[Shaddim]

Originally posted by KarlG:
As if anyone else's have any validity. I'm sorry you don't approve.

The vast majority that are usually handed out relate directly with the subject at hand, not for innane personal attacks.

Not that it really matters, but that does seem to be the structure of the thing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Here's the entire article Lerk first posted in this thread. There's nothing in it about any groups publicly making threats to commit crimes. All it points to is speculation by federal agencies that groups are going to commit crimes. All there is in this article is a lot of "maybe," and "might," and "possibly," from federal agencies, regarding their fears of activitiy at the convention. Not any specifics.

(snippet)Federal officials in St. Louis and Washington declined to comment on the case. Ms. Lieberman insisted that the men "didn't have any plans to participate in the violence, but what's so disturbing about all this is the pre-emptive nature - stopping them from participating in a protest before anything even happened."

The three men "were really shaken and frightened by all this," she said, "and they got the message loud and clear that if you make plans to go to a protest, you could be subject to arrest or a visit from the F.B.I."

This represents a substantial issue: whether law enforcement or investigative agencies can determine the guilt (or assume the guilt) of a citizen prior to the opportunity to commit the act. Science Fiction aside, this is an alarming legal situation.
First of all, the "crime" they were being intimidated from committing is not a crime at all -- citizens have the right to peaceably assemble and to dissent against the government.
So, not only is it an attempt to employ prior restraint, its an attempt to intimidate citizens from acting lawfully.
If we don't think that's a dangerous precedent, we aren't paying attention.

First, we have the Bush administration setting up "free speech zones" that are blocks or miles from events, then we have the refusal to admit anyone that has a sign that is anti-Bush, then we the chilling practice of requiring people to sign "loyalty oaths" to even attend Bush "ask the president" rallies, NOW we have govt. agents tracking down people and intimidating them from protesting in the first place.

What is the next step? Political prisoners? Jailing someone who speaks out against the president? then we move to thoughtcrime?

The fact is, what is already happening is the not only the erosion of civil rights, but the downright destruction of them.

As citizens, we should all be concerned about this, whether conservative or liberal.

[OldManMac]

You're correct, Lerk. Unfortunately, there are those who will answer this with the standard "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry," not even realizing the implications involved.

One of my favorite quotes of all time is the following;

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niem�ller

Too many people think that freedom and democracy only means that their particular point of view is valid, which is aptly illustrated by the actions of this administration.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Too many people think that freedom and democracy only means that their particular point of view is valid, which is aptly illustrated by the actions of this administration.

And this thread in general.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You're correct, Lerk. Unfortunately, there are those who will answer this with the standard "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry," not even realizing the implications involved.

One of my favorite quotes of all time is the following;

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niem�ller

Too many people think that freedom and democracy only means that their particular point of view is valid, which is aptly illustrated by the actions of this administration.

they overlook the fact that once the rights are eroded, they are eroded for everyone. If Kerry gets elected, and starts sending out CIA and FBI to intimidate people who presently support Bush, and suggest they cannot speak out against kerry, (or some future non-republican president), they will only have themselves to blame....of course, by then its too late.

I fear it may already be too late.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And this thread in general.

Has anyone here stopped you from posting your viewpoints? I haven't, even though I don't agree with most of them.

[CreepingDeth]

You guys seriously need to lay of the medicine cabinet.
I know alot of people, and not one has said "TEH AMRY GESTAPO CAME AND TOOK ME PAPPY ON A BLACK HELICOPTER!"
No one.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You guys seriously need to lay of the medicine cabinet.
I know alot of people, and not one has said "TEH AMRY GESTAPO CAME AND TOOK ME PAPPY ON A BLACK HELICOPTER!"
No one.

Yes, we're sure you know a lot of people. I mean, you meet a lot of people in first grade, don't you?

[CreepingDeth]

Yes, and you meet alot of people in reeducation camp, KarlM.

Point: Don't know or have ever seen someone who has said they're liberties have been taken away by incident x.
*Helicopters*

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Yes, and you meet alot of people in reeducation camp, KarlM.

Point: Don't know or have ever seen someone who has said they're liberties have been taken away by incident x.
*Helicopters*

Apropos of nothing, it's no longer clear what you're trying to talk about.

[CreepingDeth]

They think there's a conspiracy to take away our rights.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
They think there's a conspiracy to take away our rights.

I got the gist of the posts with which you apparently are arguing. I missed the part about helicopters and stuff. Hyperbole?

[CreepingDeth]

Black helicopters spying on us�late-night AM radio�boots�
Picture coming to mind?

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Black helicopters spying on us�late-night AM radio�boots�
Picture coming to mind?

Nope. And the remark about re-education camps?

[CreepingDeth]

Why don't you read the current page. Follow the KarlG thing then read mine.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Why don't you read the current page. Follow the KarlG thing then read mine.

Did. You seem to jump very excitedly from what somebody said to declaring or hinting that he or she is a communist. As far as I can tell, in any event; there are some missing words in some of your posts and then sudden mentions of helicopters and stuff. Kind of free association.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Here's the entire article Lerk first posted in this thread. There's nothing in it about any groups publicly making threats to commit crimes. All it points to is speculation by federal agencies that groups are going to commit crimes. All there is in this article is a lot of "maybe," and "might," and "possibly," from federal agencies, regarding their fears of activitiy at the convention. Not any specifics.

The specifics have been documented other places- you obviously only get your news from biased op-ed pieces, and don�t pay much attention to anything else.

There are even specifics mentioned in this story, IE:

The only lead to emerge publicly resulted in a warning to authorities before the Boston convention that anarchists or other domestic groups might bomb news vans there. It is not clear whether there was an actual plot.

Riiight, in your little conspiracy world, OF COURSE authorities wouldn�t be concerned about anything like a bomb plot, because hey, you agree with the accused and therefore any attempts to investigate or stop them is �fascism�.

And OF COURSE, anyone seeking to commit violence would OF COURSE be public about it! So we can�t possibly assume the police also might follow up on leads that people have tried to keep *gasp* a secret! Nah- criminals NEVER operate that way, just like terrorists always seek to leave evidence lying around also.

Some silly �Right Wing� conspiracy over any of this doesn�t even make any sense, because obviously there were concerns during the Boston DNC convention as well. Why TF would some �prong� Right Wing conspiracy include keeping anyone from protesting at a Democrat convention? (Quick, make something up!)

And by the way, yes much of law-enforcement does indeed deal with being PROACTIVE against crime, not just sitting back waiting for crimes to happen and then stopping them. If radical groups have a history of breaking the law, inciting lawlessness, and have made threats to do so (as many of these groups have), then it�s a pretty safe bet they�re probably going to be watched closely and their members investigated, and rightly so. Members of those groups can play *boo hoo sniffle sniffle* �They�re out to get me!� and fabricate their own sham controversies and pretend to be Gandhi-like over it all they like, but that doesn�t mean law enforcement people aren�t going to do their jobs and follow up on leads, the same as they would any other criminal plot that comes to their attention.

Several times even in that biased article, it�s stated that law enforcement�s chief concern is any threat to public safety, at both Democrat and Republican conventions, and not quelling anyone�s rights to protest. What the thick-skulls on the left can�t seem to get straight is, -and stubbornly believe that no one else is able to tell the difference in- is that they have NO RIGHTS allowing them to break the law or conspire to do so, nor to hide behind such as �legitimate protest�.

And YES VIRGINIA, if you can�t understand that, then you do in fact need to grow the F up already.

I�m not sure if your ridiculous Holocaust comparison qualifies as an invocation of Godwins Law or not (the left does it so often it�s hard to keep track), but it�s pretty ridiculous, and is just another example of how people like you cry wolf and shout �nazi� every single time you�re disagreed with. It also proves you have NOT A CLUE about the actual conditions the original quote was forged under, and therefore not much of a clue about the actual meaning.

[Spliffdaddy]

well said

*claps*

[Lerkfish]

If I attend a Kerry rally, does that make me a "potential terrorist"?
how about if I speak out against Bush, does that make me a threat to national security?
What if I disagree with war and participate in a protest, does that make me an enemy combatant?


now, lets step the back a bit:

If I am thinking that I would like toattend a Kerry rally, does that make me a "potential terrorist"?
how about if I am thinking that I would like tospeak out against Bush, does that make me a threat to national security?
What if I disagree with war and am thinking that I would like toparticipate in a protest, does that make me an enemy combatant?