What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Free libertarian]

...hey cool I just noticed that Gubermint is replaced with mafia in posts, you computer wizards are funny! 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Just got a complaint about that.  It occurred to us that this could be construed as an insult to the Mafia that, actually, adheres to some sort of 'code of honor'.

[Caleb]

Yeah, I don't think the replacement does justice to the Mafia. Let's not invest the guvmint with more legitimacy than they deserve.

[Caleb]

Luke the war on terror was planned prior to 9/11.  In some ways, it has been planned for years, by groups such as the Project for the New American Century, who finally achieved their power when boy Bush chose a PNAC insider as his veep and got himself elected. But those were abstract plans. Actual plans to invade, specifically Afghanistan were on his desk by June of 2001, or at the latest September 9th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

Iraq, of course, has been a major obsession of the PNAC, and they even composed a joint letter begging Clinton to depose Saddam. So of course, Iraq was next on the order of business. The 9/11 attacks just pose a convenient pretext for war. But that's all it is, a pretext.

The goals of the "war on terror" are exactly what the PNAC professes, an attempt to control the world's resources and establish US might throughout the world, so as to maintain full spectrum dominance and ensure that the US is able to enforce its agenda around the world.

[Russell Kanning]

Just got a complaint about that.  It occurred to us that this could be construed as an insult to the Mafia that, actually, adheres to some sort of 'code of honor'.

They all have varying codes ... some are even written down ... sometimes they follow them.

[Luke S]

Ok, I tried to get ahold of my friend that I wrote about last time who knows a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do, but he wasn't there, so I'll just have to do my best to discern the situation here without his knowledge and expertise.

Now to recap what we've found out so far, Congress released a report in 1996 saying that the CIA committed crimes all around the globe. I saw it on their own website, so I'll buy that. And we've established that Presidents Bush Jr. and Clinton knew about these crimes that the CIA committed because both of those presidents received intelligence briefings every day, which presumably included the CIA's doings. That makes sense, so I'll buy that, too.

Now the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one.

That aside, what I will say is that it is very hypocritical that Bush said "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders'", wrt the impending Iraq War, and yet Bush did nothing about these very serious crimes that the CIA was and is committing around the globe. That doesn't mean I hate Bush now. I still like Bush. I just think it was hypocritical what he did.

Anyway, the CIA is still committing these crimes, Caleb. You were right. And in fact, not only do they have that paragraph in that 1996 Congressional report about it, now they have an entire website about it.
https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/clandestine-service/index.html. It's a website which is being absolutely flaunted, with a great big graphic too, about the Clandestine Service and the clandestine things it does.

Damn, maybe all my objections to these crimes that the Clandestine Service is committing is just me being an idealist and a bleeding heart, Caleb. Maybe everybody else in America knows and accepts that the CIA Clandestine Service has to commit these crimes in order for us to have the intelligence that we need to have to be a good, strong, prosperous nation. But Caleb, there's a big part of me that knows that America is a special nation, and that wonders why we can't rise above all this clandestine bullshit and abolish this Clandestine Service.

Now that being said, even though I have now found out that the federal mafia is doing very bad things, committing these crimes and then letting themselves get away with it, this does not mean I will now turn into a liberal, a libertarian, or an America-hater. It also does not mean that terror groups like Al Qaeda are any less of a threat to America, or that the Mexican Military's invasions of the Southwest are any less of a danger to America. In fact, with criminals and Al Qaeda being on the loose, with the Mexican Military still making these invasions into the Southwest, and with the federal mafia having dropped the ball in so many ways, America needs me to be a red blooded conservative now more than ever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok now I will get on to what Free Libertarian said.

Luke in my last post I was trying to give examples of how sometimes things aren't what we've been lead to believe. I don't have all of the answers. But I have alot of questions.  Sorry if my previous message was confusing, I had just gone out to pledge allegiance and must have caught a whiff of old glory. I'll try to be more concise here.

Your version of freedom, is different from mine, your still thinking that somehow our rights are given to us
by a mafia or a bill of rights. The fact that our rights are taken under the guise of "legality" or to protect us changes nothing. Freedom means the right to be left alone doesn't it?  mafia doesn't permit freedom Luke, you just have it. So if  freedom doesn't come from the mafia how can they take it away without it being theft? Voluntary cooperation is a good thing, edicts from somebody who knows "what's good for you" isn't freedom, no matter which flag it's wrapped in. That's a bullshit scare tactic Hitler and his cronies used to get a nation of Germans fooled. Tell them they're being attacked...works the same in any country. It worked here after 9/11, although alot of people are finally questioning some things.

You say you are pro freedom, clearly your version of freedom includes authoritarian infringments on anothers free will, you are intolerant in some areas. Being intolerant and pro freedom is contradictory isn't it? You are not consistently pro freedom, but you like to say you are.

Concerning Bush, you consistently avoid answering the contradictions about him? Why? Funny that he only got community service for his drug arrest...wonder if he'd still be in prison today if he'd also committed the crime of being black while getting high? Do you think his ancestors would have been able to profit off WWII if they'd have been Japanese Luke? Kinda hard to do that if you're a Japanese American in a prison camp in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!
Something about Bush I find funny, I heard after a night of youthful partying hard GW drove home with a, get this, "trash can" under his car...so I guess not everybody throws trash in the street when they're high, your boy picks it up...good job Georgie! I guess in retrospect I've been too hard on him.

Your style of we know what's best for you mafia, put U.S. citizens in jail during WWII, no trial, no choice, tough shit you're coming with us... How do you explain that happening in a pro freedom country? The irony is you were told in school we saved the free world during WWII.  Yet we imprisoned our own citizens here...Hmmm. How did that happen Luke? Why?

Concerning me telling you to sign up for the military etc. I was jerking your chain. Sometimes I'm a wise ass like that...sorry.  I'll be more direct.  If you joined the military you would soon be counting the days until you could get out. A draft is an example of involuntary servitude isn't it? Do you support slavery?
You can't  give your notice in the military Luke...Do you suppose this would work? "hey guys I got another job here's my two weeks notice"...Why can't we do that Luke? Because when you are in the military you don't have any rights. You are a tool. Does the piece of paper even authorize the size military we have? Or our being at war on GW's whim and not declaring it? How come one guy has brought us two wars without any just cause or uh "proper authorization"?  Is he above the law? Is he the decider?     
We are under no threat from an external army, the biggest threat we face is domestic and it ain't from pot smokers ...it's from the type of people you idolize.
I do find a great deal of irony that our Prez and V.P.  both hid out during Viet Nam, yet you think they are John Wayne types.  The only good thing Cheney has done with a gun was to shoot a lawyer. Of course that can be excused because he was drunk at the time, if he'd have been smoking pot he might have just grazed him with some trash right? Oh yeah, did he have a valid hunting license on him?

Concerning your next hero, John McCain he's a senile imbecile who couldn't remember how to spell C-A-T if you spotted him the C and the A. He was a POW...okay we got it. So that qualifies him to be President? If he'd never been a POW he'd be selling used cars to old people in Arizona. "Yes, my friends we have a special Patriots day sale today. If you'll commit your economic stimulus check as a down payment, we'll throw in this Islamo Fascist Extremist radar detector for free and give you up to a 100 years to pay this off"...At least HE knows water boarding is torture, ironically maybe the Viet Namese did beat SOME sense into him.

You have confused Patriotism with blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to the state. We could have a great country Luke, but more mafia control from the left or the right won't make that happen. 
It's okay to leave people alone in this country and across the world, why can't you see that we are Imperialistic and have been for a long time? It's so obvious or do you consider 700 bases in 130 different
countries with a "defense" budget almost as big as the rest of the world combined a coincidence?
I've also heard our "free country" incarcerates the highest percentage of it's citizens...we have more people in jail for stupid shit than the rest of the world? Yep, we're #1 !! Still think we're the leaders of the "free world" Luke?

   While we say we are bringing freedom and democracy to the world we arrest our own citizens at airports for carrying nail clippers Luke? Or we open their mail and spy on them? Or incarcerate them for smoking a plant? How many people die from alcohol or "legal drug" overdoses or mafia sponsored murder vs  pot Luke?  Do you want to touch that one? Hemp was made illegal for economic reasons Luke.
Google Hemp prohibition, be open minded do some research, be "pro freedom" learn the history you won't find in your school books. You'll learn how laws were and are made to protect financial interests. Be careful though your mafia could be watching your internet computer usage so be careful which hemp websites you visit...
 
In a previous comment somebody said they'd buy you a beer. I'm a forgiving person, recant your turning in people for smoking pot, and swear off watching Bill O'Reilly for a month and I'll buy you a six pack of hemp flavored beer if you ever come to NH. We've stolen this thread long enough, let's start a new one call it arguing with Pot Heads and chicken chickens or anything you want. I'll talk to you there. My apologies to the original creator and users of this thread. Sorry for pursuing the arguing with Luke thing here. We should not have submitted you to all of the B.S.  for so long.  Luke, let's throw all of our trash in one neat pile and I will quit chasing you from thread to thread? Agreed?   

Free Libertarian,

First of all, I didn't just go to any old high school. I went to a very good high school in which I was indeed taught about the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Of course I totally denounce the placing of the Japanese-Americans into internment camps during that war. In fact, I think it was a tragedy. However, this does not, as you seem to imply, downplay the US's role in fighting back against Axis aggression, and in freeing occupied nations from Axis control, a role that it fulfilled very well.

Secondly, I think I indeed do have the correct view of what freedom is. Freedom is not a free-for-all. Freedom is the ability to live life as a good citizen. It often involves sacrifice for one's country (in this case, the USA), and helping to hunt down those who do break the laws of the USA and bringing them to justice. It in no way involves being a druggie, a dealer, a thief, a smuggler, a border jumper, or any other kind of lawbreaker. The only excuse there is to be a lawbreaker is if the law you are breaking is against a higher law, as I explained before.

Thirdly, your claim that President Bush didn't have authorization to go to war is not true. Nowadays we don't have "declarations of war" anymore. Formal declarations of war written down on a piece of paper are relics from a bygone era. That's not the way we do things nowadays. Nowadays instead of having the Senate declare war through a written declaration, we have the Senate give their approval to the president to commence with a war. That happened in both the Afghan war and the Iraq war. So Bush had proper authorization in both wars.

Oh, and if you're talking about the fact that he didn't have UN approval to go to war for the Iraq war, then you can just forget about that. We don't need their permission slip for anything as far as I'm concerned. We are a sovereign nation, and that is what we will stay.

Fourthly, I am not a neoconservative, so I don't believe in "spreading democracy". At all. I think that our business in Afghanistan and Iraq is limited to clearing Al Qaeda out of there. If Caleb ends up being right and Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan only because he wanted American hegemony, rather than to fight terrorism and Al Qaeda, then we'll just have to make a lemon into lemonade and clear all the Al Qaeda folks out of there that we can find anyway.

And that's all the time I have for all of you today.

[J’raxis 270145]

Yeah, I don't think the replacement does justice to the Mafia. Let's not invest the guvmint with more legitimacy than they deserve.

Alcohol, tobacco, pornography, drugs, gambling, prostitution... yeah, the Mafia actually gives people what they want, not lock people up over it.

[Caleb]

Now the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one

Luke, I can't even begin to address your questions about why the US doesn't do more to prevent Mexican immigration without going severely off-topic. A proper consideration of the issue would involve understanding the competing domestic factions, the magnitude of the problem, and the somewhat stronger role that a President can assert in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. I can't go into all those without going severely off the topic that I'm trying to stay on.

We're now looking at the reasons for the current "war on terror". You have trouble believing my assertion that the main reason for all US foreign policy is assertion of US dominance over the rest of the world (with the codeword being "US leadership.") Here is a link to the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) Statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm  This is not some rag-tag group. It is a group with significant influence over American policy, which is easy to see by looking at the bottom of the page and discovering WHO the PNAC is: men like Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. I trust these names are familiar to you as Bush insiders. If you get a chance, go to this link on the PNAC website and click on the big PDF file called Rebuilding America's defenses. It will give you a better idea of what American foreign policy is all about.   http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

It doesn't do to "make lemonade out of lemons." Empire building is immoral, because it involves subjugation of other people. In addition, there is a significant cost to empire. Since you come from the right, you might want to consider a book by a conservative named Pat Buchanan. He wrote a book called "A Republic, Not an Empire" that shows just how suicidal American foreign policy is.

[J’raxis 270145]

... Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, ...

What duties? I don't remember signing up for any. Did you?

[David]

Geez, I'm gone for one day and now we're burning Luke?

Seriously though, burning an effigy sounds like a fine idea to me, doesn't have to be Luke though. I can think of far more deserving people than he.

George

Agreed.  Luke is a true believer.  A walking talking authoritarian.  You can't educate liberty (amd burning effigies isn't worth it.) He's got to choose it. 

[KBCraig]

... Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, ...

What duties? I don't remember signing up for any. Did you?

It was in the fine print of that social contract you signed. Remember? Me neither.

Okay, we didn't really "sign" that contract, they just inked the bottoms of our feet and stamped them on it in lieu of signature... 

[John Edward Mercier]

A social contract is between non-entities. The original thirteen colonies when forming their confederation entered a 'social' contract in that the colonies were non-entities.

[Luke S]

Now the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one

Luke, I can't even begin to address your questions about why the US doesn't do more to prevent Mexican immigration without going severely off-topic. A proper consideration of the issue would involve understanding the competing domestic factions, the magnitude of the problem, and the somewhat stronger role that a President can assert in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. I can't go into all those without going severely off the topic that I'm trying to stay on.

We're now looking at the reasons for the current "war on terror". You have trouble believing my assertion that the main reason for all US foreign policy is assertion of US dominance over the rest of the world (with the codeword being "US leadership.") Here is a link to the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) Statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm  This is not some rag-tag group. It is a group with significant influence over American policy, which is easy to see by looking at the bottom of the page and discovering WHO the PNAC is: men like Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. I trust these names are familiar to you as Bush insiders. If you get a chance, go to this link on the PNAC website and click on the big PDF file called Rebuilding America's defenses. It will give you a better idea of what American foreign policy is all about.   http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

It doesn't do to "make lemonade out of lemons." Empire building is immoral, because it involves subjugation of other people. In addition, there is a significant cost to empire. Since you come from the right, you might want to consider a book by a conservative named Pat Buchanan. He wrote a book called "A Republic, Not an Empire" that shows just how suicidal American foreign policy is.

Ok Caleb, I don't have a whole lot of time right now, so I'm just going to say a couple things. First of all, by "make lemonade out of lemons", I didn't mean empire-build at all. What I meant is that if you are correct that the US Military was sent to Iraq on a mission of American hegemony than fighting terrorism, and the military finds that out, then the military should say "Ok guys, looks like we were tricked into going to Iraq to fight for American hegemony rather than fighting terrorism. Well we'll have to just make lemonade out of that lemon, and get rid of as many Al Qaeda as we possibly can anyway."

Secondly, the border situation is not outside of the topic of the War on Terror as you said. It might be outside the topic of what Bush sees the War on Terror as, but it is not outside the topic of the War on Terror as a whole, especially siince the Mexican Military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border and shooting at Border Patrol. Stopping the Mexican Military from doing that definately should be part of the War on Terror as far as I'm concerned, since what the Mexican Military wants to do is to terrorize everybody away so that all those drug smugglers can smuggle drugs into America with impunity. Here Caleb. Have a look at this video which talks about how the Mexican Military was caught going back and forth into the USA 216 times.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Nowadays we don't have "declarations of war" anymore.

Wow, someone should inform the Constitution of the United States... it doesn't seem to be in the loop!

[John Edward Mercier]

Not really. Jefferson did the same thing with the Barbary War.
Seems to have set a historic precedent that American interests are the same as soil.