rights vs. safety ...... are they really different?Follow

"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security ultimately will lose both"
- Abraham Lincoln


"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither."
- Thomas Jefferson


"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
- Benjamin Franklin




"Beware of the leader, who strikes the war drum in order to transfer the citizens into patriotic glow, patriotism is indeed a double-sided sword. It makes the blood so boldly, like it constricts the intellect. And if the striking of the war drum reached a fiebrige height and the blood is cooking and hating, and the intellect is dismissed, the leader doesn't need to reject the citizens rights. The citizens, cought by anxiety and blinded through patriotism, will subordinate all their rights to the leader and this even with happy courage. Why do I know that? I know it, because this is, what I did. And I am Gajus Julius Cäsar."



"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

-- Hermann Goering, a leading member of the **** party




The ***** set fire to thier own parliamentary building, the Reichtag Building, and blamed it on the Communists. Subsequently a state of national emergency was delcared and they passed the Enablling Act which gave Hitler full control of people's rights.



“Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond – whether real or promulgated – that threatened our very existence. It is then that all the peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished with the guarantee of their well-being, granted to them by their world government.”
— Henry Kissinger, at the Bilderberg Conference in Evians, France, 1991



"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."
- John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination




"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved."
- Benjamin Franklin



"Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The constitution of the united states is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of it's protection all classes of men, at all times, under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever created by the wit of man than that any of it's provisions can be suspended during any of the great exegencies of governemnt."
- Supreme Court Case Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1888)



"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177



"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
- U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442



"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
- U.S. Supreme Court Marbury v. Maidson, 2Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)




Thoughts, comments... ?



Edited, Sat Jun 3 13:33:01 2006 by Dronadesh

A saying may not proove anything, but a quote certainly can, depending on the quote and what you're trying to proove.

Ficksed

You're an ignorant ****, without a thought of your own.

Sure, I'll spell out in simple terms the implications of the quotes that I've strung together.

It's a historical fact that policital leaders who want to carry out thier hidden adjendas have used the fear of personal safety as leverage to get people to relinquish thier rights. Our own founding fathers have warned against the acceptance of this technique and there are legal precidents that gaurd against this manipulation of people's rights through the repression of constitutional provisions, whether in peace or in war or "during any of the great exegencies of governemnt."

It's blatantly obvious that the current Neo Conservative administration is using this tactic of instilling fear in people's minds in order to carry out thier stated purpose of dominating the world's resources and gaining full control as the world's super power. They used 9/11 as an excuse for the Patriot Act (the very name of which reeks of propaganda), to go to war with Iraq, and repeatedly use "national securety" in the "post 9/11 world" as an excuse to withhold large amounts of potentially incriminating evidence.

The Reichtag Fire shows that people have employed attacks within thier own country in order to justify a suppresion of people's rights and of dissenting voices. Kissinger's quote shows that a fake diversion hasn't been overlooked as a possibility within American politics (i.e. "This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond – whether real or promulgated – that threatened our very existence."). And JFK's quote indicates that a plot to strip people of thier freedom has been ongoing for some time. I say ongoing because he felt the need to reveal this fact before he left office.

I'm not saying that this information prooves that 9/11 was caused by our government, but I am saying that it prooves that 9/11 was potentially and even likely to have been orchistrated and executed (either directly or inderectly) by people who adhere to the Neo Conservative adjenda within our government and even if that's not the case they are monopolizing on it in a dangerous way.



Edited, Sat Jun 3 13:44:52 2006 by Dronadesh

What is an "adjenda?"

If only your paranoid delusions were as creative as your spelling!

Man, you're boring.

The utility in your post is in attempting to illuminate the lack of utility within my post.

The utility of my post is in communicating tendencies within our current government that are shown to be devisive and dangerous and indicate suspect behavior in relatioin to the 9/11 attacks.

However, I do consent to the observation that it's good to have a clear picture of what one's purpose is in posting something. The purpose of my appeal to thoughts and/or comments was to open up a discussion of the material I was posting. It seems that people wanted me to state my position in order to initiate a debate type discussion rather than having a general discussion about it. So in light of that I posted what I thought the quotes represented as far as evidence that could be debated.

So I think substance was there, I just think people might have had a hard time identifying it. (or had different opinions about the formal style in which to engage in forum discussions)

lol. ya, thanks for the clarification.

Now that we got all that out of the way, does anybody disagree with my interpretation of current affairs in light of this historical evidence? Does anyone have any additional information to add that might contradict or support my position?

Or perhaps you're all just satisfied with calling me a poossy, twaat, rugmuching transvestite with no balls.

there is relavancy in substantiating a motive for someone to commit a crime even before the evidence pertaining to the crime has been examined.

Edited, Sat Jun 3 22:13:21 2006 by Dronadesh

In the other post I was arguing that we should conduct an investigation. I didn't bring up Reischtag at all during the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, despite everyone's attempts to try to get me to offer evidence that the government commited the acts, we hadn't resolved the main topic of my post. That topic being whether or not an investigation was warented.

I would have continued the conversation however there was a question of 2 similar quotes that appeared to have been made in different contexts. The original quote was from United Press International and was no longer on thier page. I just recently got an email from them after inquiring about the article that I had seen multiple people quote. The representative of UPI directed me to an online database that should be carried in most public librarys so before I continue with that particular conversation (which I do intend to do) I need to double check my work and make sure that it's sound.

The only other substantial point that wasn't reliant on that piece of information and which pertained to the subject I was discussing was whether or not the FBI's investigation of 9/11 constituted an actual criminal investigation.

As far as I understand, that's where the subject ended as far as relevant posts are concerned.

Now in this particular case, I'm setting groundwork showing that there's historical precident that the 9/11 attacks could have been initiated by the neo cons (not based solely on Riechtag but also on JFK and Kissinger). Aside from that I'm also discussing the obvious tactics that the administration is using in it's domestic and foriegn politics (which evidently shows that the situation is very grave and should be taken seriously). So again, you're trying to jump into a topic that's different than what I'm discussing.



I find people saying all the time that this or that has been debunked. That debunking paper written by gravvy has flaws of it's own. And even if it had no flaws, that doesn't relieve you from the responsibility in quoting it, just as any evidence that I wish to cite I must quote as well. Then we can discuss the relevancy and validity of the evidence presented. So if there are any of the claims that I've just made that have been "debunked", please tell me why.

So I still fail to see how any of the points you brought up are relevant to the topic I'm discussing other than to say "We can't discuss any historical precidents pertaining to 9/11 being an inside job and other relevant information because all 9/11 evidence has been debunked".

Is that a fair overall assesment?

When both gbaji AND bodhi disagree with your position, you know you have reached the nadir of absolute failure.

OP, this is a make or break moment for you.

As has been pointed out, people who are normally at each others' throats are unified in their opposition to your position here. This should tell you something.

Bod's last point is very true.

I highly suggest you not just fire off some heated response. I suggest you take a day, calm down, and think about this. Pretend you didn't make your posts - pretend someone else did. Go back and read them dispassionately, and read what the others are telling you.

OP, I'm not trying to insult you. Maybe you're too emotionally bound to your opinion - I don't know. You really need to think deeply about your case and find where it's real merits are - you need to identify and answer the saliant points that have been directed against you - you can no longer attempt to dodge them - you're pinned.

Or you give this one up maybe.