Thanks. Now plug the words into your own link
On Jun 2, 4:37 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > I forgot to post the following link: > > http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters > > On 06/02/2011 12:57 PM, GregfromBoston wrote: > > > > > 1828. > > > Thanks. > > > Yikes > > > On Jun 2, 2:08 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Webster's dictionary - 1828. > > >> On 06/02/2011 10:31 AM, GregfromBoston wrote: > > >>> Where did you get those???? > >>> On Jun 2, 1:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> You cannot have freedom if you rely on government. The two terms > >>>> contradict each other. > >>>> FREEDOM, n. 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of > >>>> another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. > >>>> GOVERNMENT, n. 1. Control; restraint. > >>>> On 06/02/2011 10:00 AM, GregfromBoston wrote: > >>>>> Uhm, pretty much THE job description of the government > >>>>> "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote > >>>>> the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves > >>>>> and our Posterity" > >>>>> On Jun 2, 12:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> You don't have freedom if you reply on government to protect you. > >>>>>> On 06/02/2011 09:10 AM, plainolamerican wrote: > >>>>>>> one day enough people will finally > >>>>>>> be fed up enough that we will take our freedom back > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> you don't have freedoms that you can't protect > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:00 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> *The Patriot Act, Fox News, the TSA and Feeling Less Free* > >>>>>>>> 1 June 2011 by Szandor Blestman > >>>>>>>> The Patriot Act, in my opinion, has been one of the most egregious, > >>>>>>>> liberty violating acts that has ever been passed by congress. It was > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> knee jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It is so huge and was passed > >>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>> quickly after that event that any thinking person must realize it > >>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>> be written well before the attacks took place, was waiting for just > >>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>> an attack so it could be introduced, and could not have possibly been > >>>>>>>> read and its implications understood by anyone who voted for it. I > >>>>>>>> doubt > >>>>>>>> very much that any congress critter has yet to read it in its > >>>>>>>> entirety. > >>>>>>>> Here it is almost ten years later and it still sullies the political > >>>>>>>> landscape of this once great republic. > >>>>>>>> It seems that most common folk don't fully understand what the > >>>>>>>> Patriot > >>>>>>>> Act truly is. If the polls are to be believed (I personally don't > >>>>>>>> trust > >>>>>>>> most polls) then they seem to think that the Patriot Act has somehow > >>>>>>>> made our nation more secure. They seem to believe the propaganda > >>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>> spewed forth from corporate establishment media giants that the > >>>>>>>> Patriot > >>>>>>>> Act has done its job and protected us. Yet it wasn't the Patriot Act > >>>>>>>> that stopped the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber, it was the > >>>>>>>> passengers themselves. And every time a plot is reported foiled, it > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> later determined that the plot only occurred because some federal > >>>>>>>> security agency or another helped it along. So one might wonder, if > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Patriot Act has been doing its job, will they finally get rid of it > >>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>> it fails and another terrorist event occurs? I doubt that very much. > >>>>>>>> That's too much like hoping that once Osama Bin Laden is finally and > >>>>>>>> officially killed in some special forces raid that the wars of > >>>>>>>> occupation will end and our troops will come home. > >>>>>>>> Recently, three of the most soviet like, Big Brother type provisions > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> the Patriot Act were set to expire. Congress didn't want to deal with > >>>>>>>> them earlier in the year, likely because they were worried about > >>>>>>>> backlash. The Senate did what they so often do, put off the vote > >>>>>>>> until > >>>>>>>> the last minute and then rushed the legislation through without > >>>>>>>> proper > >>>>>>>> debate because they don't want the legislation scrutinized. They > >>>>>>>> passed > >>>>>>>> a four year extension on this monstrosity complete with its most > >>>>>>>> controversial provisions because, in my humble opinion, they don't > >>>>>>>> want > >>>>>>>> to give up power and they'd love to be able to arrest their political > >>>>>>>> adversaries should push come to shove. > >>>>>>>> Rand Paul, the freshman senator from Kentucky, was the only one who > >>>>>>>> stood up to this abuse of power. He was the only one who questioned > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> power of the party leadership, on both sides of the aisle. He merely > >>>>>>>> asked for a debate on introducing amendments meant to protect > >>>>>>>> freedoms > >>>>>>>> we as Americans are supposed to enjoy. For all his efforts he was > >>>>>>>> excoriated by the establishment for not following like a sheep > >>>>>>>> instead > >>>>>>>> of applauded for his stand and his most American individualist > >>>>>>>> ideals. > >>>>>>>> Now, I'm not one to watch corporate television news programs, but I > >>>>>>>> came > >>>>>>>> across a Fox program with a bunch of talking heads discussing this > >>>>>>>> issue. I was appalled to hear them more or less condoning a police > >>>>>>>> state > >>>>>>>> in our nation. They are taking a thousand years of struggle against > >>>>>>>> authoritarianism and throwing it away, defending a doctrine that > >>>>>>>> allows > >>>>>>>> government agents to spy on people going about their daily business > >>>>>>>> without just cause. They are defending a doctrine that claims > >>>>>>>> everyone > >>>>>>>> is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. It was this kind > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> tyranny that the founding fathers fought against. This kind of > >>>>>>>> tyranny > >>>>>>>> led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. This kind of > >>>>>>>> tyranny was the reason they included the Bill of Rights in the > >>>>>>>> constitution. The Patriot Act is as un-American, fascist, > >>>>>>>> soviet-esque > >>>>>>>> and unpatriotic as it gets. It violates the natural rights of > >>>>>>>> individuals in almost every way they can be violated and yet these > >>>>>>>> men > >>>>>>>> continue to support it without so much as batting an eye, and then > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>> call Rand Paul extreme. To them, the senator from Kentucky is extreme > >>>>>>>> because he values the principles America was founded upon. One can > >>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>> assume they consider all individualists, constitutionalists, > >>>>>>>> libertarians and anyone who wants a smaller, more accountable federal > >>>>>>>> government as extreme. To them, an extremist is one who challenges > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> supremacy of their corporate masters. > >>>>>>>> One of the most remarkable statements came from Charles Krauthammer. > >>>>>>>> He > >>>>>>>> claimed that all those warnings about America becoming a police state > >>>>>>>> didn't pan out. Has he been living under a rock for the last ten > >>>>>>>> years? > >>>>>>>> He asked something along the line of is their anyone who thinks their > >>>>>>>> freedoms have been curtailed? He suggested that he hadn't heard of > >>>>>>>> anyone who felt that way. Well, I for one feel that way, Mr. > >>>>>>>> Krauthammer, so now you have heard of someone. > >>>>>>>> How about all those people who are subjected to naked body scanners > >>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>> the airports and TSA gropings? Do you think they might feel a little > >>>>>>>> less free? I know that I'd like to feel like I could fly places, but > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> don't want to subject myself to their intrusions. I seem to recall > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> others have even protested against such measures. How could you call > >>>>>>>> that anything but a police state provision? It is the Patriot Act > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> has given us the TSA, and now they're coming out of the airports and > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> soon to be seen on a street, in a mall, or at a prom dance near you. > >>>>>>>> They needed to do more than just debate amendments to the Patriot > >>>>>>>> Act, > >>>>>>>> they need to repeal the entire bill. > >>>>>>>> How about the checkpoints that are popping up, especially in border > >>>>>>>> states? Do you think that the people who have to pass through them > >>>>>>>> feel > >>>>>>>> less free? Do you think that they might start to have an inkling that > >>>>>>>> something has gone wrong and this is no longer the free nation it has > >>>>>>>> been claimed to be? How about all those people who want to drink raw > >>>>>>>> milk? Do you think they feel less free when the Feds tell them they > >>>>>>>> can't decide for themselves what to put in their own bodies? How > >>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>> the peaceful Amish, do you think they might feel less free when their > >>>>>>>> farms are raided by SWAT teams for selling the milk others ask for? > >>>>>>>> How > >>>>>>>> about the dancers at the Jefferson Memorial? Do you think they might > >>>>>>>> feel a little less free as they were handcuffed for prancing around a > >>>>>>>> little or gently swaying in place? These are things that have all > >>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>> normalized because of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. It is > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> federal government that has become extreme. It is they who are > >>>>>>>> cracking > >>>>>>>> down on peaceful individuals and restricting normal human activity > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>> should have no business even caring about. > >>>>>>>> Do you like the fact that FBI agents can now write their own warrants > >>>>>>>> without having to so much as show a judge probable cause, just like > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> king's men were able to do in the 1700s? Do you like the fact that > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>> can break into anyone's home they want when no one's home and steal > >>>>>>>> whatever they wish without a warrant, simply on a suspicion, and not > >>>>>>>> have to be accountable to anyone? Do you think it's ok that they can > >>>>>>>> proclaim someone an enemy combatant at anytime they wish and hold > >>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>> indefinitely without a trial? Do you believe that I'm a little > >>>>>>>> extreme > >>>>>>>> for mentioning such provisions and that your government would never > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>> such things? The Patriot Act grants government agents the legal > >>>>>>>> authority to take such actions, and when someone has such power it is > >>>>>>>> only a matter of time before that power is abused and some innocent > >>>>>>>> individuals suffer because of that abuse. Besides, just because you > >>>>>>>> may > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
