TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A dystopian future
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, I didn't ask you to bash the poster. Anyone can do that all day. I asked you to address his claims in a specific manner.

this isn't aimed at you but...


Herein lies the rub, we're just about all fully aware that the mainstream media has been complicit in covering up many things in the recent years, that they basically pick and choose which issues are discussed and that anything deemed contrary to the government/big business/military industrial/corporate media's agenda is squashed (or at least majorly squelched.)

They've basically become just another propaganda arm for the state and they're hardly operating with best interest of the people at heart.

So that leads me to this, many of you people seem to rely on a complicit mainstream media for most of your news. News sources which from the beginning have already begun picking and choosing the issues that you will get to hear. News sources which have for the most part been censored, filtered and/or sanitized of any poignant information other than the crap that they want you to hear.

But since I read practically EVERYTHING and then follow that up by making good use of my own powers of perception, discernment and intellect in order to sift through all of the garbage, I'm labeled as someone who is

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers picking and choosing what the issues in order to make his little "Totalitarian" paranoia look reasonable

Go fucking figure

I don't really agree that the states have much power now. Granted, the current federal government permits states broad authority in many matters, but one shouldn't confuse the permissiveness of the current federal government with the extent of its authority. Every state, today, is more financially dependent on the federal government than ever before. That's inherently anti-federalist. Since no state could maintain it's current infrastructure without federal funds, and since the federal government could withold those funds if certain states don't cooperate on a given issue that is considered of particular importance, the truth is that the states' power is what the federal government delegates to it: which in fact is no power at all.

The federal and state governments usually cooperate very well, which is not surprising considering that the same two, frankly similar, political parties dominate both arenas. So I don't anticipate a whole lot of conflict. But if it really came down to a sort of brinksmanship on some point of contention, I think that the federal government has the 'teeth' to back up its position, and the state governments do not.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I don't understand some of your beliefs Trancer-x. States are more powerful than ever, since FDR's new deal created cooperative federalism. New federalism has enabled states to take on welfare (thanks to clinton, oddly enough), education, and taxes. Individuals are now closer to their local and state governments more than ever! The federal government really doesn't have the power that it used to have. You can throw all of the quotes, videos and wikipedia articles you want, but conspiracy theories aside, our federal government is giving more power to the states, so issues will be dealt with according to the local governments demographic.

I'd have to personally disagree. The federal government has done a great job of consolidating its own power and control.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X (directed at Marc Summers) Do you know what Executive Orders are?

I guess not

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I guess not

I'm actually refusing to respond. I'm done with arguing with you if you can't debate correctly. You responded with a question. One damn sentence. Then you continue to post garbage videos and post famous quotes from quotes.com.

You're honestly not worth my time.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'm actually refusing to respond. I'm done with arguing with you if you can't debate correctly. You responded with a question. One damn sentence. Then you continue to post garbage videos and post famous quotes from quotes.com. You're honestly not worth my time.

You couldn't even answer that one sentence. It was an important one especially when considering that it just revealed either your complete lack of knowledge in the particular subject or your inability to delve further into the details.

You cop out.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You couldn't even answer that one sentence. It was an important one especially when considering that it just revealed either your complete lack of knowledge in the particular subject or your inability to delve further into the details. You cop out.

Did I say that I didn't know what "Executive Orders" are? No. I said I was refusing to answer, because you clutter threads with garbage.

I'll let the baby have his bottle... Here's my take on "Executive orders":

Executive orders aren't illegal, but neither is it an absolute right of the president's power. But they can be abused. I've yet to be concerned with executive orders, but the most horrific executive orders would have to be many of FDR's executive orders in 1942 (Link) in which he overreacted to pearl harbor. It could have been much worse if we had a more conservative president (FDR is the Ideal modern liberal).

Once, again, I've yet to be concerned. Please go to the national archives and show me which executive orders should be highlighted to support your totalitarian paranoia.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...ders/wbush.html

I'm assuming you are shitting your pants because of bush's executive orders. Here's a list of other presidents.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...isposition.html

And don't give me a fucking video about it. Post some original content. I'm tired of your copy and paste tactics.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Did I say that I didn't know what "Executive Orders" are? No. I said I was refusing to answer, because you clutter threads with garbage. I'll let the baby have his bottle... Here's my take on "Executive orders": Executive orders aren't illegal, but neither is it an absolute right of the president's power. But they can be abused. I've yet to be concerned with executive orders, but the most horrific executive orders would have to be many of FDR's executive orders in 1942 (Link) in which he overreacted to pearl harbor. It could have been much worse if we had a more conservative president (FDR is the Ideal modern liberal). Once, again, I've yet to be concerned. Please go to the national archives and show me which executive orders should be highlighted to support your totalitarian paranoia. http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...ders/wbush.html I'm assuming you are shitting your pants because of bush's executive orders. Here's a list of other presidents. http://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...isposition.html And don't give me a fucking video about it. Post some original content. I'm tired of your copy and paste tactics.

Who said executive orders were illegal? You obviously just assumed that but on the basis of what I don't know.

I'm more focused on the Executive Orders regarding Continuity of Government (COG) and the prospect of us American's totally losing of freedom.

Congressman DeFazio sure had something to say about the secrecy behind it:

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Who said executive orders were illegal? You obviously just assumed that but on the basis of what I don't know.

Are you kidding me? You asked me if I knew what executive orders were. I was just stating this fact. Jesus christ... What is wrong with you?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Are you kidding me? You asked me if I knew what executive orders were. I was just stating this fact. Jesus christ... What is wrong with you?

Well, I'm sorry then. I don't mean to be short but I have a lot of other things that i'm doing ATM and I'm really tired of people talking out of their asses because their heads are too indisposed from being stuck so deeply in the sand.

That's what's wrong with me. If you were saying basically the same thing day in and day out for several years and the majority of all you ever got were vehement denials from people who refused to actually do research on those matters, you'd probably get a little tired of it too.

I am only human, after all.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Well, I'm sorry then. I don't mean to be short but I have a lot of other things that i'm doing ATM and I'm really tired of people talking out of their asses because their heads are too predisposed from being stuck so deeply in the sand.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers

I stopped reading books for the pictures when I was like ten years old.

What makes you think that I give a shit about them now?

I'm sorry if you're not able to understand that.

And contrary to the way that you seem to go about your life, my intellectual curiosity drives me to NEVER STOP asking questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I stopped reading books for the pictures when I was like ten years old.

I'm sorry you haven't realized that was a political cartoon. It's "Pot calling the kettle black".

quote:

And contrary to the way that you seem to go about your life, my intellectual curiosity drives me to NEVER STOP asking questions.

It obviously stops you from asking intelligent questions. You're views have given yourself a horrible tunnel vision. You interpret everything you read as some conspiracy or a step toward totalitarianism. It's sad. Probably the saddest thing I've seen in ages. You're stuck in this fantasy world in which people are pulling puppet strings and using the world as their chess board.

I don't care if people on this board think you are smart. You may have a high IQ, but your ability to analyze information for what it truly represents is severely flawed. Maybe it was too much LSD back in your youth.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'm sorry you haven't realized that was a political cartoon. It's "Pot calling the kettle black". It obviously stops you from asking intelligent questions. You're views have given yourself a horrible tunnel vision. You interpret everything you read as some conspiracy or a step toward totalitarianism. It's sad. Probably the saddest thing I've seen in ages. You're stuck in this fantasy world in which people are pulling puppet strings and using the world as their chess board. I don't care if people on this board think you are smart. You may have a high IQ, but your ability to analyze information for what it truly represents is severely flawed. Maybe it was too much LSD back in your youth.

Maybe it's just me but I usually try to abstain from watching or reading cartoons. I guess there's some primitive instinct in all of us which still embraces such basic forms of entertainment, infotainment (as it is in the realm of politics), or whatever you want to call it.

I NEVER STOP asking questions and that's my whole point.

And I think that it's incredibly naive of you to think that there aren't people out there who see all of this as some sort of Geostrategical game, especially when they've already written books stating exactly just that.

Off of the top of my head I can already think of one, written by former National Security Advisor (1977-81) Zbigniew Brzezinski:

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'm sorry you haven't realized that was a political cartoon. It's "Pot calling the kettle black". It obviously stops you from asking intelligent questions. You're views have given yourself a horrible tunnel vision. You interpret everything you read as some conspiracy or a step toward totalitarianism. It's sad. Probably the saddest thing I've seen in ages. You're stuck in this fantasy world in which people are pulling puppet strings and using the world as their chess board. I don't care if people on this board think you are smart. You may have a high IQ, but your ability to analyze information for what it truly represents is severely flawed. Maybe it was too much LSD back in your youth.

You have yet to prove us wrong, so until you do, the cute cartoons are a waste everyone's time...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You have yet to prove us wrong, so until you do, the cute cartoons are a waste everyone's time...

That's because it's imposible to prove a negative. How can you prove the absence of something beyond stating that it isn't there?

I'm not of the opinion that these plans do not work / are not in existence. I've read books outlining the tactics of the conservative movements in North America and I'm aware that the active members of these organizations do have a plan. The Canadian movement is actively attempting to gain influence (not control, because control implies a level of domination that is not posible in organizations that are run by people.) in the academic, judiciary, and media spheres. The methods for gaining inflence in these relms differs significantly, but for the most part it uses money to forward ideology.

This is done by buying media, offering research grants to conservative academics and law students, and connecting the brightest conservatives from all over.

The left has similar tactics but is less orgainzed, less deliberate, and less honest about thier goals.

Having said all this I'm not to concerned about the establishment of these institutions, I'm mostly concerned that they will be created and abused.

The problem is that we, humans, are now at the point were we do things so effeciently and on such a massive scale that mistakes will cost us all. The only border of any consequence any more is between the atmosphere and space.

PS...

I liked the cartoon beter then the hour long video. It quickly got across a point, made light of the argument in a moderately self deprevating way, and it made me laugh. By contrast I didn't finish the Huxly video, no matter how much I like his work. I just don't have an hour to spend on random youtube vids.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell That's because it's imposible to prove a negative. How can you prove the absence of something beyond stating that it isn't there? I'm not of the opinion that these plans do not work / are not in existence. I've read books outlining the tactics of the conservative movements in North America and I'm aware that the active members of these organizations do have a plan. The Canadian movement is actively attempting to gain influence (not control, because control implies a level of domination that is not posible in organizations that are run by people.) in the academic, judiciary, and media spheres. The methods for gaining inflence in these relms differs significantly, but for the most part it uses money to forward ideology. This is done by buying media, offering research grants to conservative academics and law students, and connecting the brightest conservatives from all over. The left has similar tactics but is less orgainzed, less deliberate, and less honest about thier goals. Having said all this I'm not to concerned about the establishment of these institutions, I'm mostly concerned that they will be created and abused. The problem is that we, humans, are now at the point were we do things so effeciently and on such a massive scale that mistakes will cost us all. The only border of any consequence any more is between the atmosphere and space. PS... I liked the cartoon beter then the hour long video. It quickly got across a point, made light of the argument in a moderately self deprevating way, and it made me laugh. By contrast I didn't finish the Huxly video, no matter how much I like his work. I just don't have an hour to spend on random youtube vids.

That first few minutes was all you really needed to watch. The rest of it was basically someone else's creative endeavor.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell That's because it's imposible to prove a negative. How can you prove the absence of something beyond stating that it isn't there?

Thank you, finally someone has conveyed how flawed this logic is. There's a reason that the US legal system is predicated on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Because you can prove that a man committed a crime, but you can never prove that he didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Because you can prove that a man committed a crime, but you can never prove that he didn't.

Sure you can. That's called an alibi

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Sure you can. That's called an alibi

Plenty of people who are convicted have an alibi.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Plenty of people who are convicted have an alibi.

thats cuz alibis are usually EXCUSES...not proof (surveillance videos, fingerprints, etc)

Bush Regime Preaches Democracy, Proposes Tyranny

By Paul Craig Roberts

US citizens had best rethink the "war on terror" while they still have the liberty to do so. For all of President Bush's blah-blah talk about bringing democracy to the world, the Bush administration has proved that it is no friend of liberty at home.

The Bush administration has violated constitutional principles, US law, and the Geneva Conventions as no previous administration has done. Here is a short list of the Bush administration's crimes:

• Spying without court warrants on Americans in violation of both the US Constitution and the FISA statute.
  
• The denial of habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process, and Geneva Conventions protections to those, American or foreign, designated without evidence as terrorists or enemy combatants.
  
• The justification and use of torture to coerce confessions and the kidnapping of foreign nationals who are sent to be tortured in foreign prisons.
  
• The initiation of military aggression against states based on intentional deception by the Bush administration of the US public and the United Nations, and the intentional fabrication of "evidence" to justify unprovoked aggression against sovereign states, which is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the US.
  
• Violation of the oath of office to defend the US Constitution by practically every member of the Bush administration and Congress.
  
• Bush has assaulted the separation of powers and the rule of law with "signing statements" and "executive orders" that President Nixon's White House Counsel John Dean says are commands that treat the co-equal branches of government and the electorate as subservient to executive authority. In April 2006, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage listed 750 laws "challenged" by the Bush administration. Not even the demonized president of Iran claims to be above the law.
  
• Genocide against the people of Iraq where one million Iraqis have died as a result of Bush's invasion and several million Iraqis are displaced persons.
  
• Massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, which is a form of genocide in which military force is routinely applied to unarmed noncombatants.
  
• Massive corruption in which no-bid contracts are issued to Republican corporations in exchange for kickbacks to political campaigns.
  
• The theft of two national elections as documented in books by Mark Crispin Miller and Greg Palast.

I don't know why more congressmen don't call for impeachment. Is anyone doing this?

I think it's just not worth thier time. My guesse is everyone in Washington is busy cozying up with Clinton and Guliani.

I think the Neo-cons are getting the boot from every where, no need to tar and feather them too.

Colbert: Naomi Wolf and Fascism in America



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkduuY-M4


Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

quote:

About This Video: Talk by Naomi Wolf author of "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot" given October 11, 2007 at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.