Slippery Slope to tyranny

[ImWithStupid]

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

 

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET

 

 

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

 

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

 

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

 

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

 

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

 

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

 

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

 

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

 

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

 

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

 

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

 

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

 

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

 

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

 

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

 

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

 

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

 

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

 

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

 

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

 

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

 

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

 

 

http://www.investors...o-Tyranny-.aspx

[hugo]

Sowell is one of the greatest living Americans. Yes, Obama's extortion of BP is unconstitutional.

[timesjoke]

Of course it is unconstitutional, but I am sure a lot of veiled threats of criminal and personal civil litigation were tossed around to get BP to agree with it, if the victim agrees to wave their constitutional rights, then there is no violation.

 

 

 

The damage done by this administration so far is exactly why I pointed out the harms of splintering the vote on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Obama was elected because conservative minded people were stuck on the idea of what they called principle and withdrew their support from the only conservative who could have beaten Obama. But that is history, we can't change that mistake but we can learn from it, maybe we can learn from it, but we know for a fact that everything happening now was made possible by the splintering, I hope we don't keep making that mistake because if we do, what Obama is doing now will be considered nothing in comparison with what we will see down the road.

[hugo]

I think we must recognize that what made Obama possible is conservatives long time support of depriving minorities of equal protection under the law that has driven blacks from the party of Lincoln and is now on the verge of pushing hispanics into the liberal camp. The constitution applies to all.

[hugo]

The greatest attack on our Constitution in the last 200 years was the McCain/ Feingold Act. The Republicans nominated the co-sponsor for President and picked a bimbo communist as his running mate an wonder why they lost.

 

Palin: I think I can see Russia from here.

 

McCain: Shut the phuck up, ya dumb bitch.

[timesjoke]

lol, as usual more excuses for helping Obama get elected, but it is people like you and IWS who made it possible for Obama to win, you badmouth the only guy who can beat Obama and later complain when your badmouthing helped Obama beat McCain.

 

 

Lie all you want hugo, McCain and Palin would never have passed this kind of stuff, the problem with your desire to only vote for what "you see" as perfection is that you don't understand that perfection is impossible and while your sitting on your hands waiting for the impossible to show up, a lot of damage is caused..........Then you guys have the balls to complain about what Obama has done? You two made it happen, IWS did not even vote, my father always said those too cowardly to vote don't have a right to complain.

 

 

But go ahead, complain till your face turns blue, I am sure that brings you comfort even thoiugh you are part of the reason all of this has happened in the first place.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

If I could do it all again, I would never vote for a joke like mccain.

[timesjoke]

If I could do it all again, I would never vote for a joke like mccain.

And get the nightmare that is Obama instead.

 

 

No option is perfect, all choices in life have good and bad that go with them. I did not think McCain was a "great" choice, but I knew the alternative was Obama and the most radical left wing administration to ever exist. I hate voting for "the least of all evils" but we have to understand that by the time someone is well known enough to win a National election that person is not going to be "everything" we would love to have.

 

 

My choice was a 100% socialist in Obama, and a 70% conservative in McCain, to me the decision was easy, I will never knowingly help a pure socialist gain power, never.

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

Because of stuff like this:

 

 

Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to "unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.

 

The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.

 

"It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill -- that it's a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress," an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

 

In their letter, the senators -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- urge the president to "abandon" what they say is a move to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States."

 

"Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books," they wrote.

 

Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.

 

Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing "outrage" at the alleged plan.

 

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she's been hearing for weeks from "sources close to the Democratic leadership" in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant "amnesty" for all illegal immigrants in the country.

 

"They're trying to figure out ways around a vote," she said.

 

"Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism," reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign.

 

The White House has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn't grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers.

 

The purported discussions of a blanket amnesty come in the middle of several concurrent and heated debates over illegal immigration. The recently signed immigration law in Arizona has divided the country, with some states trying to replicate the state's tough legislation and other jurisdictions boycotting the state in protest. The Obama administration plans to file a court challenge.

 

Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to round up support for an overhaul bill in Congress, and the Interior Department is facing renewed criticism from Republican lawmakers over restrictions it places on Border Patrol officers policing the border on federal lands. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., shocked several Arizona residents last week when he told them that Obama had said he would not beef up border security because it would leave Republicans without an incentive to pass broader immigration reforms.

 

Jenks said the talks about Homeland Security allowing illegal immigrants to stay are "serious."

 

Under the law, immigration officials can grant deferred action to temporarily postpone removing an illegal immigrant from the country. That status does not offer a guarantee that they won't face deportation, but Jenks said illegal immigrants granted parole are often allowed to seek permanent legal status.

 

If a "Plan B" is being discussed, it's unclear how far along the talks might be. Another GOP Senate aide said the discussions started after Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in April to stop deportations of undocumented students who could earn legal status under a bill they introduced.

 

A Senate Democratic aide said the Obama administration never responded to the April letter.

 

 

"unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants?

 

 

Really?

 

 

And you believe voting for McCain was worse than this result?

[snafu]

I say we hang them all upside down until they explode on the liberty tree! Oopps can I say that? Never mind.... Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[eddo]

 

Lie all you want hugo, McCain and Palin would never have passed this kind of stuff,

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. McCain has flip flopped more than a college co-ed walking down the beach on spring break.

 

Dude got super soft during the election, and is now trying to pass his "I'm a tough guy" image again to win re-election in the state senate. I'm not buying it.

 

Just like Obama, he woulda swayed whichever way the wind blew him, and I think he woulda played the same kind of card Obama is now: barely on the job for a year, and already running for re-election...

[timesjoke]

 

Lie all you want hugo, McCain and Palin would never have passed this kind of stuff,

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. McCain has flip flopped more than a college co-ed walking down the beach on spring break.

 

Dude got super soft during the election, and is now trying to pass his "I'm a tough guy" image again to win re-election in the state senate. I'm not buying it.

 

Just like Obama, he woulda swayed whichever way the wind blew him, and I think he woulda played the same kind of card Obama is now: barely on the job for a year, and already running for re-election...

Obama does not go the way the wind blows, this is my point, if the same policies were attempted McCain would have backed down because the people stood up and complained, do you remember the amnesty bill McCain and even Bush got behind? That was one time I was completely pissed off at Bush, but the public spoke up and they backed off.

 

 

Obama does not do that, Obama does what he wants and screw the complaints.

 

 

That is why I can easily say we would never have stuff like this passed under McCain, everything from the so called stimulus bill to the new healthcare bill would never have happened under McCain, the many "czars" Obama has appointed to get around the confirmation process, and we certainly would not be seeing the race pimping that is currently going on with this administration....beer sumit to show support for a black guy who abuses cops but Obama refuses to deal with the border problems, none of this would be at issue if McCain had been elected.

 

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am sure "some" stuff would get passed that I would not like, but the scale of harm done by McCain would be easily fixed, what Obama is doing will not be fixed, do you think the healthcare bill will be overturned? If Obama does give blanket pardons to all illegals do you think that can be easily reversed? Once the horse gets out of the barn, it is too late to close the door.

[Anna Perenna]

 

"unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants?

 

Really?

 

 

Are you aware the climate change is going to cause the biggest global immigration crisis the world has ever seen?

 

Deny it all you like, argue the causes all you like - but the fact remains that many Pacific Island communities have already been displaced due to rising sea levels. The numbers of people and the different areas affected are just going to keep increasing.

 

The current estimates are that there will be between 200 and 700 million climate-induced refugees by 2050.

 

And since the USA and the EU are responsible for approximately 60% of CO2 emissions to date, they are the ones that are going to be pushed to take responsibility.

[Anna Perenna]

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

 

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET

 

 

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

 

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

 

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

 

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

 

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

 

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

 

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

 

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

 

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

 

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

 

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

 

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

 

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

 

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

 

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

 

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

 

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

 

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

 

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

 

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

 

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

 

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

 

 

http://www.investors...o-Tyranny-.aspx

 

No offense, but who cares?

 

Far more discussion-worthy topics include:

 

There is now a biohazardous mix of deep crude oil, methane, "corexit" and fire contaminating an area bigger than 6 and half thousand kilometres squared, and reaching 1500m deep.

 

Hundreds of animals have died cruel deaths.

 

They haven't figured out how to fix it, yet.

 

Our only hope at this point is Kevin Costner ......

[ImWithStupid]

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

 

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET

 

 

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

 

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

 

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

 

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

 

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

 

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

 

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

 

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

 

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

 

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

 

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

 

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

 

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

 

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

 

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

 

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

 

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

 

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

 

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

 

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

 

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

 

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

 

 

http://www.investors...o-Tyranny-.aspx

 

No offense, but who cares?

 

Far more discussion-worthy topics include:

 

There is now a biohazardous mix of deep crude oil, methane, "corexit" and fire contaminating an area bigger than 6 and half thousand kilometres squared, and reaching 1500m deep.

 

Hundreds of animals have died cruel deaths.

 

They haven't figured out how to fix it, yet.

 

Our only hope at this point is Kevin Costner ......

 

 

This just goes to show how much you don't get it. How you have never lived under liberty. How once you give up freedom to government, you never get it back.

 

The situation in the gulf will be handled. Contrary to what you absorb from Obama's media, this isn't even close to the worst spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not to say that anything and everything shouldn't be done to stop and contain the spill. The federal government in it's usual mode is negligent in it's handling of the clean up is hindering and stopping progress when it's obvious the White House has no plan.

 

The government using this crisis and every other real or manufactured crisis to take away those liberties, needs to stop.

 

This happened under the last administration, under the one before that, and under this one like it's on steroids.

 

You and Builder seem to only know the liberal media/White House talking points on anything dealing with the US.

 

Whatever. That's why I don't respond to either of you often when you regurgitate what's been fed to you in the media or Builder citing something that happened 5 or 10 years ago, and was media spin then, when it happened, because it's obvious you both don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to the truth about US domestic policy and little about it's foreign policy. (just because it's said a hundred times by the MSM, doesn't make it true)

 

Take illegal immigration, when your own country shares a border with a 3rd world nation where it's people can just walk over by the thousands every day, we'll talk.

 

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day. You bitch about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

 

As for you and Builder's comments about us being illegal immigrants from Europe (as I've stated I actually have Native American heritage) that somehow we have no rights to our nation, I didn't realize you both were Aboriginies and should point your finger at your own nations history. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/abor.html

 

As far as Costner, he and hundreds of other people, corporations, and countries have been offering their devices and services since April, but this Obama, federal government has been sitting on it's hands, hoping none of this oil gets on it's hands, while complaining and posturing for your liberal media and after weeks of oil spilling, back room briefings, war planning finally force fed you the talking points you so much believe that they were on this from day one.

 

Back to my original point. If you aren't willing to fight for liberty, what's the point of fighting.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

[builder]

 

 

This just goes to show how much you don't get it. How you have never lived under liberty. How once you give up freedom to government, you never get it back.

 

What the fudd are you talking about dude? Never lived under liberty? What the??

 

The situation in the gulf will be handled. Contrary to what you absorb from Obama's media, this isn't even close to the worst spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not to say that anything and everything shouldn't be done to stop and contain the spill.

 

That's what we've been saying. Oh, and we had a rather serious spill on the east coast of OZ last year. Even washed the sh t out of the sand. Pretty impressive, huh?

 

The federal government in it's usual mode is negligent in it's handling of the clean up is hindering and stopping progress when it's obvious the White House has no plan.

 

So the "federal gov" and the White House are two separate entities now?

 

The government using this crisis and every other real or manufactured crisis to take away those liberties, needs to stop.

 

So, what "liberties" are they trying to take away because a foreign national spilled shitloads of oil on your pristine wetlands?

 

This happened under the last administration, under the one before that, and under this one like it's on steroids.

 

Meaning the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" is being taken out from under you? And both sides of the fence are responsible for this erosion of human rights and the value of life as an American citizen?

 

You and Builder seem to only know the liberal media/White House talking points on anything dealing with the US.

 

Listen in buddy. I had not entered into this discussion, but you dragged me into it by including my in this misguided rant. You've pretty much had this forum to yourself for months on end, posting your anti obama propaganda, and now you have some naysaysers on the board, and you drop your bundle, lump us in together, when I haven't had a single online chat with Anna in over three years. So don't be making assumptions that we are ganging up on you, because that would just be paranoia verging on schizophrenia. Get some meds man.

 

Whatever. That's why I don't respond to either of you often when you regurgitate what's been fed to you in the media or Builder citing something that happened 5 or 10 years ago, and was media spin then, when it happened, because it's obvious you both don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to the truth about US domestic policy and little about it's foreign policy. (just because it's said a hundred times by the MSM, doesn't make it true)

 

What the fudd is MSM? I haven't had a television for four years, nor an internet connection for three years. If you're not happy to have your political viewpoints dissected and attacked on an internet site, whether you're the "Super Moderator" or not, don't be flooding the fukking board with your kneejerk crapola. I'll be all over it otherwise.

 

Take illegal immigration, when your own country shares a border with a 3rd world nation where it's people can just walk over by the thousands every day, we'll talk.

 

That's the bonus of having no borders, I guess. We got lucky. You lucked out.

 

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day.

 

You have a source for that claim?

 

 

You bitch about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

 

I wouldn't have a fukking clue what the Arizona law is. But I know for certain that we don't send our asylum seekers to the US of A. That is fukking preposterous, dude. Once again, what is your source for this claim?

 

As for you and Builder's comments about us being illegal immigrants from Europe (as I've stated I actually have Native American heritage) that somehow we have no rights to our nation, I didn't realize you both were Aboriginies and should point your finger at your own nations history.

 

And I'm as black as the ace of spades. I believe Mariah Carey claimed she was licked with the tar brush too. Probably sold a few hundred thousand records off that claim.

 

It would appear that the humour we loved on the old GF boards is no more. We were responding to TJ, and you took affront? Man, get your head around this...wise up and harden the fukk up. You're supposed to be the Super Moderator, meaning you don't get involved in other people's skirmishes. So why'd you drag me into this one? Huh?

 

 

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/abor.html

 

As far as Costner, he and hundreds of other people, corporations, and countries have been offering their devices and services since April, but this Obama, federal government has been sitting on it's hands, hoping none of this oil gets on it's hands, while complaining and posturing for your liberal media

 

Our media is not liberal, and I wouldn't have a fukking clue what Costner is up to. I don't watch tv full stop. I do know that when people were getting raped and sodomised after hurricane Katrina, your repub prez did jack shite, so don't be thinking we don't remember how the great country of America looks after their own in a crisis.

 

Embrace your capitalism.

 

Don't expect it to save your arse.

 

and after weeks of oil spilling, back room briefings, war planning finally force fed you the talking points you so much believe that they were on this from day one.

 

Your executive branch is in charge of emergency response now? What about the national guard? Are they all off fighting wars for oil or opium?

 

Back to my original point. If you aren't willing to fight for liberty, what's the point of fighting.

 

So you're incarcerated? Can I post you a cake with a hacksaw blade in it?

[ImWithStupid]

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day.

 

You have a source for that claim?

 

 

You bitch about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

 

I wouldn't have a fukking clue what the Arizona law is. But I know for certain that we don't send our asylum seekers to the US of A. That is fukking preposterous, dude. Once again, what is your source for this claim?

 

 

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

 

http://jonjayray.wor...ion-poll-finds/

 

http://refugeeresett...gal-immigrants/

[builder]

From your third link:

 

"Instead, after a month aboard the Oceanic Viking, they ended up in a detention center in the Indonesian port of Tanjung Pinang, where the United Nations refugee agency looked for places that would take them in. The United States accepted 28 refugees, granting them permanent legal residency in the country. Others were sent to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Europe. Those heading to North America spent several weeks waiting in a refugee camp in Romania, a transit point where international organizations determined their final destination."

 

You big-hearted bastards.

[builder]

So they all came to stay at your place IWS?

 

All twenty-eight of them? :P

 

Late edit: and like I said, Australia didn't send them anywhere, the UN refugee agency sent them via some country just like we process them.

[hugo]

No offense, but who cares?

 

To answer Anna's question not many American's give a damn about the Constitution except for when it agrees with their agenda.

 

I want to answer why people should care. It is the Constitution which guarantees our civil liberties. Without it there is no protection of government abusing its' citizens as has been the rule, rather than the exception, since man first started engaging in agriculture.

 

This unconstitutional action ain't cleaning up a single pelican or a single grain of sand. It was simply a political machination so Obama shows he is doing something. Get to work. The feds can get in line on BP's list of creditors.

[ImWithStupid]

No offense, but who cares?

 

To answer Anna's question not many American's give a damn about the Constitution except for when it agrees with their agenda.

 

I want to answer why people should care. It is the Constitution which guarantees our civil liberties. Without it there is no protection of government abusing its' citizens as has been the rule, rather than the exception, since man first started engaging in agriculture.

 

This unconstitutional action ain't cleaning up a single pelican or a single grain of sand. It was simply a political machination so Obama shows he is doing something. Get to work. The feds can get in line on BP's list of creditors.

 

And a way for this administration to get it's hands on another slush fund to pay back unions.

[hugo]

No offense, but who cares?

 

To answer Anna's question not many American's give a damn about the Constitution except for when it agrees with their agenda.

 

I want to answer why people should care. It is the Constitution which guarantees our civil liberties. Without it there is no protection of government abusing its' citizens as has been the rule, rather than the exception, since man first started engaging in agriculture.

 

This unconstitutional action ain't cleaning up a single pelican or a single grain of sand. It was simply a political machination so Obama shows he is doing something. Get to work. The feds can get in line on BP's list of creditors.

 

And a way for this administration to get it's hands on another slush fund to pay back unions.

Most of the shrimpers I have met ain't the type of people Obama will hand out goodies to.

[Anna Perenna]

No offense, but who cares?

 

To answer Anna's question not many American's give a damn about the Constitution except for when it agrees with their agenda.

 

I want to answer why people should care. It is the Constitution which guarantees our civil liberties. Without it there is no protection of government abusing its' citizens as has been the rule, rather than the exception, since man first started engaging in agriculture.

 

This unconstitutional action ain't cleaning up a single pelican or a single grain of sand. It was simply a political machination so Obama shows he is doing something. Get to work. The feds can get in line on BP's list of creditors.

 

I think BP should have to clean up it's own mess - I'm in no way arguing that point.

 

What I'm tired of is some people's focus on taking every opportunity, no matter how distasteful, to blame Obama & the government.

 

There are obviously far bigger, more worrying issues to think about here.

[Anna Perenna]

No offense, but who cares?

 

Far more discussion-worthy topics include:

 

There is now a biohazardous mix of deep crude oil, methane, "corexit" and fire contaminating an area bigger than 6 and half thousand kilometres squared, and reaching 1500m deep.

 

Hundreds of animals have died cruel deaths.

 

They haven't figured out how to fix it, yet.

 

Our only hope at this point is Kevin Costner ......

 

Above, I have merely pointed out four factoids that I feel are more worthy of discussion.

 

This has caused an over the top, angry knee-jerk reaction from IWS, filled with baseless assumptions. He imagines I've written and felt and done so many things that I have never actually written, or felt, or done.

 

Is he crazy? Or does he deliberately misinterpret everything I write, because I dare to challenge his views? I'm not going to assume the latter, but it's certainly starting to look that way.

 

I have highlighted the baseless assumptions in his spiel below:

 

 

This just goes to show how much you don't get it. How you have never lived under liberty. How once you give up freedom to government, you never get it back.

 

The situation in the gulf will be handled. Contrary to what you absorb from Obama's media, this isn't even close to the worst spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not to say that anything and everything shouldn't be done to stop and contain the spill. The federal government in it's usual mode is negligent in it's handling of the clean up is hindering and stopping progress when it's obvious the White House has no plan.

 

The government using this crisis and every other real or manufactured crisis to take away those liberties, needs to stop.

 

This happened under the last administration, under the one before that, and under this one like it's on steroids.

 

You and Builder seem to only know the liberal media/White House talking points on anything dealing with the US.

 

Whatever. That's why I don't respond to either of you often when you regurgitate what's been fed to you in the media or Builder citing something that happened 5 or 10 years ago, and was media spin then, when it happened, because it's obvious you both don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to the truth about US domestic policy and little about it's foreign policy. (just because it's said a hundred times by the MSM, doesn't make it true)

 

Take illegal immigration, when your own country shares a border with a 3rd world nation where it's people can just walk over by the thousands every day, we'll talk.

 

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day. You bitch about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

 

As for you and Builder's comments about us being illegal immigrants from Europe (as I've stated I actually have Native American heritage) that somehow we have no rights to our nation, I didn't realize you both were Aboriginies and should point your finger at your own nations history. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/abor.html

 

As far as Costner, he and hundreds of other people, corporations, and countries have been offering their devices and services since April, but this Obama, federal government has been sitting on it's hands, hoping none of this oil gets on it's hands, while complaining and posturing for your liberal media and after weeks of oil spilling, back room briefings, war planning finally force fed you the talking points you so much believe that they were on this from day one.

 

Back to my original point. If you aren't willing to fight for liberty, what's the point of fighting.

 

 

IWS - you do nothing to convince me, as per usual.

 

p.s. You're a moderator on a DEBATE FORUM. You might want to learn how to make a factual argument without flying off the handle.

[Anna Perenna]

 

 

This just goes to show how much you don't get it. How you have never lived under liberty. How once you give up freedom to government, you never get it back.

 

What the fudd are you talking about dude? Never lived under liberty? What the??

 

The situation in the gulf will be handled. Contrary to what you absorb from Obama's media, this isn't even close to the worst spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not to say that anything and everything shouldn't be done to stop and contain the spill.

 

That's what we've been saying. Oh, and we had a rather serious spill on the east coast of OZ last year. Even washed the sh t out of the sand. Pretty impressive, huh?

 

The federal government in it's usual mode is negligent in it's handling of the clean up is hindering and stopping progress when it's obvious the White House has no plan.

 

So the "federal gov" and the White House are two separate entities now?

 

The government using this crisis and every other real or manufactured crisis to take away those liberties, needs to stop.

 

So, what "liberties" are they trying to take away because a foreign national spilled shitloads of oil on your pristine wetlands?

 

This happened under the last administration, under the one before that, and under this one like it's on steroids.

 

Meaning the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" is being taken out from under you? And both sides of the fence are responsible for this erosion of human rights and the value of life as an American citizen?

 

You and Builder seem to only know the liberal media/White House talking points on anything dealing with the US.

 

Listen in buddy. I had not entered into this discussion, but you dragged me into it by including my in this misguided rant. You've pretty much had this forum to yourself for months on end, posting your anti obama propaganda, and now you have some naysaysers on the board, and you drop your bundle, lump us in together, when I haven't had a single online chat with Anna in over three years. So don't be making assumptions that we are ganging up on you, because that would just be paranoia verging on schizophrenia. Get some meds man.

 

Whatever. That's why I don't respond to either of you often when you regurgitate what's been fed to you in the media or Builder citing something that happened 5 or 10 years ago, and was media spin then, when it happened, because it's obvious you both don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to the truth about US domestic policy and little about it's foreign policy. (just because it's said a hundred times by the MSM, doesn't make it true)

 

What the fudd is MSM? I haven't had a television for four years, nor an internet connection for three years. If you're not happy to have your political viewpoints dissected and attacked on an internet site, whether you're the "Super Moderator" or not, don't be flooding the fukking board with your kneejerk crapola. I'll be all over it otherwise.

 

Take illegal immigration, when your own country shares a border with a 3rd world nation where it's people can just walk over by the thousands every day, we'll talk.

 

That's the bonus of having no borders, I guess. We got lucky. You lucked out.

 

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day.

 

You have a source for that claim?

 

 

You bitch about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

 

I wouldn't have a fukking clue what the Arizona law is. But I know for certain that we don't send our asylum seekers to the US of A. That is fukking preposterous, dude. Once again, what is your source for this claim?

 

As for you and Builder's comments about us being illegal immigrants from Europe (as I've stated I actually have Native American heritage) that somehow we have no rights to our nation, I didn't realize you both were Aboriginies and should point your finger at your own nations history.

 

And I'm as black as the ace of spades. I believe Mariah Carey claimed she was licked with the tar brush too. Probably sold a few hundred thousand records off that claim.

 

It would appear that the humour we loved on the old GF boards is no more. We were responding to TJ, and you took affront? Man, get your head around this...wise up and harden the fukk up. You're supposed to be the Super Moderator, meaning you don't get involved in other people's skirmishes. So why'd you drag me into this one? Huh?

 

 

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/abor.html

 

As far as Costner, he and hundreds of other people, corporations, and countries have been offering their devices and services since April, but this Obama, federal government has been sitting on it's hands, hoping none of this oil gets on it's hands, while complaining and posturing for your liberal media

 

Our media is not liberal, and I wouldn't have a fukking clue what Costner is up to. I don't watch tv full stop. I do know that when people were getting raped and sodomised after hurricane Katrina, your repub prez did jack shite, so don't be thinking we don't remember how the great country of America looks after their own in a crisis.

 

Embrace your capitalism.

 

Don't expect it to save your arse.

 

and after weeks of oil spilling, back room briefings, war planning finally force fed you the talking points you so much believe that they were on this from day one.

 

Your executive branch is in charge of emergency response now? What about the national guard? Are they all off fighting wars for oil or opium?

 

Back to my original point. If you aren't willing to fight for liberty, what's the point of fighting.

 

So you're incarcerated? Can I post you a cake with a hacksaw blade in it?

 

Hehehehe. Go Builder!

 

I'm laughing at the way IWS chose to respond to ONE question, and one of his links ended up contradicting him.

 

Reminds me of this article:

 

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1803025

[ImWithStupid]

Hehehehe. Go Builder!

 

I'm laughing at the way IWS chose to respond to ONE question, and one of his links ended up contradicting him.

 

Reminds me of this article:

 

http://www.collegehu...article:1803025

 

And now you know how stoopid you all sound, commenting on the US and it's domestic and foreign policies.

 

I have always thought of Australia as a wonderful nation that I would love to visit if only I had the means.

 

Sadly though, if everyone there is as judgmental and misinformed of the political and cultural situations of the US and I presume, other nations, as Anna and Builder appear to be, I'm not sure I want to.