Re: Pity the Sheeple

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Aardvark, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Aardvark

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:21 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:

    > Nicely analysed:
    >
    > The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people
    > subscribe to its principles thanks in large part to Fox News and talk
    > radio, even though it calls for doing away with the safety net. This is
    > crucial for forming a conservative utopia because the wealthy business
    > interests who push for deregulation need the impoverished to provide
    > (usually cheap and hard) labor and perform other menial tasks. While the
    > poor would likely suffer the most at first, since freedom from
    > government intrusion in the workplace guarantees the absence of
    > minimum wage laws, sanitation requirements and unemployment benefits,
    > ultimately the entire society would implode, since, as the sub-prime
    > mortgage crisis proves, unfettered free markets concentrate most of the
    > wealth in the hands of a few mega financial firms, which would destroy
    > themselves by creating a massive boom-bust cycle, leaving everyone
    > destitute.
    > http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/?p=486


    Hmmmm:

    "It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone
    owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits".



    --
    Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
     
    Aardvark, Dec 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aardvark

    PeeCee Guest

    On 29/12/2010 12:54 p.m., Aardvark wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:21 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >
    >> Nicely analysed:
    >>
    >> The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people


    Snip

    >
    > Hmmmm:
    >
    > "It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone
    > owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits".
    >
    >
    >



    To paraphrase the OP

    Nicely analysed!

    Paul.
     
    PeeCee, Dec 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aardvark

    Jenn Guest

    Aardvark wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:21 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >
    >> Nicely analysed:
    >>
    >> The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people
    >> subscribe to its principles thanks in large part to Fox News and talk
    >> radio, even though it calls for doing away with the safety net. This
    >> is crucial for forming a conservative utopia because the wealthy
    >> business interests who push for deregulation need the impoverished
    >> to provide (usually cheap and hard) labor and perform other menial
    >> tasks. While the poor would likely suffer the most at first, since
    >> freedom from government intrusion in the workplace guarantees the
    >> absence of minimum wage laws, sanitation requirements and
    >> unemployment benefits, ultimately the entire society would implode,
    >> since, as the sub-prime mortgage crisis proves, unfettered free
    >> markets concentrate most of the wealth in the hands of a few mega
    >> financial firms, which would destroy themselves by creating a
    >> massive boom-bust cycle, leaving everyone destitute.
    >> http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/?p=486



    > Hmmmm:
    >
    > "It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone
    > owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits".


    That's what is called a "Mexican Stand-off" ....... everyone is equal in
    power, therefore, it will be much more difficult for the criminals to
    overcome the rest who just want to live a good life, and provide for their
    families.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010
    #3
  4. Aardvark <> pinched out a steaming pile
    of<KMuSo.74448$2>:

    >On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:21 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >
    >> Nicely analysed:
    >>
    >> The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people
    >> subscribe to its principles thanks in large part to Fox News and

    talk
    >> radio, even though it calls for doing away with the safety net. This

    is
    >> crucial for forming a conservative utopia because the wealthy

    business
    >> interests who push for deregulation need the impoverished to provide
    >> (usually cheap and hard) labor and perform other menial tasks. While

    the
    >> poor would likely suffer the most at first, since freedom from
    >> government intrusion in the workplace guarantees the absence of
    >> minimum wage laws, sanitation requirements and unemployment

    benefits,
    >> ultimately the entire society would implode, since, as the sub-prime
    >> mortgage crisis proves, unfettered free markets concentrate most of

    the
    >> wealth in the hands of a few mega financial firms, which would

    destroy
    >> themselves by creating a massive boom-bust cycle, leaving everyone
    >> destitute.
    >> http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/?p=486

    >
    >Hmmmm:
    >
    >"It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone
    >owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits".
    >

    at that point (imploding society) gubmint declares martial law and
    gulags fill up. remember, gubmint has all the kewl toys for forcing
    compliance. think military junta...

    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
    cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
    _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
    / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
    _\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
    /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 29, 2010
    #4
  5. Aardvark

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Aardvark" <> wrote in message
    news:KMuSo.74448$2...
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:21 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >
    >> Nicely analysed:
    >>
    >> The fascinating thing about conservatism is that many poor people
    >> subscribe to its principles thanks in large part to Fox News and talk
    >> radio, even though it calls for doing away with the safety net. This is
    >> crucial for forming a conservative utopia because the wealthy business
    >> interests who push for deregulation need the impoverished to provide
    >> (usually cheap and hard) labor and perform other menial tasks. While the
    >> poor would likely suffer the most at first, since freedom from
    >> government intrusion in the workplace guarantees the absence of
    >> minimum wage laws, sanitation requirements and unemployment benefits,
    >> ultimately the entire society would implode, since, as the sub-prime
    >> mortgage crisis proves, unfettered free markets concentrate most of the
    >> wealth in the hands of a few mega financial firms, which would destroy
    >> themselves by creating a massive boom-bust cycle, leaving everyone
    >> destitute.
    >> http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/?p=486

    >
    > Hmmmm:
    >
    > "It would be fascinating to see how a society in which nearly everyone
    > owns a gun would settle disputes when the crisis hits".


    This is a terrifically slanted piece, designed like so many are, to
    denigrate conservatives by telling one side of the story, and telling it
    poorly and inaccurately. It appears to have been written by yet another
    person who cannot differientiate between news programs and talk shows. It
    fails to mention who the "poor" historically vote for, that being democrats,
    who favor huge government intervention and massive, taxpayer funded
    entitlement programs. Conservatives are not opposed to unemployment
    benefits, they simply believe that to continue extending the set time frames
    for those benefits, spending has to be cut somewhere else. Democrats
    support unions and support legislation that would remove the freedom of
    choice and the privacy currently involved in workers' deciding whether or
    not to join said unions.

    As far as the housing market goes, it was democrats who refused to further
    regulate Freddie and Fannie, Barney Frank and Chris Dodds specifically.

    Just another skewed hit piece and certainly not very believable.

    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 29, 2010
    #5
  6. Aardvark

    Eagle Guest

    After serious thinking SeaNymph wrote :
    > This is a terrifically slanted piece, designed like so many are, to denigrate
    > conservatives by telling one side of the story, and telling it poorly and
    > inaccurately


    IAWTP

    Liberals and socialists will always whine about the freedoms provided
    by conservitism. "Let my government pay for my medical bills!" or "The
    government will provide" being the socialists mantra.

    --
    Eagle
    "Be who you are and say what you feel...
    Because those that matter... don't mind...
    And those that mind... don't matter..
    In God We Trust
     
    Eagle, Dec 29, 2010
    #6
  7. Aardvark

    Guest

    "SeaNymph" <> wrote:

    >Conservatives are not opposed to unemployment
    >benefits, they simply believe that to continue extending the set time frames
    >for those benefits, spending has to be cut somewhere else.


    How bout the Repubs set them to unemployment RATES?

    As long as say rate above certain distinct levels the
    bennies continue

    Tell you what... the Repubs will NEVER do such a thing
    cause in reality they do not want ANY unemployment
    bennies!!

    Just like their so called cut back on taxes. If they
    were SERIOUS the Repubs would push for a consumption
    tax and eliminate the IRS! Don't hold your breath!
     
    , Dec 29, 2010
    #7
  8. Aardvark

    Guest

    "SeaNymph" <> wrote:

    > Democrats
    >support unions


    You damn right they do!!!

    And thank God for that!

    You try working in a non union job where favoritism
    among the office "elite" runs rampant!!
     
    , Dec 29, 2010
    #8
  9. Aardvark

    Jenn Guest

    §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > Eagle wrote:
    >
    >> Liberals and socialists will always whine about the freedoms provided
    >> by conservitism.


    > Personal freedom an liberty were erroded under
    > Bush in the form of warrantless domestic spying, "free speech zones",
    > and the NSA turning their attention on average Uhmurikins.


    Our eroding personal freedoms are directly tied to crazies who took down the
    Twin Towers, flew a plane into the Pentagon, and another plane into the
    ground in Pennsylvania. In order to fight that kind of enemy we are forced
    to be over-protective on our own sovereign soil.

    How do you propose we protect this country from more terrorist attacks while
    at the same time not stepping on any of our former freedoms? We still get
    to travel, but we have to subject ourselves to body scanners, and get really
    nitpicky about things like what size deodorant container we can bring onto
    an airplane.

    Do you believe that terrorists have stopped wanting to attack us here in the
    US?

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010
    #9
  10. Jenn wrote:
    > We still get
    > to travel, but we have to subject ourselves to body scanners, and get really
    > nitpicky about things like what size deodorant container we can bring onto
    > an airplane.


    My mom and sis were discussing what to include in their carry-on
    luggage, and my mom reminded her to bring some lip balm for her chapped
    lips. I warned them to get that all sorted now, because it would not be
    good to discuss it in the terminal.

    Did you remember the balm?

    I didn't pack the balm, I thought *you* packed the balm.
     
    FromTheRafters, Dec 30, 2010
    #10
  11. Aardvark

    Jenn Guest

    FromTheRafters wrote:
    > Jenn wrote:
    >> We still get
    >> to travel, but we have to subject ourselves to body scanners, and
    >> get really nitpicky about things like what size deodorant container
    >> we can bring onto an airplane.



    > My mom and sis were discussing what to include in their carry-on
    > luggage, and my mom reminded her to bring some lip balm for her
    > chapped lips. I warned them to get that all sorted now, because it
    > would not be good to discuss it in the terminal.
    >
    > Did you remember the balm?
    >
    > I didn't pack the balm, I thought *you* packed the balm.


    The gate guards tossed my deodorant out because it was too big! I had to
    buy a smaller one in the airport before we caught our plane out of town.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 30, 2010
    #11
  12. Aardvark

    Eagle Guest

    §nühw¤£f has brought this to us :
    > Eagle wrote:
    >
    >> Liberals and socialists will always whine about the freedoms provided
    >> by conservitism.

    >
    > WTF are you on about? Personal freedom an liberty were erroded under
    > Bush in the form of warrantless domestic spying, "free speech zones",
    > and the NSA turning their attention on average Uhmurikins.
    >
    >> "Let my government pay for my medical bills!"

    >
    > Hows that Medicaid card working out for you, hYp0cRiTe?
    >
    >> or "The
    >> government will provide" being the socialists mantra.
    >>

    > Stay off the Interstates you cuntfungus. Those are funded and maintained
    > by taxes.
    >
    > Now kindly **** right off.
    >
    > ^_^


    What a mess of wtf blatherings. Do you inject, or swallow all this
    bullshit you are spewing here, woofy?

    > Now kindly **** right off.


    Tank you. Now, you go ahead and un-**** yourself.

    --
    Eagle
    "Be who you are and say what you feel...
    Because those that matter... don't mind...
    And those that mind... don't matter..
    In God We Trust
     
    Eagle, Dec 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Aardvark

    Aardvark Guest

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:24:00 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:

    >> Do you believe that terrorists have stopped wanting to attack us here
    >> in the
    >> US?
    >>

    > **** em, they won already. THey succeeded in making America NOT FREE.
    >


    Yup.

    > http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html Worth a look. Might
    > open yer eyes a bit.


    Great minds think alike- I posted that link earlier on, mate.



    --
    Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
     
    Aardvark, Dec 30, 2010
    #13
  14. §nühw¤£f wrote:
    [...]

    > Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.


    No he didn't.

    [...]
     
    FromTheRafters, Dec 30, 2010
    #14
  15. Aardvark

    Jenn Guest

    §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > In message <ifgdhq$lfb$-september.org>, "Jenn" pondered



    >>> Personal freedom an liberty were erroded under
    >>> Bush in the form of warrantless domestic spying, "free speech
    >>> zones", and the NSA turning their attention on average Uhmurikins.



    >> Our eroding personal freedoms are directly tied to crazies who took
    >> down the
    >> Twin Towers, flew a plane into the Pentagon, and another plane into
    >> the ground in Pennsylvania. In order to fight that kind of enemy we
    >> are forced to be over-protective on our own sovereign soil.



    > Well thats the rationale. Its bullshit though. Bin LAden replaced the
    > "Soviet Threat" and "Cold War".
    > THe pentagon *needs* "bad guys" to justify their existence.


    I don't believe, personally, that it's just BS... If it can happen once, I
    have no doubt it could happen again in some different industry here in the
    US. Who really believed before 9/11 that terrorists would do such a thing?
    I know it never had crossed my mind before that day. My hope would be that
    we aren't ever attacked like that again, but I think that would just be a
    wish on my part at this point.


    >> How do you propose we protect this country from more terrorist
    >> attacks while
    >> at the same time not stepping on any of our former freedoms?



    > Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve
    > neither.


    Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with terrorists like we face today, either.
    People who fought wars back then had a code of honor they fought by.
    Terrorists today strap bombs onto children and use them as live shields to
    save their own hides. I can't imagine what Ben Franklin would say today
    about the world we live in now and how he'd solve our current problems.


    >> We still get
    >> to travel, but we have to subject ourselves to body scanners, and get
    >> really
    >> nitpicky about things like what size deodorant container we can
    >> bring onto an airplane.




    > Well the sheep submit to the abuse...


    I had to go through one of those scanners when I went on a trip this summer.
    It was a bit weird, but I didn't have strangers feeling me up, either.


    >> Do you believe that terrorists have stopped wanting to attack us
    >> here in the US?



    > **** em, they won already. THey succeeded in making America NOT FREE.


    I think they succeeded in waking us all up for sure, but we aren't wearing
    burkas yet or kneeling down facing east at the threat of being killed if we
    don't comply, either. We still have a majority of our freedoms although
    some have been stomped on. I don't know of any other way to deal with such
    terror threats. Do you?


    > http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html
    > Worth a look. Might open yer eyes a bit.


    Already looked at that url ... and commented on it on another post
    somewhere.. thanks! :)

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 30, 2010
    #15
  16. Aardvark

    Aardvark Guest

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:06:08 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:

    > Aardvark wrote:
    >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:24:00 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Do you believe that terrorists have stopped wanting to attack us

    >> here
    >>>> in the
    >>>> US?
    >>>>
    >>> **** em, they won already. THey succeeded in making America NOT

    >> FREE.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yup.
    >>
    >>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html Worth a look.

    >> Might
    >>> open yer eyes a bit.

    >>
    >> Great minds think alike- I posted that link earlier on, mate.
    >>

    > And I estolen its from yous...


    I'm gonna set the rozzers on you, you artful dodger, you.

    > Note: I have new sig of Grate Trollery for Maximum LULZ! ^_^


    Oh yeah. To the max. Watched it earlier.



    --
    Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
     
    Aardvark, Dec 30, 2010
    #16
  17. §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > FromTheRafters wrote:
    >> §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve

    >> neither.
    >>
    >> No h<SLAP>
    >>

    > PPOSTFU, ****.
    >

    Nope, do your own research. In fact, it might be a good idea to do the
    research *before* misquoting historical figures.
     
    FromTheRafters, Dec 31, 2010
    #17
  18. Aardvark

    Jenn Guest

    §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > Jenn wrote:
    >>> Well thats the rationale. Its bullshit though. Bin LAden replaced

    >> the
    >>> "Soviet Threat" and "Cold War".
    >>> THe pentagon *needs* "bad guys" to justify their existence.



    >> I don't believe, personally, that it's just BS... If it can happen
    >> once, I
    >> have no doubt it could happen again in some different industry here
    >> in the
    >> US.



    > So, then we should have actual secure shipping ports isnted of what we
    > have now: Security Kabuki THeater.


    Yeah That would be a great idea! imo ...


    >> Who really believed before 9/11 that terrorists would do such a
    >> thing?


    > The CIA :) And whoever authored that Presidential Daily Breifing dated
    > august 18 2001 Titled "Bin LAden Determined to use aircraft to strike
    > USA". That memo was deliverd to Bush. He failed to read it...or he
    > didnt understand it. This is a verifiable fact which you may g00gle
    > yourself :)


    Again ... who really believed it?


    >> I know it never had crossed my mind before that day.


    > Is your job national security? If not, then I think you can give
    > yourself a pass.


    naw .. lol I'm not national security! lol


    >> My hope would be
    >> that
    >> we aren't ever attacked like that again, but I think that would just
    >> be a
    >> wish on my part at this point.



    > They dont have to. The job has been done. All they need is to make a
    > threat on the internets, we call it "chatter" and the trained
    > Uhmurikin sheeple go nuts. Pavlov would be proud :)


    I guess they don't want to be found sleeping and not paying attention a 2nd
    time.


    >>>> How do you propose we protect this country from more terrorist
    >>>> attacks while
    >>>> at the same time not stepping on any of our former freedoms?


    >>> Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve
    >>> neither.


    >> Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with terrorists like we face today,
    >> either.



    > Indians had guns. English troops had guns. Killing happened back then,
    > fyi.


    It did ...

    >> People who fought wars back then had a code of honor they fought by.



    > Uhhhhhhhhh...wtf? You *do* realise WE won the war against the Brits
    > via GUERILLA warfare methods, right???


    Did they use children as human shields? Did they strap bombs to themselves
    and blow themselves up in the middle of a civilian square? No.....

    >> Terrorists today strap bombs onto children and use them as live
    >> shields to
    >> save their own hides. I can't imagine what Ben Franklin would say
    >> today
    >> about the world we live in now and how he'd solve our current
    >> problems.



    > He'd call us a bunch of pussies who dont deserve to fly the American
    > flag.


    I seriously doubt that ... He was a patriot and he'd probably find a way to
    rally the people together to fight for their freedoms... encourage them to
    stand together.


    >>> Well the sheep submit to the abuse...

    >>
    >> I had to go through one of those scanners when I went on a trip this
    >> summer.



    > My condolences.


    It didn't kill me.. LOL

    >> It was a bit weird, but I didn't have strangers feeling me up,
    >> either.


    > So you got some radiation that may have a bad effect later.
    > Interesting.


    I'm guessing no more radiation than I have to deal with when I get a yearly
    bone density test.

    >> I think they succeeded in waking us all up for sure, but we aren't
    >> wearing
    >> burkas


    > Nice "argument by extremes".
    > <rolls eyes>


    Well .. it's still the truth. I'm not wearing a burka ...


    >> yet or kneeling down facing east at the threat of being killed
    >> if we
    >> don't comply, either. We still have a majority of our freedoms
    >> although
    >> some have been stomped on. I don't know of any other way to deal
    >> with such
    >> terror threats. Do you?


    > Same way people always did: have a spine and dont let them see you
    > sweat. "Terrorism" depends on one thing: scaring people. Stop acting
    > scared and they give up.


    There are too many people who are scared for that to work.


    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 31, 2010
    #18
  19. FromTheRafters <> pinched out a steaming pile
    of<ifj79q$dtc$-september.org>:

    >§nühw¤£f wrote:
    >> FromTheRafters wrote:
    >>> §nühw¤£f wrote:
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>> Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve
    >>> neither.
    >>>
    >>> No h<SLAP>
    >>>

    >> PPOSTFU, ****.
    >>

    >Nope, do y<SLAP>


    you're in no position to give orders here, punk.

    ^_^
    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
    cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
    _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
    / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
    _\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
    /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 31, 2010
    #19
  20. Jenn <> pinched out a steaming pile
    of<ifjcf8$qe6$-september.org>:

    >§nühw¤£f wrote:
    >> Jenn wrote:
    >>>> Well thats the rationale. Its bullshit though. Bin LAden replaced
    >>> the
    >>>> "Soviet Threat" and "Cold War".
    >>>> THe pentagon *needs* "bad guys" to justify their existence.

    >
    >
    >>> I don't believe, personally, that it's just BS... If it can happen
    >>> once, I
    >>> have no doubt it could happen again in some different industry here
    >>> in the
    >>> US.

    >
    >
    >> So, then we should have actual secure shipping ports isnted of what

    we
    >> have now: Security Kabuki THeater.

    >
    >Yeah That would be a great idea! imo ...
    >

    so wheres the politcal will to implement this blatantly obvious
    necessity?

    >
    >>> Who really believed before 9/11 that terrorists would do such a
    >>> thing?

    >
    >> The CIA :) And whoever authored that Presidential Daily Breifing

    dated
    >> august 18 2001 Titled "Bin LAden Determined to use aircraft to

    strike
    >> USA". That memo was deliverd to Bush. He failed to read it...or he
    >> didnt understand it. This is a verifiable fact which you may g00gle
    >> yourself :)

    >
    >Again ... who really believed it?
    >

    THE PEOPLE WHO AUTHORED THE MEMO?????????
    FFS! they did their job; bush -not so much.


    >
    >>> I know it never had crossed my mind before that day.

    >
    >> Is your job national security? If not, then I think you can give
    >> yourself a pass.

    >
    >naw .. lol I'm not national security! lol
    >
    >
    >>> My hope would be
    >>> that
    >>> we aren't ever attacked like that again, but I think that would

    just
    >>> be a
    >>> wish on my part at this point.

    >
    >
    >> They dont have to. The job has been done. All they need is to make a
    >> threat on the internets, we call it "chatter" and the trained
    >> Uhmurikin sheeple go nuts. Pavlov would be proud :)

    >
    >I guess they don't want to be found sleeping and not paying attention

    a 2nd
    >time.
    >

    uh...there was this attack on a ship...the USS COLE...and the bombing
    of the parking garage...same city...so 9-11 would be like the 3rd or
    4th time...at least...not to mention the attack on a US embassy in
    africa...IIRC...

    >
    >>>>> How do you propose we protect this country from more terrorist
    >>>>> attacks while
    >>>>> at the same time not stepping on any of our former freedoms?

    >
    >>>> Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve
    >>>> neither.

    >
    >>> Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with terrorists like we face

    today,
    >>> either.

    >
    >
    >> Indians had guns. English troops had guns. Killing happened back

    then,
    >> fyi.

    >
    >It did ...
    >
    >>> People who fought wars back then had a code of honor they fought

    by.
    >
    >
    >> Uhhhhhhhhh...wtf? You *do* realise WE won the war against the Brits
    >> via GUERILLA warfare methods, right???

    >
    >Did they use children as human shields?


    NOT THAT I KNOW OF...your point?
    we send drones into houses and kill indiscriminately in our secret war
    in pakistan.

    > Did they strap bombs to themselves
    >and blow themselves up in the middle of a civilian square? No.....
    >

    yer coming across as a true believer...


    >>> Terrorists today strap bombs onto children and use them as live
    >>> shields to
    >>> save their own hides. I can't imagine what Ben Franklin would say
    >>> today
    >>> about the world we live in now and how he'd solve our current
    >>> problems.

    >
    >
    >> He'd call us a bunch of pussies who dont deserve to fly the American
    >> flag.

    >
    >I seriously doubt that ... He was a patriot and he'd probably find a

    way to
    >rally the people together to fight for their freedoms... encourage

    them to
    >stand together.
    >

    really? thats whats lacking? sufficient patriotic "spirit"?
    jesus fucking christ...how simplistic.


    >
    >>>> Well the sheep submit to the abuse...
    >>>
    >>> I had to go through one of those scanners when I went on a trip

    this
    >>> summer.

    >
    >
    >> My condolences.

    >
    >It didn't kill me.. LOL
    >

    radiation isnt that healthy...

    >>> It was a bit weird, but I didn't have strangers feeling me up,
    >>> either.

    >
    >> So you got some radiation that may have a bad effect later.
    >> Interesting.

    >
    >I'm guessing no more radiation than I have to deal with when I get a

    yearly
    >bone density test.
    >

    so now its twice what you used to get?


    >>> I think they succeeded in waking us all up for sure, but we aren't
    >>> wearing
    >>> burkas

    >
    >> Nice "argument by extremes".
    >> <rolls eyes>

    >
    >Well .. it's still the truth. I'm not wearing a burka ...
    >

    <blink>
    are you a little retarded or what???

    >
    >>> yet or kneeling down facing east at the threat of being killed
    >>> if we
    >>> don't comply, either. We still have a majority of our freedoms
    >>> although
    >>> some have been stomped on. I don't know of any other way to deal
    >>> with such
    >>> terror threats. Do you?

    >
    >> Same way people always did: have a spine and dont let them see you
    >> sweat. "Terrorism" depends on one thing: scaring people. Stop acting
    >> scared and they give up.

    >
    >There are too many people who are scared for that to work.
    >

    if *you* represent the average intelligence of the average american,
    then yes. "we" prolly are too damn stupid & scared.
    if you want to educate yourself...and i'm not very optomistic about
    your chances in that lengthy endeavor...read this:
    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101229-separating-terror-terrorism



    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
    cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
    _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
    / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
    _\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
    /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 31, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Holmes

    Re: Wake up, sheeple.

    John Holmes, Nov 27, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    461
    Ferd Berfle
    Nov 28, 2010
  2. Meat Plow

    Re: Wake up, sheeple.

    Meat Plow, Nov 27, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    455
    Buffalo
    Nov 28, 2010
  3. NormanM

    Re: Pity the Sheeple

    NormanM, Dec 29, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    996
    NormanM
    Dec 29, 2010
  4. Jenn

    Re: Pity the Sheeple

    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,690
  5. Aardvark

    Re: Pity the Sheeple

    Aardvark, Dec 29, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    877
    Aardvark
    Dec 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page