"Freedom of speech is a great idea, but we're in a war"

[rambone]

The constitution doesn't apply during war, in the eyes of some. Maybe that is why we are kept in a state of nonstop war.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG1q2aaZFjQ

 

[Fletch]

Let them condemn it. Free speech works both ways. But passing a law against it is a failure of brains and imagination.

 

[firehawk1]

Maybe that is why we are kept in a state of nonstop war.

Surely you've read 1984. It just took awhile longer to actually get here.

Orwell was a prophet! Animal Farm is another perfect example.

 

[rambone]

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

 

[dross]

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Are you actually suggesting that these people in Washington have a master plan to keep us in war?

 

[mrjarrell]

Are you actually suggesting that these people in Washington have a master plan to keep us in war?

Doesn't seem a stretch if you look at our history since WW2 and Korea. Eisenhower warned us about who would ultimately come to control the country. It certainly looks like he may well have been right.

 

[dross]

Doesn't seem a stretch if you look at our history since WW2 and Korea. Eisenhower warned us about who would ultimately come to control the country. It certainly looks like he may well have been right.

So you think the people in Washington have a conspiracy going since WW2 that keeps us in war?

 

[Fletch]

So you think the people in Washington have a conspiracy going since WW2 that keeps us in war?

I don't believe in conspiracies. I do believe in incentives, and I think the government is heavily incentivized to keep us involved in war. As Randolph Bourne put it, war is the health of the state.

 

[rambone]

Are you actually suggesting that these people in Washington have a master plan to keep us in war?

That's an easier sell for me than to believe that the UN and the Federal Government have my best interests in mind. I think the decision-makers care a lot less about our safety than we all give them credit for.

War. It allows the Feds to obliterate our freedoms. Historically it was used as an excuse to lock up American journalists, set up American concentration camps, and confiscate citizens' gold. Today it is used as an excuse to set up roadside checkpoints, X-ray scans at airports, soldiers at sports stadiums, secret "watch lists" for tens of thousands of citizens, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions without trial, the "Homeland Security" czar encouraging everyone to snitch on each other; and lets not forget the budget-busting pricetags on all of these things.

We can beat down all the tribal nations and half-wit dictators we can find. Even if we "win," America loses. The feds are destroying us better than any of these pathetic "enemies" of ours ever could. And it couldn't happen without war.

And as Lindsey Graham shows us, war is a fine chance to demonize freedom.

 

[dross]

That's an easier sell for me than to believe that the UN and the Federal Government have my best interests in mind. I think the decision-makers care a lot less about our safety than we all give them credit for.

That's an easier sell for me, too, but it's still not evidence of a conspiracy operating over a span of sixty years to keep us in war. You're pulling a trick which should be beneath you - you imply that if someone doesn't believe in a conspiracy, they must think the government has our best in mind AND that they care about our safety.

War. It allows the Feds to obliterate our freedoms. Historically it was used as an excuse to lock up American journalists, set up American concentration camps, and confiscate citizens' gold. Today it is used as an excuse to set up roadside checkpoints, X-ray scans at airports, soldiers at sports stadiums, secret "watch lists" for tens of thousands of citizens, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions without trial, the "Homeland Security" czar encouraging everyone to snitch on each other; and lets not forget the budget-busting pricetags on all of these things.

Perhaps this things are true, perhaps not. Either way, they are irrelevant to whether or not we have a sixty year conspiracy going to keep us in perpetual war.

We can beat down all the tribal nations and half-wit dictators we can find. Even if we "win," America loses. The feds are destroying us better than any of these pathetic "enemies" of ours ever could. And it couldn't happen without war.

And as Lindsey Graham shows us, war is a fine chance to demonize freedom.

All points irrelevant to what I asked you. You may be a liberatarian, but you argue in the endsjustifythemeans manner of a socialist in your use of logical fallacy.

The fact is that you make comments about THEM doing all these nefarious things to accomplish some goal like money or to control us, but you offer no evidence.

You need to tighten up your arguments, you aren't helping the side I know you're actually on, which is that of freedom.

 

[CarmelHP]

Fletch writes:
As Randolph Bourne put it, war is the health of the state.

and

Rambone writes:
The feds are destroying us better than any of these pathetic "enemies" of ours ever could. And it couldn't happen without war.

OK, these both can't be right.

 

[rambone]

As Randolph Bourne put it, war is the health of the state.

The feds are destroying us better than any of these pathetic "enemies" of ours ever could. And it couldn't happen without war.

OK, these both can't be right.

Why not? The Feds have done nothing but gain more power during their wars. I'd say that the health of the state is thriving. What is not thriving, is our freedom, our constitution, our Dollar, our economy.

 

[jsgolfman]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, more the nature of the beast. I would also say the constitution IS thriving, exactly as it was intended.

 

[MattYagPD01]

So you think the people in Washington have a conspiracy going since WW2 that keeps us in war?

What do you think? Do you think there are those that would 'create' a conflict with the another to maintain power? Has it happened before?

M

 

[sloughfoot]

Screw all these philosophical discussions, I am putting a "Koran burn barrel" at the curb in front of my house.

They can kiss my patootie.

 

[rambone]

That's an easier sell for me, too, but it's still not evidence of a conspiracy operating over a span of sixty years to keep us in war. You're pulling a trick which should be beneath you - you imply that if someone doesn't believe in a conspiracy, they must think the government has our best in mind AND that they care about our safety.

I didn't mean to imply anything about what people in this thread believe. I just personally find the conspiracies to be more plausible than the 'official' story about our current kinetic military involvement in [pick a war, any war].

On that note, aren't we all conspiracy theorists of some sort? I mean, if you accept that the POTUS would lie to our faces at the behest of his council, then you accept that the truth is being hidden and a conspiracy exists. The lie could be a deception used to get the POTUS reelected, to bring us to war over the interests of the United Nations, to capture oil wells, to bankrupt the USA, to enrich military contractors, to cultivate a domestic Police State, to erode U.S. sovereignty, or to march us toward a world government. One way or the other, I don't think our leader has brought us into Libya because of any credible threat to the United States.

Do I think the Feds have reasons to take us to war that go far beyond "national security?" Yeah. I'll cite Operation Northwoods and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident as two examples of deception used to instigate war.

Perhaps this things are true, perhaps not. Either way, they are irrelevant to whether or not we have a sixty year conspiracy going to keep us in perpetual war.

If we were to really look into it, we could say it is closer to a 100 year conspiracy. Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve, this cartel of private international bankers has been instigating wars and funding both sides of them, then profiting from the interest, and influencing the governments indebted to them. Start with Wall Street bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution; reexamine the major wars throughout the last century. Gary Allen's book None Dare Call it Conspiracy covers all this well, and is worth the read.

Anyways, that is the gist of the conspiracy.

 

[dross]

I didn't mean to imply anything about what people in this thread believe. I just personally find the conspiracies to be more plausible than the 'official' story about our current kinetic military involvement in [pick a war, any war].

On that note, aren't we all conspiracy theorists of some sort? I mean, if you accept that the POTUS would lie to our faces at the behest of his council, then you accept that the truth is being hidden and a conspiracy exists. The lie could be a deception used to get the POTUS reelected, to bring us to war over the interests of the United Nations, to capture oil wells, to bankrupt the USA, to enrich military contractors, to cultivate a domestic Police State, to erode U.S. sovereignty, or to march us toward a world government. One way or the other, I don't think our leader has brought us into Libya because of any credible threat to the United States.

Do I think the Feds have reasons to take us to war that go far beyond "national security?" Yeah. I'll cite Operation Northwoods and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident as two examples of deception used to instigate war.




If we were to really look into it, we could say it is closer to a 100 year conspiracy. Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve, this cartel of private international bankers has been instigating wars and funding both sides of them, then profiting from the interest, and influencing the governments indebted to them. Start with Wall Street bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution; reexamine the major wars throughout the last century. Gary Allen's book None Dare Call it Conspiracy covers all this well, and is worth the read.

Anyways, that is the gist of the conspiracy.

These are word games.

There is a big difference between saying, "Presidents lie in order to advance their agenda," and saying, "THEY are keeping us in perpetual war in order to enrich a segment of our society."

If all Presidents lie separately in order to advance a personal agenda, that is one kind of problem. The other is a different kind of problem and much, much worse.

You and some others are constantly advancing the idea that there is some sort of coherent plan being advanced. Perhaps there is, but you have to present evidence to that end. Demonstrating that some segments of society have benefitted isn't evidence. I can show how I've benefitted from certain actions that may have harmed the country in general. That is not evidence that I'm pulling the strings.

All I'm saying is be careful with your general statements and only make accusations for which you have evidence.

 

[drobpk]

Freedom of Speech

There are no conditions to freedom of speech in the constitution. Having said that, those desirous of freedom of speech also need to realize the damage the toungue can do, if unbridled. This is true in every aspect of life. The toungue can ruin relationships, or enhance them. It can incite a riot or calm one.

With regard to freedom of speech, however, once again, I will quote President Reagan in his farewell address to the nation as President:

"But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection]."

May God bless those who protect it!

 

[Fletch]

There are no conditions to freedom of speech in the constitution. Having said that, those desirous of freedom of speech also need to realize the damage the toungue can do, if unbridled. This is true in every aspect of life. The toungue can ruin relationships, or enhance them. It can incite a riot or calm one.

"...but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
-- James 3:8

 

[edporch]

Why should anybody be surprised to hear this sort of blather from Senator Grahamnesty?
What makes it worse is he CLAIMS to be a Republican.

The MAIN thing that makes someone a TRUE republican is the belief that our country is a republic with enumerated government powers and the people have unalienable rights.
(Like political freedom of speech for example...)
Sadly, very few members of the Republican Party are actually republicans in the Article IV section 4 sense...