A Statement by Wulfenstar

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well gee... If we take that statement as the absolute that it presents itself...

We could no longer put dangerous criminals in jail. Their freedom and privacy would be worth more than the lives of their victims.

I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 4:09 PM

FREDGIBLET

Like most sweeping absolute statements it sounds good on paper but fails in practice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 4:39 PM

LEADB

If everyone is dead, I guess then they are -really- free.

If one person is left alive, I suppose he/she is truly free. Unless aliens come down or something ;-)

So, since I have no interest in seeing everyone on the planet dead except for me, I'm prepared to accept some limitations on my freedoms (eg: I agree to have my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater -severely- restricted)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 5:42 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

Someone decides to kill me and steal my stuff. If I kill him in self-defense, I'm pretty much depriving him of his freedom. This does not compute.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 8:50 PM

"I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet."

I am.

Quit outlawing and vilifying self defense, and put em in the morgue instead.
Problem solved.

"Anything is possible, if you're free."

-Frem

PS. And if you're wondering what the heck we're talking about... here.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:02 PM

If it saves one life it's worth it all...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 5:18 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I believe this statement refers to the idea that the loss of life (say in a terrorist attack) is not worth the loss of privacy and freedom (as say in cell phone monitoring, cameras on every corner, email monitoring ect ect).

Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

I dont believe it refers to the criminal/victim relationship.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:11 AM

Quote:
Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

You can't, and a lot of people think that's why the terrorists attacked. I think that's part of it. But I think mostly they just wanted to give us a taste of what they face every day - i.e. living in fear.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:55 AM

CHRISISALL

I fear all is going according to their plan...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:16 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Freedom is never given
Freedom is never free
Freedom has always been fought for, and paid for with blood.

Freedom has not been the natural order of Man on Earth...enslavement has. That's the history of the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:38 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

The British are some of the most "monitored" people ont he planet. Yet it has done nothing to stop the randomn (or non-randomn) terrorist.

Are we heading for the same fate?

The question becomes, how much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice for ANY reason? With cameras everywhere, the government spying on all of our email and cell phone conversations, and the various new laws given by the Patriot Act, are we no longer a free country?

Also, is it too late to get these freedoms back? Can we do it in a legal manner? Or, if not, what are the options left to us?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In a recent survey the US ranked better than Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia but worse than Britain for privacy protection. Canada was near the top for privacy protection.

http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/45647-1.html

Study: U.S. among world’s ‘endemic-surveillance societies’
01/08/08
By William Jackson

The United States fairs poorly in a recently released international report on privacy, ranking near the bottom of 47 countries surveyed and labeled an “endemic-surveillance society” with poor privacy protection and aggressive monitoring by both the pubic and private sectors.

“The 2007 findings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protections across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and declining performance of privacy safeguards,” the 2007 International Privacy Ranking concludes.

The report identifies technology as one of the culprits in the worsening situation. “The privacy trends have been fueled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global [information technlogy] companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside of judicial or democratic processes.”

The United Kingdom was rated the worst country in Europe and also listed as an endemic-surveillance society.

The ranking was produced by the U.S.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the U.K.-based Privacy International, which has been doing the survey since 1997. The full report is a massive 1,100 pages with 6,000 footnotes, but a summary of findings is available.

The United States is not the worst country measured. Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia fare worse. But, “in terms of statutory protection and privacy enforcement, the U.S. is the worst-ranking country in the democratic world,” the report said.

The U.S. ranking deteriorated since 2006, going from poor to bad in spite of the Democratic success in last year’s elections. “Despite political shift in the U.S. Congress, surveillance initiatives in the U.S. continue to expand, affecting visitors and citizens alike.” The close monitoring of international travel was rated among the most intrusive in the world. Among the findings contributing the national ranking:

No explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution and no comprehensive privacy law.

The Federal Trade Commission continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, although it issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007.

Real-ID and biometric identification programs continue to expand without adequate oversight, research and funding structures.

Extensive data-sharing programs across the federal government and with the private sector.

Congress approved a presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks and now is considering immunity for telephone companies that cooperated in illegal programs.

There are some bright spots in the report. “State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security,” the organizations found, and “democratic safeguards tend to be strong.” But countering these is the finding that a “new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle.”

If this all seems a bit too oppressive, take some heart in the fact that — just across our northern border — Canada was rated one of the best countries in terms of privacy and surveillance.

© 1996-2008 1105 Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

All you so-called libertarians out there - are so preternaturally quiet on the issue.

Where's the outrage ?

***************************************************************
chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:47 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So what are our options? Legally, first.

How can we stop this, or turn back whats begun?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've got to get busy. This is an important topic for me though, so I'll be back at least by tomorrow.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

Unless its that one man's life...we all have every right to sacrifice our own lives to preserve the measure of liberty we believe we deserve. We have no right to require the same others.

If they so choose they can make the Locke/Hobbs bargain and choose security...to some extent over liberty or liberty over security. Certainly it is for this purpose that goverment was originally instituted among men...however it is not and never has been an all or nothing proposition.

In the begining everyone had 100% liberty and the freedom to do what they chose without restraint. Since that generally included taking the work of other, weaker folk without their consent the weaker folk got together to protect themselves and each other and in return had to give up a measure of the freedom of the individual for the support of the community. Since then we've been trying to figure out the right mix. It seems that mix is giving up just enough liberty to ensure just enough protection. Turns out that mix seems to change based upon particular circumstances. So a degree of flexibility and understanding must result among the members of the community.

Our inalienable rights include both life and liberty. If one is willing to risk life to preserve liberty...surely it is equally just to risk liberty to preserve life, especially since BOTH are required to effectively pursue happiness.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All you so-called libertarians out there - are so preternaturally quiet on the issue.

Where's the outrage ?

***************************************************************
chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ... chirp ...

Am I "so-called"?

I'm not sure I know what the 'issue' is yet. This debate is usually framed as a balance between freedom and safety, as though they are opposing forces. But I think that often this view is wrong. When we look to protect ourselves from terrorists, for example, we immediately look to how we can beef up government and suspend liberties. But maybe if we just quit fucking with them, they'd leave us alone. That approach would have it's own "sacrifices" of course - our multinationals would be on their own and forced to deal with reality, and our oil prices would go up and force us to deal with alternate energy sources effectively. But we wouldn't be nervously fending off the whiff of fascism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

We HAVE already given up too much of our freedom and privacy. I started this thread with the hope of finding answers, solutions on how we can get it back.

Legally, first, of course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm not sure. Democracy doesn't age well. There's very little hope for reaching a critical mass of voters with substantive advocacy. Modern political campaigning rewards a set of skills and motives that are the opposite of what most of us would want in a leader.

Changing that equation, convincing the unquestioning masses to think for themselves and unplug from the mass-media mindset, is the only path I can see.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 11:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Modern political campaigning rewards a set of skills and motives that are the opposite of what most of us would want in a leader.

Since the choice is ultimately ours...perhaps we are simply lying about what we REALLY want in a leader.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 1:01 PM

"Also, is it too late to get these freedoms back?"

Depends on how badly you want them, what you're willing to ante up in order to have them.

Your comfort ?
Your money ?
Your life ?

"Can we do it in a legal manner?"

To be downright blunt... no.

The laws we have even *now* make even THIS discussion technically illegal, and if you haven't read HR1955 go do so.

Even if you WERE to use legal loopholes to try forcing change on, or resist in any way, the cabal in power or the status quo, they will simply do what they have done since 1905 and outlaw any tactic or method that shows effectiveness, while pointing out all the useless, pointless options to show you how "free" you are.

Look at the history of Unions, if you want more info on that.

"Or, if not, what are the options left to us?"

Pretty simple, really, run, fight, or bend over and take it...

If yer gonna run, be smart about it and take a boat, especially if you have valuables and the tax folks know you ain't coming back - one reason most expatriates never return is that the IRS continues to levy and demand it's tax bite on your income forever and ever, even after you've left, and if unpaid, well, visiting here could get ugly.

So they've taken to getting as big a bite as they can on the way out, not to mention Dept of HomeSec will go bananas and think you criminally insane for wanting to leave, leading to all manner of ugly.

If yer gonna fight, learn HOW first, start removing yourself from their systems of easy inventory and tracking, and learn the importance of not discussing it in our nation of informers and snitches, who'd sell you out in a heartbeat to protect themselves, or for a pat on the head from the master.

And DIY, cause joinin up with someone ?
Bad idea, most of the orgs out there that haven't been crushed are there because it makes it easier to watch and sabotage (who you THINK runs a lot of em?) the discontented.

Like a submarine, run silent, run deep, leave no trace.

Or you can say bah fuggit and watch American Idol like everyone else and pretend it ain't happenin.

Thing is, by the time a public consciousness gets to be askin those things, it's more often than not too damned late to do much about it.

Study History.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

I'm not sure what kind of noise you're looking for 'so called' libertarians to make here. The people who are 'so called' libertarians on this board make angry noises about the limits placed on their freedoms almost daily here.

I'm also not sure where you stand on the issue of liberty versus freedom. It seems you often argue both sides of that street. Probably you believe in a balance of forces.

As for 'freer' countries like Britain, where you can't buy a replica gun, nor soon a stainless steel sword, nor carry a pocketknife, nor legally defend yourself with the sewing supplies you happen to be carrying...

Freedom is measured in many ways. I'm not sure what criteria is being used as a yardstick.

In any event, I'm not entirely happy with the level of freedom I enjoy in the U.S., but I can't really think of another nation where I'd feel as free or as prosperous.

Maybe I've got crazy skewed views, but being able to drive into the desert and shoot coffee cans without being arrested is valuable to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:46 PM

EVILDINOSAUR

as the statement is presented there, i disagree

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'll be away for the balance, but I just wanted to explain what I meant:

Too many libertarians seem to be single-issue ones. Smokes, vaccines and seat-belts are common, but trivial, points of rebellion.
And also they seem too interested in looking jaded and blasé to actually do anything. Yeah, I saw this coming yeeears ago. And why make an effort ? It's all a conspiracy that goes back to a least the 60's anyway.
And too far up businesses' butt to criticize it for anything at all. Why should I infringe on corporate freedom even when it infringes on mine ? Isn't that freedom ??
And too 'individualistic' to consider a mass solution. After all, I got my gun for when it all goes down. Why should I join with anyone to actually do anything now ?

Whenever I start a thread about this it dies a quick death. Now for people like Finn, Geezer and Hero I expect that kind of response.

But for people who consider themselves lovers of freedom ??

Yeah, I'm old and cranky and this will make that even more apparent, but really - you should be ashamed of yourselves.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:40 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well,

WWRD?

What Would Rue Do?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:46 AM

Rue, there are very good, and very obvious, reasons that most direct-action folks will not discuss it, especially in a public venue.

Just as I explain to Siggy, that if some folk WERE organising anything, it'd be beyond pointless if they were stupid enough to talk about it.

We live in a surveillence society currently run by a pack of facist wannabes and y'all wanna discuss your plans and out your membership publicly where any jackboot or sympathiser can see it ?

You go right on ahead, lemme know how that works out for ya.

No, some things I will *not* discuss, not here, not privately, not EVER - and this, in any specifics or details, is one of those things... I give enough general information that those who truly wanna involve themselves in something can do so, but the hell if imma hand out a free pass to the jackboots, no way.

They wanna come to the bottom of the rabbit hole, they can damn well try swimmin the concertina rolls we leave up there to keep em out.

And that's the end of me discussin the topic, I shouldn't have had to even tell ya that much, for cryin out loud.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I agree Frem. Completely.

My issue, and the primary reason I started this thread, was to find out if I was the only one who saw these things as a problem.

Also, to find out if there was a solution. I mean, you COULD go out and knock down the cameras....but that would only get you arrested. Then, they would put the cameras back up and stronger than ever.

You COULD leave the country...but where would you go? Canada is almost as bad...South America is closest to the Wild West in certain aspects....but as Im pasty pale and dont speak Spanish, I would stick out pretty bad. (Being kidnapped isnt really something I am interested in experiencing)

Europe is, in some ways, worse than the US.

Africa? Same problem as South America.

We can't even kid ourselves that the governement listens to us anymore. Its become the "Alliance" in Firefly speak.

So join up? Can't do that, as I'm sure the government has moles in almost any organization out there.

It needs to be said, and I hate to say it, because I hate them intensly....but the way to fight (if we had to) would be like AlQueda.

No central structure to be broken, no way of tracing it back to others.

Im just venting, mind. It just bugs the hell out of me everytime I drive to work. The road I have to take has a camera on it that snaps a picture of everyones license plate as they go by. "For our safety" of course.

*sigh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You all are so silly - you'd refuse to join any group, even if it was running from a theatre fire. Yeah, you can stand there by your lonesome and burn.

Direct action ??? Give me an effin' break. How about common political action ?

***************************************************************
Oh, btw, for people who support Ron Paul - I've got a great slogan for you - Want to get things done ? What we need in another H Ross Perot !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Common political action, as has already been poited out, will accomplish nothing.

Its the common political action that already got us in this mess. Now that they have the power, how are going to stop them?

And no...I dont like the lone-wolf mentality. They always get shot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You only say so 'cause you're an idiot.

Who gave us the USPATRIOT Act ? Gitmo ? Pen-registers and trap-and-trace on 10% of everyone in the US ?

So, rather than take a little step away from the fire you'd rather stand where you are 'cause that little step isn't absolutely everything you want. Sit and burn, then.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about common political action?

You know, I've been sailing those seas for the last six months or so. I've created a couple of websites, I'm active in three different meetup groups, and I donate money to worthwhile causes when I've got it. I've been to rallies, written to congress and op-ed pages, all the usual 'activist' outreach. I'm even considering registering to vote :). In a sense, I'm giving the 'system' a second chance.

And the thing is, it's even worse than I'd been assuming all those years of living underground. The simple fact is our nation sold its soul many decades ago. We crank out generation after generation of well conditioned drones who will dutifully stay on the consumer treadmill and suck up the shit oozing out of their televisions. Once you've "stocked" the constituency pond in this way, the game is up.

That's where we're at now. Winning elections, promoting any kind of "common political action", is game of unscrupulous manipulation. You don't have to play it that way, by you'll lose miserably to those without your moral hangups. And the mass of 'deciders' will never know the difference.

I share your frustration with 'single issue libertarians', the ones who'll gripe about the teacher's union and ignore the Haliburton ghouls, and I appreciate you challenging them to have the courage of their 'so-called' convictions. But please don't insinuate that libertarians remain at the fringe by choice.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:31 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

What the hell are you talking about? Do you really think that if you got your boy Obabama, or Hillary, in office that it will make a lick of difference? Hell, they are part of the party that WANTS BIG Governemnt.

As I pointed out before, it doesnt matter WHO is in office....they will ALWAYS push for more power. Its just the nature of the political beast.

Also, did all those rallys and demonstrations, and whatnot that were had around here, on the Mall, at the WhiteHouse ect....make ANY difference in terms of whether the war will end? Of course not.

Did changing the House and Senate make any difference either? Noooooo....

So what "Political Action" are you talking about?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:37 AM

ZZETTA13

“The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE man’s privates!!”

I agree!
Sorry Wolfenstar! Just a joke.
Gorram I’m in a silly mood today!

Z

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

I truly appreciate your heartfelt and sincere reply.

I've never been maintream - with one or maybe two exceptions none of the people I've ever voted for have ever won at any level. But I've come to the conclusion that it's time to change - you really DO have to pick the lesser of evils. And the next time around the lesser of them. And over time one hopes, with a series of small steps - you'll actually get somewhere worthwhile. But you have to be in it for the long haul.

I too do what I can. And when I can't I give thousands a year (usually over $5000 total) to groups that are fighting the fights I don't have time for. The EFF http://www.eff.org/ is THE ONLY group fighting for our rights in the electronic age. And what does that mean, you might ask ? Three examples - they are fighting for no phone taps, no government databases. and no downloaded spy files from corporations.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Took a look at the link you put up Rue. Good job in finding them.

Still....how did we allow this to happen? Im GenX, and it seems that our parents and forebears created this. Now its our mess to clean up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But I've come to the conclusion that it's time to change - you really DO have to pick the lesser of evils. And the next time around the lesser of them. And over time one hopes, with a series of small steps - you'll actually get somewhere worthwhile. But you have to be in it for the long haul.

I think the track record of this approach speaks for itself. The change over time just doesn't move in the direction you suggest. Every time we voluntarily concede to a choice between corporate-cocksucker "A" and corporate-cocksucker "B", we lose ground.

The slim difference between the status-quo candidates just isn't worth the effort. A vote for a candidate I DO believe in, win or lose, is worth much more than endorsing the false choices offered up by those who would rule us. But as long as the vast majority of voters are busy trying to suss out the second-most-evil candidate, there's really not much point.

It may be that we can change the system to get around these false choices. Approval Voting, and other alternative schemes, could do something positive in that regard. But these kinds of initiatives come up against the same wall - complacent, willfully ignorant voters that believe what they're told, or are at least willing to accept the lies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:21 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now that they have the power, how are going to stop them? And no...I dont like the lone-wolf mentality. They always get shot.

Pure speculation here, but.... Creating significant change almost follows the laws of conservation of momentum: You can either have a small group of people taking extremely effective action, a medium-sized group of people putting in a signifcant amount of effort, or nearly everyone making a small change. And I can give you successful examples of all three, from palace coups and armed insurgencies, to NGOs and successful mass movements (civil rights, environmental, womens' rights) all the way to "orange revolutions".

But in fact, a successful path to change needs all three. The environmental movement was given a tremendous boost by "the Fox":In Illinois, a man going by the name of "The Fox" plugged drainage pipes, capped factory smokestacks, and dumped industrial waste from a U.S. Steel plant into the office of the company's chief executive. (1) As long as activists don't cross that invisible line and turn more people "off" than "on" to their message, the extreme examples of a few help legitimize the goals of the many. There is a big "however" to this scenario: However, a movement has to have a reliable media outlet.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100390

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I think the track record of this approach speaks for itself. The change over time just doesn't move in the direction you suggest. Every time we voluntarily concede to a choice between corporate-cocksucker "A" and corporate-cocksucker "B", we lose ground."

So there would have been no diference between Gore and Bush ? Kerry and Bush.

C'mon man, say something at least a little in touch with reality !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No there wouldnt, Rue. Except we would ahve looke at 9/11 as a police action, not an act of war (which it was).

The guys at the top are just puppets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So there would have been no difference between Gore and Bush ? Kerry and Bush.

I'm sure I see less differences between them than you do, but that misses the point. Bush's victories, especially the second time around, are the net result of 'lesser-of-two-evils' thinking. This is where that kind of logic leads us, over time. Our election process has become one of voting out of fear rather that voting our conscience. We vote for the candidate who will screw us slightly less than the other one. Either way we get screwed.

Our voting system has devolved to something like the old Soviet elections, only instead of one candidate, we get two. Those with the money, power, and will to herd the masses will ensure that only candidates deemed safe for the status quo are perceived as mainstream. All others will be portrayed as fringe or, 'unelectable'. The media (and those who manipulate them) have perfected the art of the self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when it comes to public opinion. Until we tackle that fact, the rest of it is moot.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks for your reply which was more measured and complete than I deserved.

I have to be busy for the several hours but I hope to get back on this, if not today then tomorrow.

But I'd like you ask you a question about a slightly related topic, and that's the role of 3rd party candidates.

My observation is that 3rd party candidates are extremely valuable in the House and Senate. They can shift the direction of legislation by joining - or withholding - their support for any dem or rep legislation. So while they couldn't get anything through on their own, they could steer the country.

But as presidential candidates - until those parties themselves become significant - they are a waste of voter intention and can lead to disastrous results.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
they [third-party presidential campaigns] are a waste of voter intention and can lead to disasterous results.

Think about what you're saying. More choice leads to disastrous results? If that's the case, then our election system is indeed broken.

One of the key elements to this situation is that we've let the two major parties rig the game. There should be no concept of a third party, or fourth or fifth, for that matter. In the context of the current political "reality", we desperately need someone besides the republocrats calling bullshit on their rigged system. If that means one of them takes a hit on occasion (ala Nader), so be it. It's just a natural byproduct of their corrupt little game. It's certainly not the fault of the voters, or candidates, who act on their conscience rather than political expediency.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I share your frustration with 'single issue libertarians', the ones who'll gripe about the teacher's union and ignore the Haliburton ghouls, and I appreciate you challenging them to have the courage of their 'so-called' convictions. But please don't insinuate that libertarians remain at the fringe by choice.

Thank you Sarge.

My outrage was petitioning on the streets when I wss 8 months pregnant to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot. My outrage was spending countless hours and money trying to shore up our state's party so candidates who stood for freedom had a chance to run. My outrage was setting up meetings and handing out flyers in the real world. And after all that, we still couldn't get on the ballot in our state because the two-party system set up stupid inane laws to keep us out.

--------------------------
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
-- Source unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Think about what you're saying. More choice leads to disastrous results? If that's the case, then our election system is indeed broken."

If NOT being a parliamentary system means being broken, then yes, at the Pres/VP level it is broken. B/c the Pres/VP offices are 'winner take all', it leads to that kind of result. Congress is not that way however, which leads to a different result - a multiple-party friendly environment.

So, I don't attribute it to malfeasance on the part of the parties - they have a lot of other things to answer for, but not that. It's just a natural outgrowth of how the system was set up in the first place.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:14 PM

Oh, you wanna know what you can do WITHOUT risking your neck so much then, eh ?

Well, you wanna stomp some status quo arse on an aboveboard plane, like, right away ?

Here.
http://www.iww.org/

And why ?
http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/qanda

Study the history, find out WHY the four pole alliance, once nearly destroyed, is quietly being rebuilt once again - and see the real face of the powers that be, an empty noose with your name on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

Show those corpie bastards the red card, and watch them tremble, if you dare.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And if you think both parties are exactly the same and it doesn't make a difference - here's what the lovely repubicans are bringing you - on top of the USPATRIOT Act, Gitmo, 10% of all US calls being traced, Iraq, and the unitary executive, of course -

Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/washington/10scotus.html?_r=1&oref=s
login

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: January 10, 2008

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is not an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute ... was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.

__________________

So, are you ready to submit to a biometric government ID process in order to vote ?
For all you Dulcineas out there singing 'it's all the same ...', you could not be further from the truth.

***************************************************************
Silly ignorant children.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:51 PM