Shutting down a democracy

[Pyrotex]

I knew things were bad, but I didn't know they were this bad. I had always thought that the beauty of democracy was that we could disagree and yell at each other, but there were never any knocks on the door in the middle of the night. But now we got Blackwater. We got to do something, but folks, I gotta admit I don't know what to do. My entire family just loves Bush (mother, cousins, brothers, etc) -- I'm the only dissident.
Thanks Orby.
Thanks Buffy.

[orbsycli]

mine too. It's so weird~~~~~~~~~!
Are they testing us?
This guy alex jones did some documentaries about blackwater and how in Texas they just show up (sometimes without even cooperating with local police at all) with helicopters and explosives and blow up the inside of a certain abandoned building, run around and fire guns and even parachute in. There's videos of this, and of police chiefs who are absolutely appalled these things happened in their towns.
Next day they hired painters and people to board up the windows and they just bounced.
The people didn't even seem that affected.
How weird is that??

I'm wondering what they're up to now.
Just waiting for another disaster.
Self inflicted, or natural.

?

[orbsycli]

They also set up a mock disaster camp in Oakland...
there's footage of people being ID'd and put behind barbed wire or something with a bunch of guys with guns guarding them and they're told to demand food and shelter or something.
IT WAS SO FREAKY.
I don't understand that at all. It's documented on video! Youtube alex jones (He's insanely passionate...i know. some of his stuff's real good footage. other times he's putting words into peoples mouths. either way, it's entertaining in a spooky sortofway.

Scary how a fool like Borat could bring such racism out of some Americans.

I still have faith in evolution.
I feel like I'm at war, or, about to be, but
wow, you know?
America seemed so stable back in the day....
we were alive for that. we're alive right now
and it's changing in front of out eyes...morphing...shapeshifting we can see it's bones....
but into what?

[TheBigDog]

She is a very impassioned speaker, but her logic is no more compelling than the Bible's predictions of the apocalypse. She is in fact taking several of the steps she cautions about in her rhetoric, her method, and her stated purpose. But she is the good guy, so that is all right.

Beware! Slippery Slope Ahead!

Bill

[KickAssClown]

In my opinion, by this time, we are hard pressed to reverse nearly 70 years worth of growing systemic damage. My inclination is to reset the constitution (and the government that it serves as the foundation for); convene a special assembly of the people of the United States and retool the government. There has been much learned in the last 3000 years and we have unprecedented functional access to and communication of that body of information. The Assembly, like with the formation of the original constitution, would take place over months--possibly even years--, both online and in person.

The most valuable things to come from this would be annealizing our slowly fractioning nation, deconsolidation of inappropiate powers into new branches of governance, a system-wide citizen's education in the governing of the United States, and hopefully a retrofitted constitutional government designed to address specific modern day issues and general, timeless, issues such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

of course, this is perhaps radical in the face of alternative approaches but this is my favored corrective scenario. I believe that a citation from the Declaration of Independence proves rather apt for expressing my stance:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Re: Pyrotex - This is just one course of action that could be taken in face of the growing evidence of a corrupted, disfunctional, and--frankly--dangerous government. Another course I consider worthwhile is the plain dissemination of information to the general populus in functionally accessible and aesthetically pleasing forms like movies, games, books, music and amuseums that are built on relevant and usable foundations. This is the one I am seriously pursuing by way of career choice, education, and social participation.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

mine too. It's so weird~~~~~~~~~!
Are they testing us?
This guy alex jones did some documentaries ...

I'm listening to Alex Jones right now on radio. He has a stunning grasp of facts and the sources to back them up.

Here's his new documentary >> Alex Jones' Endgame

Alex Jones' web page >> Alex Jones' Infowars.com :: There is a War on for Your Mind!

[Cedars]

I was going to watch it twice before posting. You always pick up stuff you missed the second time around.

One thing she missed was its also "all about the children". The propaganda that were not doing it to adults, were doing for the children of the future.

Many of the things she spoke about occurred during the vietnam war also. Agents infiltrating peace groups, the lists, creating strife to get the cameras focused in on how bad these people (traitors), people losing jobs over their activities. And that wasnt the first time.

She never mentioned all the things put into place via the drug war.

Lists at airports. Thats been going on for years. I know of lists going back to at least 1984. Someone I know is was on a list because he reported a certain type of crime attempted against him. Anyways, thats what we think put him on the list.

One thing that surprised me was her advocating the 2nd amendment. Good for her! But its not republicans that are trying to shred that protection is it? (see its all about the children comment above)

Originally Posted by TBD

Beware! Slippery Slope Ahead!

Yep, I thought about that too.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

She is a very impassioned speaker, but her logic is no more compelling than the Bible's predictions of the apocalypse. She is in fact taking several of the steps she cautions about in her rhetoric, her method, and her stated purpose. But she is the good guy, so that is all right.

Beware! Slippery Slope Ahead!

Bill

Bill,

One obvious difference I would point out is that Naomi is basing her observations on actual occurrences in the past by other governments. There is no precedence for the apocalypse; nor could there ever be.

Would you be willing to elaborate a bit about your comments? Out of her list of 10 items, 1, 7 and maybe 9 (as Orb listed them) are the only ones I can see her potentially guilty of, and those would be required in order to legitimately establish her position. Do you see more than that?

Where does the slippery slope lead that you are concerned about? If it leads toward honoring the Constitution, restoring Habeas Corpus and the Rule of Law, more oversight and accountability, shinning a light on massive secrecy, abolishing state sponsored torture programs, limiting the "Unitary Executive" to restore co-equal branches of government, upending vast corruption, etc., than I'm ready to strap on a snowboard.

What do you think?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

...Re: Pyrotex - This is just one course of action that could be taken in face of the growing evidence of a corrupted, disfunctional, and--frankly--dangerous government....

HERE IS A POTENTIALLY CONSTRUCTIVE COURSE OF ACTION:

What if we ALL demanded that WE be put on the "list" of dissidents.

What if HALF or even a THIRD of all American adults demanded to be put on that list?:
"We are terrorists and we pose a potential threat to this administration!"

Then start making up "flag burning" kits: one American flag and a small lighter.

Organize "The March of a Million Dissidents" in Washington DC.

Bring your flag kits and force the gestapo to arrest US ALL!

Bring the system to its knees.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by REASON

Bill,

One obvious difference I would point out is that Naomi is basing her observations on actual occurrences in the past by other governments. There is no precedence for the apocalypse; nor could there ever be.

Would you be willing to elaborate a bit about your comments? Out of her list of 10 items, 1, 7 and maybe 9 (as Orb listed them) are the only ones I can see her potentially guilty of, and those would be required in order to legitimately establish her position. Do you see more than that?

Where does the slippery slope lead that you are concerned about? If it leads toward honoring the Constitution, restoring Habeas Corpus and the Rule of Law, more oversight and accountability, shinning a light on massive secrecy, abolishing state sponsered torture programs, limiting the "Unitary Executive" to restore co-equal branches of government, upending vast corruption, etc., than I'm ready to strap on a snowboard.

What do you think?

Another obvious difference is that the regimes listed by Ms. Wolf were in fact bent on imperialism and world domination. In any of the countries that currently host US troops, Afghanistan and Iraq included, all the host must do is ask the US to leave and it will. Was the same true of those countries who "hosted" the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or any of the other despot regimes that she has the audacity to compare the US to?

My reference to the Apocalypse is how predictions of its imminent arrival are justified by comparing the language and symbolism of countries and current events to prophesies in the bible and turning those coincidences into factual proof. Utter hogwash, just as her seeing a clear path based upon precedent in those other countries to dictatorship and abolishing democracy in the US is utter hogwash.

I have a big problem with the whole of her argument and with many of her supporting premises. Part of that is a habit that she repeats over and over in her lecture. The Bush administration is guilty of hypothetical acts that they have not committed, and this is often the basis of her argument. Insinuations about everything from the 2000 election counts, to the accusation of "legalizing torture" to accusations of using thugs to harass citizen groups. The leap that she made to connect Jeb Bush to the tasering of a student at a Florida University was particularly impressive. So much so that she did it at two different points during the lecture. Imagine what a powerful Governor Jeb must have been to have coordinated the tasering of that student some eight months after leaving office.

General accusation: Bush did too little to help after Katrina.
New accusation: Bush is guilty of hiring private firms to help after Katrina.

General accusation: Bush is running a gulag where people are held without cause - everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
New accusation: Security firm is guilty of attocities, despite no fact finding or investigation.

Old accusation: Bush used fake documents (yellowcake from Africa) to promote cause for war. (The documents in question are hardly proven as fake or otherwise).
New accusation: Bush took out innocent reporter Dan Rather who was using proven forged documents to attack President Bush. This is pure paranoia that Bush took him out. Rather screwed up and was taken out by his own stupidity, the fact that he is suing his employer is hardly an indication of his vindication (as implied by Ms. Wolf).

I could go on and on, but it is in my opinion a pointless debate. Those who wish to believe Ms. Wolf are welcome to do so. Those who wish to see nationalism as a key indicator of a collapsing government can stay with that. There is nothing like such highly selective dot connecting to make a person like Ms. Wolf seem every bit the smart person that she is. For me it further illustrates her utter fearlessness is pushing her political agenda ahead of all reason. If you listen again to her lecture you will see that she is in fact...

Invoking a terrifying internal and external enemy (Bush Administration, "neocons")

Creating a gulag (By extrapolating based on hypothetical that this is inevitable, playing on fear)

Developing a thug caste (Again, playing on fear to extrapolate what does not exist because it could... "The list" - beautifully abstract and ominous)

Setting up an internal surveillance system (I think that stating that "All good reporting is based on classified information" is very telling. There is good work done in secret that is put in jeopardy when revealed. It is not the duty of the press to prevent the government for having secrets.)

Harassing citizens' groups (Well, maybe she isn't doing this. Although she is very predictable in who she will criticize and who she will condemn.)

Engage in arbitrary detention and release (She is not in a position to do this.

Target key individuals (Without doubt she does this, only she aims public opinion to wreck people.)

Control the press (Of course she is the press)

Dissent equals treason (This is an interesting one. She wants to impeach Bush as a criminal and a murderer... because she has political differences with him? Because he has positioned himself to commit hypothetical crimes? Another point I have to make is that this is a frequent accusation that is absolutely foundless.)

Suspend the rule of law (Laws are inconveniences when broken by her friends, and too lenient when hypothetically broken by her enemies. Convicting people in the press is he own best solution to suspending the rule of law. Nothing like a rumor from a "legitimate news person" to try and crush a career. Must be nice to be above the law and still be able to whine about it.)

I would ask people to go back and listen to her again. When she makes accusations, what exactly is her proof? She sometimes has you make mental models, other times she agrees with off mike words, and there are insinuations about things that are not at all factual. Listen very carefully to how she makes her argument and sits it on a mountain of bullshit.

Bill