Getting scarier and scarier... TONYT- for you. Signy by Niki2

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF: You're not a libertarian of any sort, you're just a scared man with a gun.

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:57 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
They've been trying to disarm us for years, contrary to the second ammendment, and they haven't managed to do much...yet. My problem is that I see it going down that road. The current political climate worries me. It keeps getting uglier and uglier out there.

Define "they".

Also, "they" had their best shot, with the "Assault" Weapons Ban, which didn't work and didn't accomplish a single thing, except to drive up the price of so-called "assault weapons" and create a thriving grey-market in "pre-ban" rifles and magazines.

That "ban" - which wasn't really a ban at all, but a band-aid - expired, and was allowed to die. Since then, even the Democrats, the afore-mentioned "them" whom you speak of as trying to disarm you, even they have said there is no political will to try to even extend that weak-kneed piece of legislation. Harry Reid, the milkiest of milquetoasts, flat-out said "NO" when asked if he'd support a new AWB. Nancy Pelosi, the freaking poster child of every right-wing gun nut out there when they speak of the "them" who are trying to disarm America, was asked about a new AWB, and her response? "We need to enforce the laws we already have."

Now, there WAS a revamped, renewed Assault Weapons Ban that was proposed last year. You know what you never hear about that one? It was proposed and cosponsored by four REPUBLICAN Representatives. Also, it never got out of committee, and died there without ever coming to the floor.

Those nefarious "they" who you think are trying to disarm you? It seems a good number of them are within the Republican party, and have nothing to do with Obama or the Democrats.

Now, if you WANT to be disarmed, I'd say keep encouraging people to take their semi-auto rifles to Town Hall meetings and Presidential appearances. It'll all go really well up until one of them "accidentally" shoots somebody, at which time there WILL be the political will to do something about it, and the issue will be forced, and you will not have the upper hand in that argument. You can be smart about your gun rights, and you can be the bigger man, but you can also bet that there's going to be some jackass who is going to get stupid with his, and he's going to spoil the whole party for everybody.

I'm just sayin'.

And with that, I've written yet another novel-length post for you to slog through.

Mike

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:06 PM

PLAINJAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I would much rather prevent a fascist police-state then try to fight it once it's taken control. But make no mistake, if I'm backed into that kind of corner, I will fight.
The way you prevent a fascist state is by giving people breathing room... guaranteed healthcare, for example. More jobs. Wages somewhere above starvation-level. Once fear and uncertainty about survival moderates (and yes, I mean survival) people are much less interested in fascism. Much less likely to demonize others, or to give up their freedom.

BTW I find all this talk about "they" and "them" to be indicative of a paranoid state. Are you?

I am a little paranoid, yes. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the aren't out to get you. BTW, "they" and "them" are used to mean "people not me," it's more of a convenience thing. What should I say instead?

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:12 PM

PLAINJAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
They've been trying to disarm us for years, contrary to the second ammendment, and they haven't managed to do much...yet. My problem is that I see it going down that road. The current political climate worries me. It keeps getting uglier and uglier out there.

Define "they".

Also, "they" had their best shot, with the "Assault" Weapons Ban, which didn't work and didn't accomplish a single thing, except to drive up the price of so-called "assault weapons" and create a thriving grey-market in "pre-ban" rifles and magazines.

That "ban" - which wasn't really a ban at all, but a band-aid - expired, and was allowed to die. Since then, even the Democrats, the afore-mentioned "them" whom you speak of as trying to disarm you, even they have said there is no political will to try to even extend that weak-kneed piece of legislation. Harry Reid, the milkiest of milquetoasts, flat-out said "NO" when asked if he'd support a new AWB. Nancy Pelosi, the freaking poster child of every right-wing gun nut out there when they speak of the "them" who are trying to disarm America, was asked about a new AWB, and her response? "We need to enforce the laws we already have."

Now, there WAS a revamped, renewed Assault Weapons Ban that was proposed last year. You know what you never hear about that one? It was proposed and cosponsored by four REPUBLICAN Representatives. Also, it never got out of committee, and died there without ever coming to the floor.

Those nefarious "they" who you think are trying to disarm you? It seems a good number of them are within the Republican party, and have nothing to do with Obama or the Democrats.

Now, if you WANT to be disarmed, I'd say keep encouraging people to take their semi-auto rifles to Town Hall meetings and Presidential appearances. It'll all go really well up until one of them "accidentally" shoots somebody, at which time there WILL be the political will to do something about it, and the issue will be forced, and you will not have the upper hand in that argument. You can be smart about your gun rights, and you can be the bigger man, but you can also bet that there's going to be some jackass who is going to get stupid with his, and he's going to spoil the whole party for everybody.

I'm just sayin'.

And with that, I've written yet another novel-length post for you to slog through.

Mike

I'm not exactly prancing around with a gun on my hip! And I was always taught that you never, ever draw unless you plan to shoot, and never, ever shoot unless you plan to kill. I'm pretty sure I can be trusted not to be the jackass that gets everyone else into trouble.

There are some scary republicans out there, who ever said the dems had the market cornered? Wasn't me. I'm anti-politician in general. If we keep dividing down that line, we really are in trouble. They're all fucktards. Didn't I already say that somewhere?

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:36 PM

When I say "they," I mean one of three things (or all). I mean the industrial military complex, of which I consider the CIA, FBI, and homeland security part of. I mean corporations and their lobbyists. And I mean the people in the parties who dictate party policy who are under the sway of the other two.

However, I am quite possibly paranoid. Thanks for noticing!

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:55 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
However, I am quite possibly paranoid. Thanks for noticing!

Yes but is it really paranoia when 'they' are proveably and demonstrably out to get you, if not exactly individually and personally ?

You're smarter than folk take you for, in fact, smarter than you give yourself credit for - and the fact that you "can see the bars" so damned accurately without needing it pointed out has encouraged me to share some tradecraft info with you on the assumption you'll comprehend all the implications.

You ever wonder why I support and occasionally backstop PN in light of the obvious evidence he's stark raving bonkers ?

Cause folk like him are absolutely an integral part of defense against the powers that be, and I don't mean it in the classic canary in the coal mine fashion, but rather something a bit more complex than that.

See, there's a game here, played in the shadows, the grey area between law and chaos, outside the view or reach of most of society, and both the rules, such as they are, and the players are well known to each other if not by exact identity - you suspected as much, had to in order to make the conclusions you already have, and WHY I am telling you should be obvious as well.

Now, that said - it's no secret that the powers that be come up with some damned wacky (Google: Acoustic Kitty), or downright evil (See also: NORTHWOODS) stuff at times, and given the history above are not whatever shy about using any of it on their so-called protectees.

Lemme explain how this works, in detail, so you comprehend the necessary role folks like PN play in the game.

PTB come up with a psycho plan, and someone on the other side catches wind of it - now there's no way they can come right out without exposing themselves and/or how that information was obtained, plus there's what we call the "Bigfoot" factor - when info is so awful, over the top, or downright insane that no one will believe it and will instantly mentally shitcan it right in there with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, evidence notwithstanding.

That's why predatory abusers use satanic trappings, cause it helps discredit the testimony of the witnesses to folks looking for ANY excuse not to believe such awfulness of other people, and sadly it works cause it plays to psychological blind spots - a method I understand all too well cause it happens to be my own specialty, exploiting those blind spots to remain all but invisible, even in person - who notices one more cab in the city, one more lab coat at a hospital, or one more general background functionary, yes ?

And so, the details of the psycho plan get fed to the lunatic fringe, many of which ain't lunatic at all, but I'll get to that shortly - and they of course ring the bells, bang the drums and bring out all the hoo-hah about it.

Now TPB can't *use* the plan, nor can they shut the loons up about it cause either one would give credence to what they are saying, you see, especially if the details are given and names are named when the loons roll on about it.

And since it DOESN'T ever happen, then it's just one more flimsy conspiracy theory that gets discarded as pure bunk by the masses and does no wonders for the credibility of the lunatic fringe neither, cause it never came to be.
But without those loons, it MIGHT have, and that is the salient point.

PN is bonkers, I'll give that, but not anywhere NEAR as bonkers as he seems to be - it's just that he doesn't dare ever get taken too seriously cause then his usefulness for that role would be over, and if he kept pushing it, he'd "have to go" in a Gary Webb-esque suicide with two different handguns to the head kinda way, you understand ?

There's also that TPB and their agents are quite good at this, and getting ones hands on the hard evidence is risky, dangerous, potentially fatal and even if you had the crown jewels in hand who the hell would dare run the story when all the major media is in their pocket and the smaller media is scared of them on so many levels ?

So all too often all you have are rumors and a few scattered pieces, which prove absolutely nothing and would also give too damn many hints to exactly how you aquired them if you brought it front and center, and I am not at all above rainmaking*, la mordida*, or putting the arm on them if I don't have a lot of evidence to go on, the same way one sets a dog on a bush without visible evidence of quail in order to flush the herd and spook motion - while you are of course waiting with a twelve gauge.

And thus, you "feed them to the fringe" in a roundabout way, savaging their nefarious plan and roadblocking it without ever sticking your own head up or getting your hands dirty, leaving them cussing you, wondering how you found out, and unable to put it into action.

Kinda like submarine warfare, I am just showing you the water, whether or how deep you go is up to you - and if your first gut reaction to this was an annoyed hostile suspicion of ulterior motive, then you're every bit as clever as I suspected.

And of course, silent running is advised.
http://www.torproject.org/

-Frem

*Rainmaker scam: The con artist (a "rainmaker") convinces the mark to pay him to make something happen. If it happens, then the mark is convinced it is because he paid the rainmaker; if not, the rainmaker can say he needs more money to do it.

*La Mordida: Old spanish term for bribery, aka "The Bite" or putting the bite on them - in modern context, the art of bribing someone in such a fashion as to render the bribe either useless to them or dangerous to possess.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:03 AM

Frem

Nah, when they're actually after you, it's just annoya. I don't know if John is bonkers, or if it's that I'm either too bonkers or too used to it to notice. Occassionally I think he's wrong. But then so aren't we all.

TBTP seem quite able to shout down conspiracies involving straightforward logic and research like 9-11, re: northwoods. I'm not sure the satanic trappings are for our sake. I mean, it's possible but that doesn't mean it must be so. A friend of mine has a theory which he calls minion awe. He suggests the rituals, giant statues, whatever are done for the benefit of the incoming inductees. It makes it feel like you're stepping into a giant illuminati that you would never want to fight, far more than if they invited you over to their office and had cheese and crackers would. The illusion of underworld magic needs to be maintained or their own subjects might question. If they remain in awe, your power is fairly secure. I think this is more like the manner in which the Manson Family was run. No one was actually hypnotized, but they did believe he was in touch with god, the devil, etc. At least one of them thought he was Jesus.

I agree about the Bigfoot factor, I call it the UFO, but yes, it's especially good to lead your argument logically to that conclusion. Ie. This group is doing this, and they're doing it so that will happen, because then the aliens can invade.

When I first ran into this stuff, I quit reading. John took the time to explain it to me, which was nice. Since I think there's a mix. True, if John, or I, post something online that's straight, it's gone.

I posted a neocon plan to take out Iran's industrial base with nuclear weapons, down to the plane and missiles we'd use, target lists, casualty estimates, and the post-apoc invasian plan. None of this was classified information, but I got a couple of interesting letters from people in govt. actually curious that this might be the actual administration plan, they seemed quite serious, but then *poof* the site was gone, along with 21 other sites I was running, all of my files were deleted, and my server account was closed, no reason given. I argued, but got no information other than "We're sorry, your account has been closed. Those files are no longer accessible." I have backups, but still...

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The way you prevent a fascist state is by giving people breathing room... guaranteed healthcare, for example. More jobs. Wages somewhere above starvation-level. Once fear and uncertainty about survival moderates (and yes, I mean survival) people are much less interested in fascism. Much less likely to demonize others, or to give up their freedom."

Hello,

Once the state accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them- guaranteed health, jobs, wages. State sponsored safety, predictability, and control... it's true that you are less likely to give up your freedom.

This is because you have probably already done so, in exchange for these self-same 'gifts.'

It may be a worthy exchange for some, and it is absolutely tempting. But it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms. Most people surrender their freedoms willingly, even eagerly, in exchange for a bit more security and comfort in their lives.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The way you prevent a fascist state is by giving people breathing room... guaranteed healthcare, for example. More jobs. Wages somewhere above starvation-level. Once fear and uncertainty about survival moderates (and yes, I mean survival) people are much less interested in fascism. Much less likely to demonize others, or to give up their freedom."

Hello,

Once the state accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them- guaranteed health, jobs, wages. State sponsored safety, predictability, and control... it's true that you are less likely to give up your freedom.

This is because you have probably already done so, in exchange for these self-same 'gifts.'

It may be a worthy exchange for some, and it is absolutely tempting. But it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms. Most people surrender their freedoms willingly, even eagerly, in exchange for a bit more security and comfort in their lives.

--Anthony

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

Y'know, T, once the company accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them - a paycheck, health insurance, vacations - they've stolen your "freedom", too. So it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms, or even GOVERNMENT uniforms; sometimes it just takes people in Walmart uniforms, or Coca-Cola uniforms...

Mike

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:43 AM

Initiation: a ceremony, ritual, test, or period of instruction with which a new member is admitted to an organization or office or to knowledge.

I'll try to keep my head and be smart, despite my laughable lack of experience or contacts. Watching the water, looking for small fish for now.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:07 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The way you prevent a fascist state is by giving people breathing room... guaranteed healthcare, for example. More jobs. Wages somewhere above starvation-level. Once fear and uncertainty about survival moderates (and yes, I mean survival) people are much less interested in fascism. Much less likely to demonize others, or to give up their freedom."

Hello,

Once the state accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them- guaranteed health, jobs, wages. State sponsored safety, predictability, and control... it's true that you are less likely to give up your freedom.

This is because you have probably already done so, in exchange for these self-same 'gifts.'

It may be a worthy exchange for some, and it is absolutely tempting. But it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms. Most people surrender their freedoms willingly, even eagerly, in exchange for a bit more security and comfort in their lives.

--Anthony

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

Y'know, T, once the company accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them - a paycheck, health insurance, vacations - they've stolen your "freedom", too. So it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms, or even GOVERNMENT uniforms; sometimes it just takes people in Walmart uniforms, or Coca-Cola uniforms...

Mike

My wife penciled me in for a party I did not want to go to but obliged because, well, yanno. So, to add to the list...
"So it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms, or even GOVERNMENT uniforms, or even Walmart uniforms; sometimes it just takes your SPOUSE or one of their needy relatives..."

It does beg the question: who is truly free?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:42 AM

Quote:

It does beg the question: who is truly free?

Jack Sparrow.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

It does beg the question: who is truly free?

Jack Sparrow.

I've seen the movies on sale, but not free.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:25 AM

I don't think anyone is arguing that favours and requests from friends and loved ones "don't make you free."

That IS something you can choose, or not choose, depending on how much you like the person. If you like the person, perhaps you may feel obligated on a social level to be nice to them, but I don't think that's the same as the infringements of the government.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Jack Sparrow

Which is another way of saying "nobody". Because if you have to pick a fictional character....

IMHO there is no such thing as "truly" free. We're always constrained. If not by the government then by hunger, thirst, fatigue, danger, cold, disease, and human empathy. Your only option is to choose your constraints.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:39 AM

PLAINJAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The way you prevent a fascist state is by giving people breathing room... guaranteed healthcare, for example. More jobs. Wages somewhere above starvation-level. Once fear and uncertainty about survival moderates (and yes, I mean survival) people are much less interested in fascism. Much less likely to demonize others, or to give up their freedom."

Hello,

Once the state accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them- guaranteed health, jobs, wages. State sponsored safety, predictability, and control... it's true that you are less likely to give up your freedom.

This is because you have probably already done so, in exchange for these self-same 'gifts.'

It may be a worthy exchange for some, and it is absolutely tempting. But it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms. Most people surrender their freedoms willingly, even eagerly, in exchange for a bit more security and comfort in their lives.

--Anthony

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

At last! Somebody gets it!

You think following the rules will buy you a nice life, even if it makes you a slave....

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:38 PM

Belief in Jack Sparrow is a personal matter :)

We're not constrained by nature, I don't buy it, we're constrained by bogus govt., which is a self appointed dictator, whatever it pretends to be or dresses up as.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:
SK:
I've seen the movies on sale, but not free.

ARR!

That's because you have to *pirate* it

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We're not constrained by nature

CONSTRAIN: to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation;
to compel or force, to limit, restrict, or inhibit

How does nature NOT constrain us?? Are our choices and options not limited by our need to breathe, drink, eat, and stay warm?

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:26 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Jack Sparrow
Which is another way of saying "nobody". Because if you have to pick a fictional character....

IMHO there is no such thing as "truly" free. We're always constrained. If not by the government then by hunger, thirst, fatigue, danger, cold, disease, and human empathy. Your only option is to choose your constraints.

That's a heck of a philosophy ya got there, Signy. It completely renders the term "freedom" meaningless. So everyone who talks about "freedom" is deluded in your book? What the hell?

Your problem with Anarchy finally makes perfect sense, though. You don't believe in freedom, you see aspects of your natural environment, even your own bodily functions as "constraints" on your freedom. Again: what the hell?

The only being that could be free in the way you mean free, would be a god, free of all external forces or pre-existing conditions. Freedom for you is omnipotence. Who the hell would feel constrained by "empathy?" "Dang it, empathy won't let me pull the wings these flies our gouge these puppies' eyes out! Stupid empathy!" I promise you, no one here is using the word "freedom" the way you use it, Ms. Spinoza.

So, when you hear people talking about living without coersion or heirarchies, you must throw up your hands as if we're talking pure jibberish.

Is anyone else as blown away by Signy's remarks here as I am?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Your only option is to choose your constraints."

Hello,

You mostly named the constraints people DON'T choose. I can't choose to not be thirsty, or hungry, or tired, or whatever. Not unless I blow my brains out.

But I can choose government. That's what we're talking about. Choosing government and choosing what you're willing to give them, or let them take.

Choosing what your line is, and where you draw it.

Or whether you even draw it at all.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:45 PM

Signy, dear, antidepressants. 100mg 5htp, 2/day, available at your local health food store.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Byte:
Start local, would be my suggestion, these guys, leastways around here, don't even bother to cover their tracks cause anyone who might replace em is just as obviously corrupt so folks are unwilling to press the matter...

But everyone loves a good scandal, and getting the dirt means the ability to put the arm on them.

My "hole card" against the City Council was such a simple thing when it came right down to it - besides all the rest of the crap they pulled, they were keeping two sets of books, and I not only knew about them, I knew where they KEPT them.

Day after they tallied the results and shoved me into that office I confronted them about it, told em I wanted to see the books...
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35571

At THAT point it was Game, Set, Match, all over but the crying.

Basic principle of the setup, Plan A, Plan B, and the GOTH* plan, with if-this-then-that variations, cause having the framework mentally handy helps by giving you a solid foundation for on the fly decisions.

GOTH* = GO To Hell plan, the last resort, everything has gone to hell and it's time to cut the losses plan - which unfortunately DID get put into action cause the local PD went full on out BERSERK, and I couldn't detail WHY at the time since cases were in progress.

You know what set em off like that ?
They were swiping dope from the evidence room, and this opened *them* up for the most heinous of abuses our legal system has to offer...
Asset Forfeiture.

Homes, cars, property - the works, carried out by folk who were bluntly informed that when the witch hunt comes, it's far better to be carrying the torches than tied to the stake.

You BET they were pissed, lethally so, which is why the endgame play was so downright insane when I made it an act of mockery like I did.

All of it set forth by a combination of them not covering their tracks about those books, and not even thinking to look or sweep for listening devices, which would not have helped them anyway because most commercial sweepers don't cover low power AM - which was entirely sufficient for the range cause I lived across the friggin street.

It's no longer useful cause eventually word got around, but one of my old signature tricks was low powered AM listening devices placed behind electrical outlets using the buildings own ground wire as a freakin antenna.

Starting with your local power brokers is the best move, cause they're smug, arrogant, and generally subcompetent as usually no one has been willing to really lay challenge to em in decades.

-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, August 20, 2009 3:17 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Is anyone else as blown away by Signy's remarks here as I am?

I think she is just setting one boundary for discussion. I found Anthony's comment about selling one's freedom for security and comfort more unusual. I'm trying to understand how to value freedom in the context of no security and no comfort. I would of course be a very poor politcal prisoner.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:32 PM

...You're comparing no government to living in a prison?

*mouth open, mouth close, brain broken, I'm gonna go eat some chocolate*

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:42 PM

Mmm, semi-sweet.

Okay, so... what?

I point out there would be a very real difficulty in taking political prisoners, if there's no authority party to declare them as such.

But you mention security and comfort.

When we talk about security and comfort being taken away for freedom, we're talking about when the government takes over an aspect that previously we took care of for ourselves in order to "take care of us."

I personally see this as not really taking care of us, but rather making us dependent and unable to operate outside the world they restrict us to.

I am not sure if this is what Anthony means, but I personally do not advocate people having no security or comfort. Rather it would be what they provide for themselves, on top of the support and acceptance of their loved ones and the community they are part of.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:48 PM

Hmm. There are SO many useless people running my city right now, and SO many are corrupt and incompetent. I know exactly what you mean.

Remember the Salt Lake City Olympics, when the scandal came out that we had bribed the Olympic commission? Turns out everyone else does it too, but Salt Lake City can't even make a BRIBE properly. XD

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Is anyone else as blown away by Signy's remarks here as I am?

I think she is just setting one boundary for discussion. I found Anthony's comment about selling one's freedom for security and comfort more unusual. I'm trying to understand how to value freedom in the context of no security and no comfort. I would of course be a very poor politcal prisoner.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

I was still hoping to hear how it was markedly different than selling one's freedom for a freaking JOB. They say if the government gives you health and security they can take it away just as easily, and I say you're more likely to lose your job than your government.

Just sayin'.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:32 PM

PB,

Maybe she was, but I was serious about the depression. People only make certain comments when they're depressed. As folk was trying to have a conv. about alt. to govt., it seemed out of place to just be voicing doom. It's okay to take a chill pill

Frem,

2 sets of books, nice. Like dielbold machines keep three sets of vote tallies, which is not a conspiracy theory. There's a great breakdown of how they work written by some people in new zealand who got one and took it apart

Mike,

Job isn't really security either, you need streams of income, and of course, to eliminate expenses. Best of all to have minions. Minions are very useful.

"Everyone needs minions" -Lois McMaster Bujold

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:48 PM

Quote:
I was still hoping to hear how it was markedly different than selling one's freedom for a freaking JOB. They say if the government gives you health and security they can take it away just as easily, and I say you're more likely to lose your job than your government.

Just sayin'.

I *KNEW* you didn't like that.

Oh well, I can't change how I feel about it. I think we're as much indentured to the companies that employ us as the government, and they both do their best to keep us that way.

If you lose your job, and a job provides comfort and security like food and shelter until you become dependent on your job for it... Well, what's that say about jobs? How's it different from being a citizen under an oppressive government?

Now, a voluntary effort, because your neighbor is working, and because everyone's working, and working together, that is appealing to me.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:02 PM

RUE

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

"Well, what's that say about jobs?"

It's called being a 'wage slave'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:24 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Y'know, T, once the company accustoms you to receiving these gifts from them - a paycheck, health insurance, vacations - they've stolen your "freedom", too. So it doesn't take people in Nazi uniforms to steal your freedoms, or even GOVERNMENT uniforms; sometimes it just takes people in Walmart uniforms, or Coca-Cola uniforms...

Mike"

Hello Mike,

It's wonderful, isn't it? To decide for yourself what you want? Get in as deep or as shallow as you want? To be able to back out at any time you're ready to make a change? To switch gears as soon as you're ready, and above all...

To have inflicted your will, your personal formula of comfort and freedom, on not one other smucking person?

That's the difference between a job and a government. At least until the corporations go Cyberpunk on us. Not far off, maybe.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:26 PM

Heck, I see them cyberpunking us now. But then, maybe that's why I consider myself Anarchist, and not Libertarian. :)

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I say you're more likely to lose your job than your government."

Hello Mike,

Very much the point, and thanks for bringing it up.

I can't lose my government. Not easily. But I can lose my job. I can decide on a standard of living and eat the shit I'm willing to eat to support it.

And then I can decide differently.

And I decide these things for myself.

Not so with government.

You decide for other people, and you decide for the long haul. Because once you give them something, Mike, they never give it back easy. You can't come into government tomorrow and say you quit Social Security. You can't say 'government program X and law Y aren't working for me anymore. I choose to discontinue."

But you can quit your job, if you have the cojones, and no one is gonna arrest you. If you're qualified, and there's a position open, you could get a new job tomorrow. It's your choice what you're willing to live with, what chances you take.

Try that with a government. Declare the United States a hippy commune, smoke a joint, screw a whore, walk on your front lawn naked, and learn the hard lesson that once the government starts taking care of you, it's hard to get them to stop.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:23 PM

Kathy,

I thought you had one of 'em superjobs where they pay you 80k but expect 80 hrs/wk from you...

Oh, yeah, higher wage, still slave, see your point. If you want to deconstruct gardasil some time I'd be interested in your thoughts, that was the debate you missed.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 2:18 AM

Quote:

You decide for other people, and you decide for the long haul. Because once you give them something, Mike, they never give it back easy. You can't come into government tomorrow and say you quit Social Security. You can't say 'government program X and law Y aren't working for me anymore. I choose to discontinue."

But you can quit your job, if you have the cojones, and no one is gonna arrest you. If you're qualified, and there's a position open, you could get a new job tomorrow. It's your choice what you're willing to live with, what chances you take.

Try that with a government. Declare the United States a hippy commune, smoke a joint, screw a whore, walk on your front lawn naked, and learn the hard lesson that once the government starts taking care of you, it's hard to get them to stop.

Actually, Anthony, you CAN do all that. You CAN "quit your government". You CAN "quit social security". You can have all the freedom you can stand, and then some. You can be free to set your course and make what you can of yourself, completely on your own. All you have to do is head somewhere like Sierra Leone or Guyana.

You're saying that if I don't like my job, I can go to another job. Well, if you don't like your government, you actually CAN leave and go to another government. Some have legalized pot and prostitution, even, if that's what you're into.

Seems to me none of us is really convinced that we're in any way TRULY "free" - we're pretty much admitting that we're whores; now we're just negotiating the price. But either way, we're going to get screwed.

Mike

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 2:40 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I think maybe Anthony has been to a place with our gov that most of us never have been, or maybe many of us ever could go... maybe...

I quite happily and willingly live within this government's laws and constraints because I - gulp - still believe it is my gov to change if I want to.

I say this in full knowledge and recognition that it is flawed, that it practically robs me every paycheck, that some of its international decisions go against my core beliefs. I say this knowing that I actually NEED a government to survive, that in fact the REAL ISSUE is not the poorness of my government or it's constraining practices, but rather the WEAKNESS and FRAILTY of it's CITIZENS.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 5:04 AM

RUE

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

Slightly off topic:

Hi DreamTrove

Given the growing ineffectiveness of antibiotics, and also the number of diseases for which there is no and has never been treatment (HPV is one of them) I am in GENERAL in favor of vaccination as both a personal and group means of preventing preventable diseases. (For disease read suffering and/ or statistical likelihood of death.) I predict we are only beginning to see the wave of horrible diseases in the face of which our normal treaments will be useless. Having lost the treatment option, prevention will be our only recourse.

Having said that - while I don't know much about Gardasil specifically, I am wary of the modern FDA. David Kessler was the last of the good guys, and he was fighting a losing battle as it was being dismantled underneath him. It used to be a fairly effective regulatory agency, standing between the hucksters and the public. It is now the puppet of the pharmaceutical industry.

I wouldn't trust anything that came out of the FDA over the last perhaps 10 years on that alone. Gardasil is one of them.

Which is a tragedy in the making. The FDA lost a lot of ground when it needed to be progressing. It could have been ahead of the curve enhancing its reputation and honing its collective skills and scientific data set. Now it is behind and I see little likelihood it will catch up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 7:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nicely said, Pizmo, and pretty much mirrors what I believe. There are worse things than what we've got, and I'd rather not experience them.

________________________
Together we are more than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 7:18 AM

Mike,

you can quit a capitalist institution in either direction without changing anything else about your life. No need to move, just "unsubscribe."

Govt. should be the same way. But globalists would like to block the "relocate" as well

Kathy,

I think the science of gardasil is sound research, but the application is poor. It's a synthetic copy of the principle protein of HPV, non blood virus, and then it is injected into the bloodstream. This can create radical immune responses against particles that could lodge in the lungs, heart, anywhere, and the immune system would attack it as if it were the cancer causing virus it resembles.

I agree, the FDA is a totally captured agency that bows to the likes of Merck, and Merck in particular, making it a useless check on power.

Addition, yes, there are many diseases we don't yet know. I suspect a lot of the problems we think of as "aging" including I would hazard a guess "all of cancer" is actually a number of diseases just now being identified. Vaccines are good, but cures would be better. There's occasional talk about "universal defense" because viral structure is alien to human, that it could be targeted without any risk to our own tissues.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 9:22 AM

The good news, Kwicko, or perhaps the bad news, Pizmobeach, is that no government lasts forever. And I think the decay in ours has been showing for a long time.

They way I see it, is that our government has been willing to allow giant corporate conglomerates to grow, that have such a stake in the market (and control over the government) that if they fail, they take our economy with it.

Eventually, all the outright theft from the public to contribute to cronyism will misstep again, and they will cause their own ruin.

Oh, sure, they can do things like declare martial law and try to increase the control they have over the general public to stay alive for a bit longer, but that'll fail too, eventually, because at that point, people will want to stop accepting the government's rule because it will no longer be in their best interest even surficially (if they ever really intended to act in our best interests), but about control.

A contingency plan for when that happens is all I'm advocating.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I think maybe Anthony has been to a place with our gov that most of us never have been, or maybe many of us ever could go... maybe...

I quite happily and willingly live within this government's laws and constraints because I - gulp - still believe it is my gov to change if I want to.

I say this in full knowledge and recognition that it is flawed, that it practically robs me every paycheck, that some of its international decisions go against my core beliefs. I say this knowing that I actually NEED a government to survive, that in fact the REAL ISSUE is not the poorness of my government or it's constraining practices, but rather the WEAKNESS and FRAILTY of it's CITIZENS.

Were the citizens "weak, frail," and dependent on the government before the great depression?

It has not always been this way, and I don't think this way is for the best. There is something satisfying in doing something for yourself. I grant you, there may be times when you CAN'T do something for yourself, but then, isn't that where human relationship should come in?

Out of curiosity, have you ever voted for someone who was not elected, or even, in the case of primaries, not nominated? If so, then how is your voice being represented in the decision making process in our country? Is it enough to have faith in a particular party if you do not have local representation from that party? Why would a national party work on any of your local issues, if they have no members from there with any constituents?

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That's a heck of a philosophy ya got there, Signy. It completely renders the term "freedom" meaningless. So everyone who talks about "freedom" is deluded in your book? What the hell? Your problem with Anarchy finally makes perfect sense, though. You don't believe in freedom, you see aspects of your natural environment, even your own bodily functions as "constraints" on your freedom. Again: what the hell? The only being that could be free in the way you mean free, would be a god, free of all external forces or pre-existing conditions. Freedom for you is omnipotence. Who the hell would feel constrained by "empathy?" "Dang it, empathy won't let me pull the wings these flies our gouge these puppies' eyes out! Stupid empathy!" I promise you, no one here is using the word "freedom" the way you use it, Ms. Spinoza. So, when you hear people talking about living without coersion or heirarchies, you must throw up your hands as if we're talking pure jibberish.

Quote:
"Your only option is to choose your constraints." Hello, You mostly named the constraints people DON'T choose. I can't choose to not be thirsty, or hungry, or tired, or whatever. Not unless I blow my brains out. But I can choose government. That's what we're talking about. Choosing government and choosing what you're willing to give them, or let them take. Choosing what your line is, and where you draw it.Or whether you even draw it at all.

Quote:
Signy, dear, antidepressants. 100mg 5htp, 2/day, available at your local health food store.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Ms. Spinoza"
Thank you!

I've been called worse.

Later.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:12 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

For the most part, I think everyone here believes in the power of the individual.

The power of one person to run their own life.

To protect, feed, and care for themselves and others.

Am I wrong?

Most of us just disagree on whether or not we should be forced to care for strangers.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
For the most part, I think everyone here believes in the power of the individual. The power of one person to run their own life. To protect, feed, and care for themselves and others. Am I wrong?

Wulf, I believe that you are utterly wrong, not only about the ability of individuals to care for themselves, but also about what most people here think about that.

Elderly can't care for themselves. Neither can the sick or disabled. And of course babies can't either. Dump them from consideration and you've dumped the entire human race.

You assume that the technological society we live all came from "individual effort"? Not true. "Individuals" can't develop technology. People have to have extra time to learn and to experiment. Ideas need to be exchanged. Of course, that means agriculture, and language. Written language is particularly helpful. Which means, of course, that in order to progress... to build on the discoveries of the past and to use the current technologies we need to have a broadly educated population.

And then there is trade... money... all of the things we do collectively that we couldn't possibly do individually. Even hunting requires coordination. By your standard, we would each be digging for roots by ourselves. Individually.

Frem recognizes the need for coordination. So does HK, and a whole host of other people here. The question revolves around not whether we can survive as INDIVIDUALS (we can't) but HOW coordination is engendered: by cooperation, by force, or a combinaiton.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:32 AM

RUE

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

"... our government has been willing to allow giant corporate conglomerates to grow ..."

It was one of the oft-repeated errors (lies ?) during the u-soft trial that the government was going after u-soft b/c it was a monopoly, or at least too big.

In fact, there is no law against large corporations per se, or a few large corporations - or even one corporation - having a monopoly and controlling the vast majority of the market.

What there IS a law against is said controller(s) engaging in anti-competative practices (of which u-soft was found guilty).

If you want corporations kept small, then the laws will have to be changed. (That, I may add, is going against the grain as small differences in advantage tend to accumulate into large differences until only one, or a select few at most, remain.)

BTW - when it came to enforcing the laws that WERE on the books, the Reagan administration kept both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission inactive - career people spent years with literally nothing to do. It was at this time when u-soft was doing its most egregious dirty deeds. So much for deregulation, eh ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTHONY

Quote:
Try that with a corporation. Declare Microsoft a free software community, distribute their software, break their intellectual property protection, and learn the hard lesson that once corporations starts taking care of you, it's hard to get them to stop.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:46 AM

In truth, I think that using the word "allow" was a kindness, on my part. "Helped while laughing their heads off about it" is perhaps more likely.

Regulations were a nod at the citizens becoming outraged at the abuses of transgressions over consumers in the name of not just profits, but OBSCENE profits, but they're among a number of things that our government does that I consider lip service. And they don't really seem to do it WELL.

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 10:51 AM