Originally posted by CliffLandinSince I still have the liberty to simply yawn and ignore you, Fool, that's what I'll do.
Once again, fascist, I will refer you to my thread regarding lost liberties. If it too much for you to read another thread I will post it here.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34902
Originally posted by AmauroteLOL! Thank you, Amaurote.
Del has to be the only fascist going who spends his leisure time arguing for small government and hanging out at SWP gigs. I enjoy calling people Nazis, too, but I think we need to be a bit more precise about our terms of engagement.
Originally posted by sasquatch672reporting it earlier would of done nothing because Bush did nothing wrong, which is why nothing will be done about it now. NYT held onto it to realease it when they thought they could hurt Bush more, i.e., right now when the patriot act vote was taking place and right after the elections in Iraq, taking the public's attention off of the positive occurance in Iraq.
So there was Judith Miller, "Miss Run Amok", as she fancied calling herself, peddling the Bush Administration's fantasies about Iraqi WMD. Her reporting took the lies and distortions of the Office of Special Plans to the people. The NYT editors were so afraid of Judith that they would not edit her columns or fact-check her stories.
Now, we hear ...[text shortened]... ial liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by DelmerIf you don't care about the loss of civil liberties that is one thing, but to deny them is quite another. You posed the question "What essential liberty are you sacrificing?" and I posted a couple of them. You then call me a fool repeatedly. You don't adress the answer to your own question. So who is the fool? He who cares about the abuses of power in the government or the man that ignores them?
Since I still have the liberty to simply yawn and ignore you, Fool, that's what I'll do.
Originally posted by CliffLandinDo you really judge the content of a political party's ideology by the name it uses to deceive the general public? The far-right in 1920s Germany stole the labels of labour because the labels of labour were popular - not because it sympathized with them.
Nazi's are National [b]Socialists[/b]
Originally posted by AmauroteWell said, my bad.
Do you really judge the content of a political party's ideology by the name it uses to deceive the general public? The far-right in 1920s Germany stole the labels of labour because the labels of labour were popular - not because it sympathized with them.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhen the election results from Iraq come in, I doubt whether the administration will claim it is a "positive occurrence": it looks like Allawi's secular party again got hammered and the Shite religious parties who have run on the issue of getting the Americans out will have a solid majority.
reporting it earlier would of done nothing because Bush did nothing wrong, which is why nothing will be done about it now. NYT held onto it to realease it when they thought they could hurt Bush more, i.e., right now when the patriot act vote was taking place and right after the elections in Iraq, taking the public's attention off of the positive occurance in Iraq.
If you consider breaking the law as "doing nothing wrong", then Bush did "nothing wrong". Nixon was eventually forced out of office for similiar wrongdoing with the difference he had the good sense to at least lie about it, not claim that he was above the laws regarding spying on American citizens.
The NY Times would have been attacked either way; if they released the info before the election, I can only imagine what FoxNews and the rest would have been screaming. Apparently Bush summoned the editor and publisher of the NYT to the Oval Office and tried to lean on them to kill the story; at least they had the ballsz not to do so. Whether it would have changed the results of the last election are pure speculation; I'm not sure how Kerry could have benefited from it since he mainly supported Bush's policies on the "War on Terror" but claimed he could do it better. .
Originally posted by DelmerExcept Del you can be picked up and shoved in Guantanamo with no charges and no legal representation for what you say (then shipping off somewhere nice and foreign and tortured). I'd say that's a pretty big loss of freedom
"He who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
What essential liberty are you sacrificing, SQ? Based upon what's written in the forums I doubt that anyone is sacrificing freedom of speech. And perhaps we can find someone on RHP who used to live in East Germany and now lives in ...[text shortened]... o corroborate "...an internal security apparatus that makes East Germany look like Candyland."
Originally posted by RochadeWest Germany is a big difference from the former East Germany.
Hi there,
I am from West Germany.
Its surely not that hard at the moment but you are on your way.
Besides that your security state comes in secret and until now you can travel freely unless you´re kidnapped from your CIA.
Brave New World !