The ministry of truth has been founded. [email protected]

reply to post by Nightflyer28


The best system is one without holes.

And yes, the government has done that to people plenty of times. They put radiation in unknown victim's systems and then asked how they felt later on. They did it to pregnant women to see what would come out. They do bad things.

Government cannot be trusted, so the less holes the better.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

You are correct in that the report now only extends it merits to those groups who have had a past incidence of violent behavior but, WHO makes the distinction between what they mean now and who they next pick as a target.

Well, given that they've been going after, y'know, violent extremists, hate groups, and other extremists on the left and right, I pretty much have to go with further cases of groups along those lines. It's jumping the gun a fair bit to just assume that they're just going after whoever they feel like.

There is no oversight with that report as to who or what are going to be relabeled as the next boogie men. Once the government get's it's foot in the door they have never backed away from gaining control and expanding the perceived threat!

"Boogie men"? White supremacists are real. Neo-Nazis are real. The KKK, cyber-terrorists, eco-terrorists, street gang members joining the military for training, the mob - those are all real.

That's their job - to investigate potential and actual threats.

Would you rather they just let these people go on doing what they're doing, just because you're afraid of the 'evil government'?

BTW, did you at least have a look at those links?

[edit on 8/11/2009 by Nightflyer28]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

And yes, the government has done that to people plenty of times. They put radiation in unknown victim's systems and then asked how they felt later on. They did it to pregnant women to see what would come out. They do bad things.

More accurately, they have done bad things.

You can't just go on assuming that any new change they come up with is just a new evil plan because they're out to get you. Blind, absolute trust is foolish, yeah - but blind absolute trust is just as bad.

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

You are correct in that the report now only extends it merits to those groups who have had a past incidence of violent behavior but, WHO makes the distinction between what they mean now and who they next pick as a target.

"Boogie men"? White supremacists are real. Neo-Nazis are real. The KKK, cyber-terrorists, eco-terrorists, street gang members joining the military for training, the mob - those are all real.

That's their job - to investigate potential and actual threats.

Would you rather they just let these people go on doing what they're doing, just because you're afraid of the 'evil government'?

I was using that term generically not metaphorically. All perceived enemies of the government are 'Boogy men'! The real enemies are not necessarily those of the violent type but those that are dissenting the true nature of the party with the power. Common now, with your background I know you've seen the tactics used and I also know that in the past if we had nipped a lot of it in the bud we would not be in this predicament!

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

"Boogie men"? White supremacists are real. Neo-Nazis are real. The KKK, cyber-terrorists, eco-terrorists, street gang members joining the military for training, the mob - those are all real.

That's their job - to investigate potential and actual threats.

Would you rather they just let these people go on doing what they're doing, just because you're afraid of the 'evil government'?

I was using that term generically not metaphorically. All perceived enemies of the government are 'Boogy men'! The real enemies are not necessarily those of the violent type but those that are dissenting the true nature of the party with the power.

Common now, with your background I know you've seen the tactics used

Well, I do know a few things:

Nixon had his Plumbers (and more), and enemies lists

The FBI under Hoover spied on civil rights leaders, anti-war groups, and so forth

Ollie North put together REX-84 for Reagan, the FBI under Reagan spied on peace groups

I don't know what Bush I did domestically, but he suddenly discovered that Noriega was heavily into drugs (after only working with the guy for like 10 years or so)

There's a huge list of actions taken by the Bush II regime and its supporters, starting with flying lawyers and so forth in casual dress to cause a big stink and stop the 2000 recount, ordered Ashcroft to claim that the threat of terrorism had increased the summer before the 2004 election (when it hadn't), right on to calling anyone who opposed Bush or the war unAmerican, traitors, against the troops and more...

And now the far right have been passing around tons of plain lies about the health care plan that's being worked on, and disrupting town halls, which effectively nullifies any real chance to actually talk about it and separate fiction from reality.

Overall, though, the biggest problems and threats against civil dissent have generally come around when the Republicans had control.

Sorry if that's your favored party, but it's true.

BTW, did you have a look at those links?

Because, getting back to my original point, the DHS and FBI reports were not targeting 'all vets' or religious people or tax protesters or anyone else just based on ideology alone.

We're getting off-topic a bit with this bit here. But that's my original point - the reports only look out for hate groups trying to recruit or join up for training, same as with street gang members and so forth.

You said you visit active/former military boards. If you yourself are active/former military, then wouldn't you agree that, if what I've been saying about the DHS/FBI reports is correct, and they're not just targeting vets overall, that while you might object to the gov't for other reasons, continuing to perpetuate a false claim like that is wrong? It's okay to object to them for something they did do, but it's wrong to pass on or ignore false claims like this, and let people in the military keep getting angered over something they didn't do?

There's this thing I read about not bearing false witness, is all I'm saying.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by Nightflyer28]

reply to post by Nightflyer28


I know that the report does not paint all vets in the same vane in the language but do you really think they mean it or are paying lip service to the idea? I have the gut feeling the way most of DC treated Vets in the past and the disrespect they pay them now with the VA that it is just lip service.

Also, NO I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am a Conservative/Libertarian!

Zindo

reply to post by Nightflyer28


I'm sorry, but I can never trust the government. I never will. And most agree in times like these. It's going down, I can see it everywhere. Unless the government fixes itself, it's only a matter of time.

And not violent revolution or something. Simply ignoring what the government says. It comes to a certain point and then the people simply make a new government and the old one washes away.

to mods:

personally I felt his post was relevant enough to merit his picture.

yea

mods come on now be fair.

On topic: yes this whole deal smacks of Nazi like attics. Strange how it seams to be making a come back well the tactics any way.

And apparently here on ats to! Or at least it would seam


[edit on 12-8-2009 by ashnomadonte]

Hey! Great job! Now someone at the Whitehouse knows that you can't put together an intelligent sentence. Also, that was a nice touch adding your name, especially after you sent me that vaguely threatening private message about "finding me". Keep em coming champ!

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

I know that the report does not paint all vets in the same vane in the language but do you really think they mean it or are paying lip service to the idea? I have the gut feeling the way most of DC treated Vets in the past and the disrespect they pay them now with the VA that it is just lip service.

Ok, but what actual evidence do you have beyond this feeling of yours?

Besides, the FBI and DHS are there to identify actual threats. They were pretty much smarting after 9/11 and McVeigh, I think it's a safe bet they're fairly motivated to avoid missing future threats.

Also, there's a good probability that at least a fair portion of their personnel consist of ex-military... do you really think such people would be ready to go after any of their own without cause?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

I'm sorry, but I can never trust the government. I never will. And most agree in times like these. It's going down, I can see it everywhere. Unless the government fixes itself, it's only a matter of time.

If you read what I said, I'm not talking about blind, absolute trust. I'm just talking about not automatically going with blind, absolute distrust.

In other words, don't automatically accept what you're told, but don't automatically assume you're being lied to.

Get me?

Originally posted by ashnomadonte
Yes this whole deal smacks of Nazi like attics

"Nazi attics"?

What, you mean with a steamer trunk in the corner containing a moth-eaten uniform?


Sorry, I just get a little kick out of wordplay...

reply to post by Nightflyer28


No. With the government you should always assume you are being lied to.

The citizens of this great land may be innocent until proven guilty, but its leaders are guilty of lying until proven innocent by their actions.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

No. With the government you should always assume you are being lied to.

The citizens of this great land may be innocent until proven guilty, but its leaders are guilty of lying until proven innocent by their actions.

Well, that may work for you, but I'd rather not be that cynical.

I'd assume the possibility I'm being lied to, and take it into account, look into things for myself - but then, I'd say making sure you're accurately well-informed is a natural responsibility anyway, you know?

Because I'm also not optimistic enough to blindly accept things, either.

reply to post by Nightflyer28


Well when you've seen so much evil, it's going to take a long time to restore one's faith in government.

I AM DOING THIS IN ALL CAPS FOR ATTENTION ,NOT BECAUSE I AM YELLING.

I HAVE READ THE CONSTITUTION AND NO WHERE IN IT DOES IT GIVE THE POWER OF OUR HEALTH CARE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION IT BELONGS TO THE STATES AND TO THE PEOPLE.

ASK YOU STATE GOVERNOR TO CONSIDER A STATE PLAN. IF THEY ALL ADOPT ONE THE FED DOES NOT GET INVOLVED.

I want to know what happens after the imbeciles e-mail the government a concern they have about a website, e-mail they received, or whatever. I wonder about a few things.

What can the government do?
How will they do it?
Who will they do it to?

Answering these questions can turn your hair gray and cause an ulcer. Beware, obviously 1984 is here.
Centers for Disease Control - contribute to HIV spread (look at n-oxynol 9)
Health and Human Services - destroys health by encouraging vaccinations and such
Dept of Homeland Security - targets foreign land
Council on Foreign Relations - sets American policy, controls us citizens
It's all backwards.
Do you feel free? -- everyone in America should ponder that