DescentBB

If I remember right, during the Bush years, we didn't see much of the throttling of the anti-war crowd. Now come the whole of the govt being run by the leftist and what we have is a disturbing attack on the civil liberties of the anti-war protesters. It would seem the socialist in power are more to be feared than all the imagined nightmare scenarios they tried to paint of Bush. So what we have is the following and take note of where the link comes from:

\"The ANSWER Coalition unequivocally condemns today's FBI raids on the homes of anti-war and solidarity activists in Illinois and Minnesota, and the intimidation of activists there and elsewhere.

This morning, Sept. 24, teams of FBI agents from the \"Joint Terrorism Task Force\" served search warrants and grand jury subpoenas on the activists, allegedly relating to political speech in defense of the Palestinian and Colombian peoples. The FBI subpoenaed around a dozen activists to testify before a grand jury in Chicago in October. They confronted and intimidated activists in additional states as part of the operation.\"

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2/167402 ... _ctrl=1261

LOL at:

PSLWeb wrote: The aim of the FBI raids is clearly the suppression of free speech and dissent. The government wants all activists to be afraid to speak out. And the Obama administration’s Justice Department is now leading the charge. But we cannot allow the government to stamp out the right of people to advocate for political beliefs that do not align with the aims of the Pentagon war machine. We cannot allow them to continue to erode our civil rights and civil liberties.

As if they wouldn't trample on your rights and liberties were they the powers that be.

With Friday’s raids, the federal government under “change” huckster Barack Obama, has taken their repressive program to a whole new level, threatening activists with the specter of being charged with providing “material support of terrorism.” A felony conviction under this draconian federal law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, § 2339B) carries a 15 year prison term.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/fbi-r ... ro-replay/

Cmon Null, tell us how its not a big deal and nothing to worry about. That as long as you just go ahead and agree with them, then you should be alright.

flip wrote:Cmon Null, tell us how its not a big deal and nothing to worry about. That as long as you just go ahead and agree with them, then you should be alright.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but why would I ever say that?

Amongst those targeted by the FBI were individuals who organized peaceful protests against the imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq and 2008 protests at the far-right Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lol at the hysteria! \"imperialist invasion\"? We have a king?
and \"far-right Republican National Convention\"...
Was that a sub group holding a convention apart from the regular medium right Republican Party?

Oh, it goes MUCH farther than anti-war groups. Anyone, that our government thinks is a threat or malcontent, can be labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security and harassed, investigated and arrested. Our own comments here on this board are probably being monitored as well. This ain't no socialist problem by the way, it's a 'government that's got waaaay too much power' problem and both political parties are guilty of it. Unless you think that when the Republicans were in power during the past, it was OK to spy on American citizens THEN.

http://www.infowars.com/protest-group-d ... ty-spying/

woodchip wrote:If I remember right, during the Bush years, we didn't see much of the throttling of the anti-war crowd.

Give me a break woodchip!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/260424_spies22.html

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free-sp ... test-zones

Heh, I was mainly having fun and took a jab at you, but I also think it was a valid comment. Take the privacy through encryption thread for instance. In that thread you make light of the issue basically saying who cares, because you have nothing to hide anyways.Seemingly not taking into account that that would be the very way they would invade your house and arrest you as demonstrated in this thread. By reading your private e-mails and determining by them that you were a threat just because you disagreed with their policies and politics. It's inconsistent.

flip wrote:Heh, I was mainly having fun and took a jab at you, but I also think it was a valid comment. Take the privacy through encryption thread for instance. In that thread you make light of the issue basically saying who cares, because you have nothing to hide anyways.Seemingly not taking into account that that would be the very way they would invade your house and arrest you as demonstrated in this thread. By reading your private e-mails and determining by them that you were a threat just because you disagreed with their policies and politics. It's inconsistent.

That is not what I said and I have no idea how you interpreted my comments in that light. I was saying that I believed I didn't have anything worth hiding by encrypting the files stored on my computer:

null0010 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:That DOESNT mean encryption is a bad idea. Encryption is like locking your front door. It keeps out a whole LOT of people. But it wont stop a really determined criminal.

The way I figure it, I don't have any data worth encrypting. That is not to say that I think this proposed bill is good, I just don't understand the use of crypto on a personal level.

At no point did I say that I supported that bill or the "innocent people have nothing to hide" train of thought. I think the bill in that thread and the actions discussed in this thread are major threats to liberty and I vehemently oppose them.

I think the bill in that thread and the actions discussed in this thread are major threats to liberty and I vehemently oppose them.

Yes, that is exactly what they are.

\"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use the pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time; a tremendous whack.\" -Winston Churchill

...what?

...the graphic could have left out \"Zionist\". That's a heated word these days. Just mentioning Israel is fine. It's commonly known now that the \"United States\" is and has been Israel's ★■◆●.

yeah but what in blazes does it have to do with this thread?

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:If I remember right, during the Bush years, we didn't see much of the throttling of the anti-war crowd.

Give me a break woodchip!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/260424_spies22.html

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free-sp ... test-zones

Watching and putting presidential protesters in a control zone is a far cry from the Obamawaffe entering their homes and arresting them.

woodchip wrote:the Obamawaffe

Imagining Rahm Emmanuel flying a Messerschmidt is both terrifying and comical.

Remember, you heard the term \"Obamawaffe\" here first

woodchip wrote:Remember, you heard the term "Obamawaffe" here first

I think it would be funnier to use that term to refer to Bush's administration, since Bush was actually affiliated with the Air Force in some manner.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Remember, you heard the term "Obamawaffe" here first

I think it would be funnier to use that term to refer to Bush's administration, since Bush was actually affiliated with the Air Force in some manner.

Funny, the only time he gets credit for his Air Force time is if it can put him in a Nazi reference!

Technically “waffe” would only be a German reference…

Spidey wrote:Technically “waffe” would only be a German reference…

Refers to Luftwaffe...

null0010 wrote:

Spidey wrote:Technically “waffe” would only be a German reference…

Refers to Luftwaffe...

Depends on how you use Waffe

Waffe Waffe f , -, -n (lit, fig) weapon
(=Schusswaffe) gun, (Mil) (=Waffengattung) arm
Waffen (Mil) arms
Waffen tragen to carry arms
zu den Waffen rufen to call to arms
zu den Waffen greifen to take up arms
unter Waffen (stehen) (to be) under arms
die Waffen strecken (lit, fig) to lay down one's arms, to surrender
jdn mit seinen eigenen Waffen schlagen (fig) to beat sb at his own game, to beat sb with his own weapons

Yes, but in American vernacular it most likely refers to the Luftwaffe.

null0010 wrote:

Spidey wrote:Technically “waffe” would only be a German reference…

Refers to Luftwaffe...

I know, what’s your point?

null0010 wrote:Yes, but in American vernacular it most likely refers to the Luftwaffe.

Lol yea? Well in tossing jabs at politicians, especially presidents, any analogy tying one to WWII era Germany is going to be received as a Nazi reference. You don't really think Woody was tossing off some platitude do you?.

Of course, it’s context here, that’s why I chose the term “Technically” just to be picky…

But then null thinks he has something to teach me…lol.

Anyone remember \"free speech zones\" from midway into bush's term?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Yes, but in American vernacular it most likely refers to the Luftwaffe.

Lol yea? Well in tossing jabs at politicians, especially presidents, any analogy tying one to WWII era Germany is going to be received as a Nazi reference. You don't really think Woody was tossing off some platitude do you?.

Obamawaffe as in sending in flights of Gestapo agents that dive and swoop in on those who might cast Obama in a bad light. Truth be told, Chancellor Obama should arrest himself as he is his own worst enemy

Avder wrote:Anyone remember "free speech zones" from midway into bush's term?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yeah, okay. How does this excuse Obama's actions?

Woodchip, how does making Nazi references help your arguement?

null0010 wrote:...

Woodchip, how does making Nazi references help your arguement?

How does it hurt it? Just because some guy on the intertubes says it's bad form? Nazi's are a great universal benchmark for government gone bad so in spite of Mr Internet-Manner's rules it is a useful tool, especially when you are dishing out the hyperbole to take a shot at someone using his power in government to screw with the people.

I think Woodchip's use of the reference is more useful than Godwins ban on using any comparison to one of the worlds worst oppressive governments in history. Who is that guy some kind of self appointed Ayatollah of the internet?!? Did too many kids laugh at him in a chat room back in the day?

There are plenty of ways to point out the bad things about the Obama administration without resorting to Nazi comparisons. It's an appeal to emotion and totally unneeded. Hyperbole is not a useful tool to someone who seeks to expose the truth, because hyperbole is not truth.

null0010 wrote:

Avder wrote:Anyone remember "free speech zones" from midway into bush's term?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yeah, okay. How does this excuse Obama's actions?

It doesn't. I just think woodchip has selective memory in that hes finally noticed this now, when a Democrat is in the white house, when he blissfully ignored pretty much every transgression republicans have committed.

null0010 wrote:There are plenty of ways to point out the bad things about the Obama administration without resorting to Nazi comparisons. It's an appeal to emotion and totally unneeded. Hyperbole is not a useful tool to someone who seeks to expose the truth, because hyperbole is not truth.

Hyperbole is plenty useful when you are way passed trying to expose the truth...when the truth is an 800 pound gorilla it doesn't need exposing but sometimes its cathartic to shout nasty things at it.
And sometimes its useful when you intend to point at that obvious truth and say 'Hey!! This ★■◆● is getting really bad!!... you're not looking to convince someone the gorilla is there you assume they see it. you're trying to get people to step up their reaction to it. So you and lord Godwin can wring your hands at it all you want, knock yourselves out.

null0010 wrote:There are plenty of ways to point out the bad things about the Obama administration without resorting to Nazi comparisons. It's an appeal to emotion and totally unneeded. Hyperbole is not a useful tool to someone who seeks to expose the truth, because hyperbole is not truth.

You are right. He's more like Stalin anyway.

null0010 wrote:

Avder wrote:Anyone remember "free speech zones" from midway into bush's term?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yeah, okay. How does this excuse Obama's actions?

Woodchip, how does making Nazi references help your arguement?

I would encourage you to read up on Hitler and more recently,Hugo Chavez, to see how they used and manipulated the system to the point they wound up with ever more power. What I found particularly disturbing was the day Obama was elected, there were those on the left saying that presidential term limits should be removed. Pretty extraordinary considering Obama's only job experience was being a community organizer. Juxtaposing Obama on a Nazis idiom is simply a means to make you aware of how the arresting of the war protesters is one of the means to consolidate power by limiting free speech. And to be clear, I was not making a argument....I was making a statement.

Avder wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Avder wrote:Anyone remember "free speech zones" from midway into bush's term?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yeah, okay. How does this excuse Obama's actions?

It doesn't. I just think woodchip has selective memory in that hes finally noticed this now, when a Democrat is in the white house, when he blissfully ignored pretty much every transgression republicans have committed.

Just what are those transgressions that may compare to Ellian Gonzales (sp) or Waco?

I suppose all one would have to do is a search of any left wing blog to find assumed transgressions by Herr Bush.

woodchip wrote:What I found particularly disturbing was the day Obama was elected, there were those on the left saying that presidential term limits should be removed. Pretty extraordinary considering Obama's only job experience was being a community organizer.

That happens at the start of virtually every presidential term. The new president's most ardent supporters think he is some kind of political messiah and that he should be president for life.

woodchip wrote:Juxtaposing Obama on a Nazis idiom is simply a means to make you aware of how the arresting of the war protesters is one of the means to consolidate power by limiting free speech.

Or you could have said, "by arresting anti-war protesters, the Obama administration is using the limiting of free speech as a means to consolidate power."

woodchip wrote:And to be clear, I was not making a argument....I was making a statement.

Oh, I see. That makes it okay then. I forgive you.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh, it goes MUCH farther than anti-war groups. Anyone, that our government thinks is a threat or malcontent, can be labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security and harassed, investigated and arrested. Our own comments here on this board are probably being monitored as well. This ain't no socialist problem by the way, it's a 'government that's got waaaay too much power' problem and both political parties are guilty of it. Unless you think that when the Republicans were in power during the past, it was OK to spy on American citizens THEN.

http://www.infowars.com/protest-group-d ... ty-spying/

woodchip wrote:If I remember right, during the Bush years, we didn't see much of the throttling of the anti-war crowd.

Give me a break woodchip!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/260424_spies22.html

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free-sp ... test-zones

I agree. (Wait, is that allowed?)

Vote Libertarian. I don't even trust the tea party people... I don't want a "liberal" or "conservative" government, because the pendulum swings all too well. I want a small, locally-empowered government. It's time that we (as a nation) stop putting up with the bipartisan thing, and start showing both of the big parties that we'll dump them if they don't actually represent us.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:What I found particularly disturbing was the day Obama was elected, there were those on the left saying that presidential term limits should be removed. Pretty extraordinary considering Obama's only job experience was being a community organizer.

That happens at the start of virtually every presidential term. The new president's most ardent supporters think he is some kind of political messiah and that he should be president for life.

I've followed politics since Nixon and I can not remember any "ardent" supporters calling for term limitations to be lifted. If you have specific examples, please post them.