Happy land

[TRP]

Here's more along the lines of what I'm talking about: http://www.ybw.com/ibinews/newsdesk/200 ... inews.html

It's already an open secret here in Arkansas...a state that does a lot of fishing and boating on open waters...that the first game warden who attempts to enforce this won't escape unscathed. I would like to add that I'm not directly making threats...merely repeating what appears to be the sentiment among a lot of Arkansans.

I'm sure that ruling was based upon on some crazy technical interpretations of some existing laws, but it will be a good case to show the separation of powers. Alright, this judge (judiciary branch) made a ruling, and is he personally going to patrol all the navigable waters of the continental U.S.? Now tell me, which executive branch official is actually going to enforce this absurdity? Semaj stated it best on what the outcome could be. I just hope the first folks to encounter the first enforcement agent sent to uphold the law realize he's technically following a lawful order, and they allow the poor guy to leave the vicinity under his own power. Maybe a little humiliation to make a point.

I do not doubt the willingness of a sufficient number of U.S. citizens that would be willing to participate in an armed insurrection. In recent history, there is only what would be described as a fringe element partaking in these activities. Look at Oklahoma City, the Branch Davidians and Pine Ridge as examples. However, if civil liberties continue to erode, then the size of the fringe element will grow in size with the proportional diminishment of civil rights.

Dunno if this makes me a typical A'mercan, but it may prove semaj's point and at least one of P&P's. When it comes to foreign conflicts, in most cases I'm not a big fan of the U.S. getting involved, but don't signficantly threaten my lifestyle (and all that infers) unless you're willing to kill me or die trying to imprison me. Bear in mind, I'm essentially a pacifist, but even pacifists can find causes worth fighting to maintain. As in "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Far, far too many souls around the world are not allowed this most basic of freedoms. For any free person, and this is not the exclusivity of the U.S., to piss away their essential freedom, is unconscionable.

As for what started this thread in the first place. It may be true, that if I'm doing nothing illegal, I shouldn't fear a camera. On the other hand, assuming I'm obeying the law, then please tell me what friggin' business is it of the local police or city council that I was on the corner of Bienville and Chartres streets at 12:07pm, Saturday, Sept. 16, 2006, wearing a t-shirt with the words "Bush Is A Megalomaniac" or "Clinton Was A Traitor"?

Congratulations fellas, we just made the NSA watch list.

[Glgnfz]

Congratulations fellas, we just made the NSA watch list.

i guess with my nick i was already on the list!

[JCBoney]

I'll let you in on a little secret that partially backs up your claim: in the eyes of most Americans, there's a big difference between dragging some foreign nationals to Gitmo to face a military tribunal and dragging American citizens into internment camps to face military trbunal. Remember what I said above about "what happens to someone else is one thing...what happens to me is another?"

Yes, there was a gigantic hue and cry when Japanese-Americans were interred in concentration camps during WWII.

All that the government would have to do would be to demonize a certain segment of the American population ("the Yellow Menace"), and most Americans would probably fall into lockstep.

What do you think would happen if Arab-Americans (and Iranian-Americans, etc.), particularly Muslims, were rounded up and interred in concentration camps?

You're still missing the point: "what happens to someone else is one thing...what happens to me is another thing." What were the mitigating factors that allowed the average American to live with that scenario?

What do I think would happen if Muslim-Americans were lined up for internment? Today? Good question. I think people in general would hoist the BS flag, and I think Canada would experience a population increase. I would not be suprised to hear about some Muslim-Americans resisting internment. But, backing up a step, I think you've forgotten something I said before: the police don't fear Muslim-American insurrection... they fear white insurrection.

[JCBoney]

Congratulations fellas, we just made the NSA watch list.

Ahem...Screw the NSA!

There... that should give them something to analyze.

This judge is from your neck of the woods, man...you people need to do something about him down there.

[Ska]

P&P---yes, I do believe there is a correlation between the amount of socialism and anti-gun legislation. They seem to go hand in hand.

The more government wants, the less for you. Your money and your rights are taken.

America is slowly heading towards Western-Europen style socialism---with its anti-gun nonsense and high taxes. It is a shame, and if Myth is right and the Dems do take power in 2006 and 2008, we will find ourselves disarmed and at the complete mercy of a socialist government.

P&P---there are many in America who wish for this European socialism (ie the Democratic Party). They are all for high taxes, universal healthcare (imagine, your health care in the hands of the same people who run your local Department of Motor Vehicles), making sure only the government has arms, and deciding what you can or cannot do with yourproperty.

These forces of socialism/communism are fought agaisnt by a coalition of Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and others.

I am against painting any group as the enemey. I am agaisnt any kind of detention without due process for LEGAL US CITIZENS. I have no problem with utterly destroying by any means possible any foes of the U.S.

The debate about applying the Geneva Convention to non-signatory terrorist is laughable, but seems to be the way the U.S. is heading.


If you beleive in personal freedom and liberty you will side and vote for those that wish to espouse such ideals. In the U.S. (the free-est nation on earth) we were handed by the Founding Fathers the greatest democratic/federalist system ever devised. Our greatest threat does not loom from any external threat, but from the socialist weenies who are U.S. citizens openly working to emulate their brethern across the Atlantic.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

As for what started this thread in the first place. It may be true, that if I'm doing nothing illegal, I shouldn't fear a camera. On the other hand, assuming I'm obeying the law, then please tell me what friggin' business is it of the local police or city council that I was on the corner of Bienville and Chartres streets at 12:07pm, Saturday, Sept. 16, 2006, wearing a t-shirt with the words "Bush Is A Megalomaniac" or "Clinton Was A Traitor"?

If you were on a British street wearing one of those T-shirts, the loudspeaker would be saying to you, "So what else is new?"

The authority which has put this up is a Local Authority -- an elected local government subordinate to national government, usually responsible for a region with a population of about a million.

It's none of their business, of course, but then this camera is just a CCTV camera hooked up to a loudspeaker, and CCTV isn't a new thing, nor is it a horrible infringement of your civil liberties. You can see the same kind of device in apartment blocks and presumably in those gated communities you have in the US as well.

(Speaking of gated communities, what's up with those? I hear they have Residents' Associations that tell you what colour you can paint your house and how often you have to mow your lawn, is that true? And if so, why on Earth would anyone want to live there unless their neighbours really suck?)

[PapersAndPaychecks]

P&P---yes, I do believe there is a correlation between the amount of socialism and anti-gun legislation. They seem to go hand in hand.

The more government wants, the less for you. Your money and your rights are taken.

The reason we can have higher taxes in the UK is because we earn more money.

As for rights... well, you live in a nation where you can't have sex or drink alcohol until you're eighteen, there are laws regulating what you do in your bedroom, it's illegal to be a prostitute, and it only just became legal to give a teenager the morning after pill.

P&P---there are many in America who wish for this European socialism (ie the Democratic Party). They are all for high taxes, universal healthcare (imagine, your health care in the hands of the same people who run your local Department of Motor Vehicles)

Yup. Works quite well, in my experience.

making sure only the government has arms, and deciding what you can or cannot do with your property.

Yup. They make sure the police don't have guns either.

I am against painting any group as the enemey. I am agaisnt any kind of detention without due process for LEGAL US CITIZENS. I have no problem with utterly destroying by any means possible any foes of the U.S.

Britain's a foe of the US? I ask because there are several Brits who've been detained in Guantanamo without charge or trial for the last five years.

That's okay by you because they're not US citizens?

In the U.S. (the free-est nation on earth)

We're both talking about the country where you can't even drink alcohol or have sex 'til you're eighteen, right?

we were handed by the Founding Fathers the greatest democratic/federalist system ever devised.

You're welcome to your opinion.

[AxeMental]

Governments that try to micro-manage their people ALWAYS (to my knowledge) disarm thier population. By micro-manage I mean 1. make choices for them (as they assume they will choose poorly), 2. control resources, 3. Direct human activity (placing people in jobs rather then letting people choose on their own).

BTW, P&P do you have a limit on what you would allow, if you don't have a problem with talking cameras telling you how to behave? For instance, would you have a problem with a computer chip implanted in your brain that when ever you thought about doing something "evil" the state would come take you for rehabilitation. I mean, by your argument, if your a law abiding citizen and your not going to commit a crime, what would be the harm. Your crime rate would be Zero.


See, thats my point. Low crime, better conditions, universal health care, piece of mind, etc. do not trump freedom.

I have to disagree with Wheggie as well, he stated he doesn't see it the duty of the USA to impose its beliefs on other nations. I disagree. We should constantly fight communism, socialism and its tools whenever possible by whatever means possible. If the world falls to these political systems we will have lost as a species.

In other words, the world is too small a place to think its not our duty to persuade through logic and discussion the ideals of the American Constitution, and those of other truely free nations. We (the USA) shouldn't just sit back because the majority of a particular nation outlaws fire arms. Why, because people have a God given right to protect themselves from crime and government gone amuck. Why care? Why not? And by duty, I mean the duty we have to our kids and grand children...to hand them a more free and prosperous nation and world. And that can ONLY be done through a pro-active foreign policy that spreads freedom (the same we take for granted here), and stops tyranny and repressive governments. The fact that Bush has failed to do this (and has infact had negative impact in this regard) doesn't mean its a bad idea. "Live and let live" is what the Europeans did when Hitler was rising in power. Also what much of Europe did when the Soviets were taking over the world piece by piece. It took a pro-active national policy to win. That said, I'm not for forcing (by threat of or use of force) any free people to choose their own destiny. However sanctions are fair game in my book.

[TRP]

(Speaking of gated communities, what's up with those? I hear they have Residents' Associations that tell you what colour you can paint your house and how often you have to mow your lawn, is that true? And if so, why on Earth would anyone want to live there unless their neighbours really suck?)

What's funny about such places here (gated communities), is how large and close together the homes are to each other. The New Orleans area is completely surrounded by water, so we ran out of expansion room a long time ago (that's why it will never be a Houston or Atlanta). So, some people build really, really big square homes with no more than 6ft between 'em with a tiny backyard and a 10' sliver of lawn in front. Excuse me, but if I ever build a 3-story, 5 bedroom home, it's damned well going to have a nice yard, and I will not be able to stick my hand out of a window and shake my neighbor's hand as he leans out of his window.

Some people have more money than brains, and/or all their taste is in their mouth.

[dcs]

I have to disagree with Wheggie as well, he stated he doesn't see it the duty of the USA to impose its beliefs on other nations. I disagree. We should constantly fight communism, socialism and its tools whenever possible by whatever means possible. If the world falls to these political systems we will have lost as a species.

How ridiculous. Forcing freedom on people is the antithesis of freedom.

[dcs]

Speaking of gated communities, what's up with those? I hear they have Residents' Associations that tell you what colour you can paint your house and how often you have to mow your lawn, is that true? And if so, why on Earth would anyone want to live there unless their neighbours really suck?

Yes, it's true, and there's nothing wrong with it, since one is choosing to live there after all.

It's no different, really, than a restrictive covenant on property.

[JCBoney]

P&P just a point of order: the universal drinking age in the US is 21. The age of sexual consent, however, varies from state to state. For instance: in Arkansas the age for consent is 16. However, across the river in Mississippi, the age of consent for boys is 16 but it's 13 for girls if they're not a virgin. DO NOT ask me for the logic behind that last one...I don't know. That's the doings of the Mississippi legislature.

[TRP]

P&P just a point of order: the universal drinking age in the US is 21. The age of sexual consent, however, varies from state to state. For instance: in Arkansas the age for consent is 16. However, across the river in Mississippi, the age of consent for boys is 16 but it's 13 for girls if they're not a virgin. DO NOT ask me for the logic behind that last one...I don't know. That's the doings of the Mississippi legislature.

I think Louisiana was the last holdout on the more civilized drinking age of 18. The federal gov't, prodded by the insurance companies, threatened to cut off all highway funding if the state did not raise it's drinking age to 21. At first, the state legislature raised the age for everything except beer (too bad they didn't include wine), but the feds said that wasn't good enough, so eventually it was all raised to 21.

Although a regrettable move by the feds and the state body, I do not consider that to be an infringement on the rights of the state, because the state did have the right to tell the feds to go jump. Unfortunately, we're addicted to the teat, so we obliged.

[AxeMental]

dcs: "How ridiculous. Forcing freedom on people is the antithesis of freedom"


I just stated I don't support "forcing freedom" (by FORCE I mean, violence or the threat of violence) on anyone. However, I do support sanctions against dictators that rule with an iron fist, I also support Radio Free America, and our government supporting political parties and organizations in other countries that support freedom.

dcs, so you believe in just sitting back when national governments controlling all media (as we see in China) continue to brain wash thier own people into accepting the role of "slave". Man, I'd of thought you would support ending world strife.

Remember, not everyone in England supports these cameras. Nor do they support thier gun control policies. We should do what we can (legally and ethically) to support those factions. Force...no. Help those who agree with us win there own country men and women over with logic, HELL yes. Win over with a carrot and stick approach yes, within reason (we still need to do what we can to aid in suffering such as feeding the hungry, and giving medicine to the sick as well as helping with population growth). Thats what Foriegn policy is all about.

Are you an isolationist by any chance?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Governments that try to micro-manage their people ALWAYS (to my knowledge) disarm thier population. By micro-manage I mean 1. make choices for them (as they assume they will choose poorly), 2. control resources, 3. Direct human activity (placing people in jobs rather then letting people choose on their own).

The US does all three of those things to at least as great an extent as the UK, mind.

BTW, P&P do you have a limit on what you would allow, if you don't have a problem with talking cameras telling you how to behave?

There are plenty of interactive devices that tell me how to behave already. There are speed cameras that flash *slow down* at me if I go at more than 70 miles an hour. (We're allowed to go 70 mph here, you see. Our government lets us do that.) There are computers that send me letters reminding me when my tax returns are due and if I'm a day late, by God I know about it.

You have plenty of machines that tell you how to behave in the US too. This one's just a variation on a theme.

For instance, would you have a problem with a computer chip implanted in your brain that when ever you thought about doing something "evil" the state would come take you for rehabilitation. I mean, by your argument, if your a law abiding citizen and your not going to commit a crime, what would be the harm. Your crime rate would be Zero.

Yeah... they're not exactly parallel cases, though, are they?

See, thats my point. Low crime, better conditions, universal health care, piece of mind, etc. do not trump freedom.

Back before I was a father, I'd have agreed with you. Give me liberty, not security, and hang the consequences.

Now I've got a wife and a son I see this more as a balancing act. Your freedom to own a gun doesn't trump my freedom to know my son isn't going to get held up at gunpoint for his mobile phone on the way to school; and there are certainly plenty of times when my family's security is very definitely more important than their freedom.

In other words, the world is too small a place to think its not our duty to persuade through logic and discussion the ideals of the American Constitution, and those of other truely free nations. We (the USA) shouldn't just sit back because the majority of a particular nation outlaws fire arms.

No nation that incarcerates British citizens without charge or trial is going to lecture the UK on freedom. Close Gitmo and send our people back to face trial before jury, with a lawyer, and maybe then I'll talk to you about freedom.

"Live and let live" is what the Europeans did when Hitler was rising in power.

... until 1939, when Britain and France became the only nations to declare war on fascism without first being attacked.

Then we hung on until June 1940, at which time Britain became the sole nation holding back fascism in Europe, and remained so for a year, during which time we broke the power of the Luftwaffe, sank the German surface fleet, sank the French surface fleet to stop it falling into German hands, sank the Italian fleet at Taranto, and kicked the Italians almost into the sea in North Africa, thereby making the Mediterranean and the English Channel into Allied lakes and permitting land actions in the following year.

Where was this America that's so ready to fight for freedom then? Staying neutral and selling weapons to the Allies at interest, that's where. It was 2002 before Britain finished paying off lend/lease, and in the meantime the US was perfectly happy to write off plenty of debt to other countries which aren't their staunchest military allies...

But I think your classes don't talk about all this. Believe it or not, I saw a movie recently where it was the Americans who captured the Enigma machine, for goodness' sake; the ignorance of history or America's true role alternately amuses me and scares me.