Russia is Free & America is Becoming Communist!!!!

as posted by twitchy
The vague wording of the patriot act opens to the door to a litany of implications.

And there is no disputing this, twitchy, it has been openly and admittedly stated. As such, it will be amended, abridged, and corrected, as needed, as was and still is: the U.S. Constitution and other national bills, treatise's, etc. There is still a distinct difference between 'could' and 'would'. As it stands, there are only a few outside cases of merit, no widespread occurances.




seekerof

What about Waco, huh?

You act as though Bush is the first bad president we've ever had.

The truth is that you're wasting time with petty ideology when the real problem is festering right under your nose. The whole system is corrupt, and they've managed to convince you that there are good and bad guys within the system itself... you trust half of them because you only see evil in the other half.

Once corporate interests and politics are inseperably intertwined, there ceases to be any such thing as truth or justice in government. Bush is hardly the first or the crucial pawn in this game; he's just the fall guy for a decade or so.

I agree the way the settings for the inauguration was done it was pretty much like a communist or totalitarian government many do.

Yes how do I know? My husband and I have a friend that has been in the CIA for 14 years, he was called for security in DC during the inauguration.

Without going into details, I only going to said that DC looked like militia moved in over night and set up camps in very out of site areas for the safe keeping of the city.

And yes the law of DC during the inauguration was "the patriot act" in full enforce.

Even he said that in 14 years in the force he was never asked to do the things he was to do and allowed to do during the day of inauguration.

I hope things will go back to normal. Or perhaps the country will get ready for the new regime of Mr. Bush.

Sorry I can not elaborate much.

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree the way the settings for the inauguration was done it was pretty much like a communist or totalitarian government many do.

Yes how do I know? My husband and I have a friend that has been in the CIA for 14 years, he was called for security in DC during the inauguration.

Without going into details, I only going to said that DC looked like militia moved in over night and set up camps in very out of site areas for the safe keeping of the city.

And yes the law of DC during the inauguration was "the patriot act" in full enforce.
...

Well Marg that must prove the Patriot Act isn't all it's cracked up to be. Someone threw a snowball at the Presidential limo and as far as I know nothing happened to that person. If this was a "communist or totalitarian government" I'm sure that person would have been executed by now!

as posted by marg
Without going into details, I only going to said that DC looked like militia moved in over night and set up camps in very out of site areas for the safe keeping of the city.

Ever thought to ask yourself why?
There is a distinct difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 security settings (as applied to inaugurations, national events, etc.).

It would seem that your CIA 'friend' would be aware of this also?



seekerof

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Ever thought to ask yourself why?
There is a distinct difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 security settings (as applied to inaugurations, national events, etc.).

It would seem that your CIA 'friend' would be aware of this also?
seekerof

What can I say you either take or leave it is not much I can comment on this, so I will leave at that.

But one thing is for sure this has been the most secure inaguracion in the US history.

Marg it has been the most secure inauguration because look who they're protecting! A man hated worldwide. Look at his speech, says he vows to bring Democracy to the world...Not I want peace as other presidents have expressed....he wants wars. Think he has enemies?

The impression of freedom on a day to day basis can and does exist even in totalitarian states. I've been under martial law in more than one place with soldiers and cops crawling all over the place and you can still go about your day-to-day business and feel "free". Generally, you can even talk without a problem; being very loud about it is not advised and organizing is very dangerous but most of the time, people are not doing that anyway. So, the illusion of freedom is easy to have. This is especially true in communities off the beaten path. For example, compare Beijing to a small town in China, or compare Moscow to a Siberian village, OR Washington to a small town in Arizona (or North Carolina), etc. The difference is glaring and is likely to remain so.

Without micro-analyzing every historical example, the prime questions are things such as these;
1) how much influence do you have over the government and especially in choosing it?
2) how free are you to express your opinions?
3) how much freedom of movement do you have?
4) on what basis can you be arrested?
5) what rights do you have when arrested?
6) what oversight is there of government and police action?
7) how much right to privacy do you have?

Between 9/11 and today, freedoms in these areas have eroded in the USA, Canada and the UK (probably Australia as well but I don't know the specifics there). We can split hairs on which have been curtailed more (e.g. freedom of movement has not been hit as badly as privacy) but the US administration in particular has commented very openly on how rights ARE being curtailed and the powers of security forces increased.

For, example, you can be DECLARED a terrorist and held without trial. You will have a hell of time just walking out of that. Did you grow up that hanging over your head? It is similar to being declared an "enemy of the people" in the Soviet Union. Many people who have moved from there to here have noticed that parallel. The recent hiring of high level ex-KGB and ex-Stasi officials to Homeland Security in the US is another disturbing parallel.

There are many other examples, but the point is that rights have been curtailed and there is a push to curtail them more. This is not a matter of reasonable debate.
A question is; how long are our rights going to be curtailed?
Statements like; "decades", "our lifetime", "many years" are given by officials. If that is not the basis of concern, I don't know what is, especially when we are talking about a war against a concept "terror", as opposed to a tangible enemy.

As to the original question of the thread. Russia is definitely more free than it used to be, (is life better there on the whole because of the economic problems? a debatable question). Life is definitely still more free in the Western democracies. But the gap has definitely closed substantially from both directions vis-a-vis 20 years ago and looks ready to close further.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Marg it has been the most secure inauguration because

look who they're protecting! A man hated worldwide. Look at his speech, says he vows to bring Democracy to the world...Not I want peace as other presidents have expressed....he wants wars. Think he has enemies?

I agree he has become enemy number one in the middle east even for regular non "insurgent" or "radical" muslin.

And his actions has made the world lest secure, is not us the ones to be in danger (occurs if you stay in US soil) but the rest of the nations in the world.

And is for all to see he will wag more wars in the next 4 years, if the congress allowes him too.

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
sorry to break it to you but they already can stop and search you in the UK and have been able to for quite some time under anti-terror legislation but they have to give a reason unlike in the US where they can stop and question you without giving you any reason.

What are you sorry to break to me? I said Americans and Britains are loosing their liberty your statement does nothing but agree with me.

As i live in Milton Keynes my friend was driving home from a rugby match @ nearby Sixfields Stadium in Northampton and was stopped by the police at random and fingerprinted regardless of the fact he had his drivers licence and another form of identification. So basically they are abusing the powers already and its only on its preliminary trial run.

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
As far as fingerprinting you for having no ID, there is no legal requirement to carry any form of identification in the UK and can only detain you to confirm your identity. They cannot fingerprint you unless you have committed an offence and at the moment and for the foreseeable future until such time as ID cards become compulsary (which is years in the future) it is not an offence to not have any ID.

Your totally wrong and i can prove it with links. Dont try and tell me whats going on in my own country. I have been watching this legislation very closely as it goes through parliament.

www.computing.co.uk
Suspects without sufficient identification will have to place their finger on the electronic device, which will link to records kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

www.computing.co.uk...

news.independent.co.uk...

(Please note the independant were carrying the full story two days ago but are now charging for it. Link contains brief statement only)

Wake up and smell the F****** coffee. All of you. For F*** sake!!!





[edit on 21-1-2005 by MERC]

Originally posted by twitchy
I have lost alot of rights, my apologist friend. I once had the right to wear anti-whatever shirts incidentally or not. I once had the right to force a probable cause hearing, but now it is as easy as calling me a 'possible' terrorist to deny my right to a hearing. I once had the right to read any book I liked from the library or the internet or the right to non-violent protest without being profiled and investigated. If I check out a book on Islamic Fundamentalism, I am a target of investigation. I once had the right to wear a towel on my head without worrying about some hero trucker calling homeland security on me. I once had the right to say, "Hey George, you suck." publicly, without worrying about getting a visit from Uncle Sam. How much of my tax money is being poured into new homeland security programs that have yet to validate their very exsistance? Our borders are as open as ever, yet my right to question that validity is gone. I once had the right to quiet enjoyment, if you want to get technical, and living in fear of being profiled and investigated because I strongly disagree with our policy is not enjoyable. If I were a foriegn national, being detained by the US government, I have lost rights to trial, and or representation completely. It isn't about what rights I have lost, it is about what is implied. The Patriot Act is chapter one in a comming series of laws, it's a precedent that allows further intrusion into my privacy. Can you say Potential Terrorist? Hell, we are all Potential Terrorists, I am a potential astronaut, a potential ballet dancer, a potential rock and roll star. Now, the only difference is, the letter of the law gives them the right to make that assertion without having to show cause. I'm sorry you don't see the inherent harm in that, but then, you are probably the most right winged person I have ever had the displeasure of debating.

Not sure if you are refering to me or not???

As I said I am in the UK and everything you mentioned above I have the freedom to do. May be different in the US but I can't be detained for wearing a anti-whatever T-shirt, in fact the police couldn't really care less what my t-shirt says.

I can take whatever library book out I want, if I want to read a book on how to fly 2 planes into the world trade centre I can and I have the freedom to do so.

I have been in the US driving across the hoover dam with my mate wearing a towel on his head chanting allah akbar and I'm not in gitmo

You have the right to say george you suck, you've just said it and I assume you've not yet been detained for being unpatriotic


There is a fundamental difference between the Police forces in the US and the UK. Let me give you an example...

A female friend of mine 17 driving throught DC early house of the morning and lost trying to find her way home. Sees a police car so pulls up beside it and politely asks for directions. What was the answer she got? Thats not what I'm here for, just go away.

Skip to the UK and the same woman is in her english boyfriend's broken down car, the boyfriend sees a police car and goes to ask for help. The policeman spends an 1 hours trying to get it going, when he can't he drives them both home then come back on his own time in the morning to go with them back to the car and tows them to a garage.

pretty different eh?

Revengeogmakhno, I salute you, excellent post!

sorry mate I am British so dont try and tell me either!

There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to carry ID nor will there be for many many year!

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
sorry mate I am British so dont try and tell me either!

There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to carry ID nor will there be for many many year!

Sorry i didnt know you were British, but unfortunatly your still wrong. Just go back and check the links i provided in my previous post, they will prove it to you. This legislation is in parliament bieng discussed right now and is ALREADY bieng tested in Northampton (Again read the links). Its not restricted to roads either, they can stop you walking along the street and take your fingerprints like your a criminal, FOR NO REASON.

You dont seem to know a great deal about up and coming legislation, I suggest you take a browse through www.parliament.uk... (is that Official enough for you?) and educate yourself before responding to one of my posts again with no links or ANYTHING to remotely back up what your saying.

Good day to you.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by MERC]

Thanks Twitchy,

There is no doubt that the atmosphere is shifting. There are both overt and sublte signs. What I find perhaps most disturbing is how people will enthusiastically buy into it and how certain bureaucrats, police, etc. welcome it and are so happy with their new power, importance and license to push people around.

If one is apolitical or friendly to the shifting order then it is easy to dismiss it for now. I think history shows that freedoms were won the hard way and there are always powerful people who whose purpose is served by taking them away. If we don't struggle against that, who will?

What joke book did you see this in?

Originally posted by ancientsailor
What joke book did you see this in?

*cough,cough* "arghh!" Haa! Oh boy! About coughed some spaghetti noodles back out my nose!

Agreed! Sometimes you get the feeling that some of these people are getting online from behind bars!

That's the reason they haven't got any freedom!

Me? I can go do whatever I want at anytime I want! There is not one law stating that I can't.

If I don't bring any harm to anyone else in any shape or form, I have nothing to fear from anything!

People who hurt someone else in any way, should be scared of losing their freedom!

Hummmm, joke book? Did I ever tell anyone about How Russia is about to be a free nation? All the hard liners are moving to America. Now we have another party who can run for the offices

I am glad it is not true. Russia is Russia no matter how they appear on the outside. Still have old hard liners, and new young hard liners coming up. America believe it or not still have more freedom compared to many nations. We just take it for granted. And we want more freedom and more freedom, like a koas state to do anything to anyone as you wish. We have laws, some suck tho, but we do have them. It use to be that when elected to office was an honor without pay. At present they get paid to much as I see it. But I just enjoy having little things that make me happy. I can not take it with me when I do pass on. I would not want to live in Russia personally. Not that it is pure evil, God knows we have it all over the globe. I perfer the soil of the USA.

If they wanted to make some type of police state the first thing they would do is take away all the guns. And yet America has more gun rights then alot of countries Canada,UK, Australia, Japan they had their guns taken away those are the countries people should worry about becoming police states. Unarmed you are just sheep to the slaughter if it happens.

But by all means keep your attention on the Evil US police state

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If they wanted to make some type of police state the first thing they would do is take away all the guns. And yet America has more gun rights then alot of countries Canada,UK, Australia, Japan they had their guns taken away those are the countries people should worry about becoming police states. Unarmed you are just sheep to the slaughter if it happens.

But by all means keep your attention on the Evil US police state

Yes. This is one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment, private gun ownership was thought necessary for a free state to remain free.