with responsibilities and freedom of choice. We have spoken about the origin of rights, but there is a similar issue involving the origin of responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go together. If you value the right to live your own life without others telling you what to do, then you must assume the responsibility to be independent, to provide for yourself without expecting others to take care of you. Rights and responsibilities are merely different sides of the same coin.

If only individuals have rights, then it follows that only individuals have responsibilities. If groups have rights, then groups also have responsibilities; and, therein, lies one of the greatest ideological challenges of our modern age.

Individualists are champions of individual rights. Therefore, they accept the principle of individual responsibility rather than group responsibility. They believe that everyone has a personal and direct obligation to provide, first for himself and his family, and then for others who may be in need. That does not mean they don’t believe in helping each other. Just because I am an individualists does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I believe that moving it is my responsibility, not someone else’s, and it’s up to me to organize the voluntary assistance of others.

The collectivist, on the other hand, declares that individuals are not personally responsible for charity, for raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even providing for themselves, for that matter. These are group obligations of the state. The individualist expects to do it himself; the collectivist wants the government to do it for him: to provide employment and health care, a minimum wage, food, education, and a decent place to live. Collectivists are enamored by government. They worship government. They have a fixation on government as the ultimate group mechanism to solve all problems.

Individualists do not share that faith. They see government as the creator of more problems than it solves. They believe that freedom of choice will lead to the best solution of social and economic problems. Millions of ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and competition – in which the best solution becomes obvious by comparing its results to all others – that process will produce results that are far superior to what can be achieved by a group of politicians or a committee of so-called wise men.

By contrast, collectivists do not trust freedom. They are afraid of freedom. They are convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters such as what color socks you want to wear, but when it come to the important issues such as the money supply, banking practices, investments, insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not work. These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government. Otherwise there would be chaos.

There are two reasons for the popularity of that concept. One is that most of us have been educated in government schools, and that’s what we were taught. The other reason is that government is the one group that can legally force everyone to participate. It has the power of taxation, backed by jails and force of arms to compel everyone to fall in line, and that is a very appealing concept to the intellectual who pictures himself as a social engineer.

Collectivists say, “We must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.”

By contrast, individualists say, “We also think we are right and that the masses seldom do what we think they should do, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, could compel us to act as they decree, and that would be the end of our freedom.”

One of the quickest ways to spot a collectivist is to see how he reacts to public problems. No matter what bothers him in his daily routine – whether it’s littering the highway, smoking in public, dressing indecently, sending out junk mail – you name it, his immediate response is; “There ought to be a law!” And, of course, the professionals in government who make a living from such laws are more than happy to cooperate. The consequence of this mindset is that government just keeps growing and growing. It’s a oneway street. Every year there are more and more laws and less and less freedom. Each law by itself seems relatively benign, justified by some convenience or for the greater good of the greater number, but the process continues forever until government is total and freedom is dead. Bit-by-bit, the people, themselves, become the solicitor of their own enslavement.


SOURCE