STOP THE LIE   

Irreconcilable differences

This is the LONG version of a conversation I had with a woman between May 19 and June 12 of 2009.  It covers many issues...guns, gays, drugs, abortion, god, religion, government officials who violate legislative law, government policies that violate natural law, etc.

 

I'm posting this with hope it provides some insight into the meaning of true "Liberty" ...or, at the very least, my take on what that word means. 

 

In the first couple instances below,  I've summarized the other person's words (to protect her privacy.)

...And we begin: 

 

  • Summary of what she wrote: Somebody close to me wants to join the FBI. 

 

My Reply: Regarding your friend joining the FBI, you might want to send her to my website. I just posted this page today (about the FBI / CIA.) 

http://joeplummer.com/disinfo_in_the_media.html

If she is planning on joining the agency, she might want to know some of this stuff "going in." (Somehow I don't think she's going to hear it from them.)

 

  • Summary of what she wrote: It's important for people to think for themselves...I wish people would teach their kids not to follow blindly. 

 

Summary of my reply: I agree. It's great that you're teaching your kids to be skeptical / think for themselves. People have to be honest and there is no room for honesty when you're taught blind obedience. Regarding the FBI, here is another pretty upsetting story that I posted a while back. (Press play and wait until the 30-second ad is over.) 

  • She wrote: I'm sure there is much more information on all of this then we will ever hear but just because some FBI agents didn't follow the law the way they should have, doesn't mean all FBI agents are bad or the FBI as a whole. 

    There are good and bad people regardless what profession you chose, even priest have proven over and over again that just because they say they serve God, does not mean they aren't serving their own disgusting pleasure first.

    The world/people are not perfect, to expect it to be, will only leave you disappointed.


My Reply: <<"just because some FBI agents didn't follow the law the way they should have, doesn't mean all FBI agents are bad or the FBI as a whole.">>

I agree that it doesn't mean that all FBI agents are bad (anymore than all CIA agents are bad because some have engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder of innocent people.) 

The problem is the people who head these institutions tend to be very dishonest "I'm above the law" types. They don't respect the law or our democratic process AT ALL. They decide what they think is best and then they lie, cheat, steal, bribe, threaten, murder, maim, manipulate (etc) to achieve their objectives. 

I know a great deal about this because I've spent the past 6 years studying the "ruling class" that hides behind the facade most people THINK exists at the top. My next book will cover some of the worst abuses. 

Keep in mind, this wasn't just some rogue FBI agent...we're talking about the HEAD of the FBI (J. Edgar Hoover) and many more of the "higher ups." The fact that many of the people beneath this higher ring of power were "good" cannot protect the innocent because if anyone tried to challenge what the head of the organization ordered, there would be major reprisals. (Those who challenge, especially if they pose a legitimate threat, become the enemy and are treated as such.) 

Again, I don't think all people who serve in government are evil. But they are all dependent on the government for their paycheck, their promotions and their retirement. In all but the most extreme cases, this acts as a barrier to "poking around" in the business of those within the organization that are "more powerful" than they are.

You wind up with a destructive system where those willing to "accept" what goes on at the top RISE to the top, those who are not willing to accept or participate in the corruption resign or are "boxed up" in a place where they're out of the loop. 

I respect your friend for wanting to protect people from criminals. Hell, I'm trying to do the same thing. (I'm trying to expose the WORST among us...those who hold and abuse their positions of power.) We're just going about it in different ways. 

We need truly good people in these organizations. I just think it's important for them to know, prior to going in, what maintaining their integrity might cost them.
 

  • She wrote: This is all very interesting, I need to take it all in and process it. I know that there are corrupt cops right here...and it pisses me off beyond belief because they're getting away with stuff and everyone just turns a blind eye. 

    To be honest and be in law enforcement will be difficult, I have no doubt, plus being female won't help although they've come a long way, still (my friend) has encounter some resistance with the guys in her class, not wanting to obey her even if she is the Captain of the class, she puts them in their place, she's a tough cookie :)

    I'm too beat to think right now, did the (charity) walk and then mopped my house. I will read more of what you've written when I get time, I like to know as much information as I can, not only from you but other sources as well.


My Reply: <<"I like to know as much information as I can, not only from you but other sources as well.">>

Absolutely. 

People (unfortunately) have been conditioned to let others "do their reasoning for them." That's one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in today. I'm immediately distrustful of anyone who attempts to discourage questioning or verifying what they say.
 

  • She wrote: Okay, I've had a little time to think. 

    You're going to spend all your life looking into flaws with the government, FBI, CIA et...and there will still be many life times worth of misconduct that will never be made public and things you will never be able to do anything about.

    Kudo's to you if you are able to make a change, even a small one.

    On a side note, I saw you had an article about the federal reserve, did a little search (nothing major) but discovered that 80% of our money is tainted with cocaine. I thought that was kind of a neat little fact, one I was not aware of.

    My understanding with regards to the CIA and the FBI. It is much easier to get into the CIA and if you have no morals whatsoEVER you'll fit in beautifully, the FBI is a bit different in that regard. FBI will not send you out to do a hit on someone just because, but the CIA will.

    I am sure you are aware of what you need to do just to be accepted into the FBI and all the back ground checks they'll do not only on the person who is applying but on family members as well. 

    In fact, just typing out FBI too many times has me a bit on edge that I might be sending out some signal to headquarters causing them to start reading what I'm writing *EEEEK* 

    If you haven't checked out the FBI site, which I'd be surprised if you hadn't, it's rather interesting as well.

    OH and here's something else you might find interesting, Gavin DeBecker, check him out. Smart man.

    https://www.gavindebecker.com/index.cfm

    Off to a play now, life is never dull for me! Have a great evening


My Reply: <<"You're going to spend all your life looking into flaws with the government, FBI, CIA et...and there will still be many life times worth of misconduct that will never be made public and things you will never be able to do anything about.">>

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'd prefer something like: I'm going to spend my time resisting / exposing criminals who gain power and then use their power against the very people they claim to be "protecting." (...I'm not capable of "turning a blind eye" as you put it.) 

Regarding the Federal Reserve System, I wrote a book on the topic. I'd offer you a free copy, but I gather by your "can't do anything about it" comment that you wouldn't consider reading it worth the time. (If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll send one out. It's also available at Amazon.com under the title "Dishonest Money" if you're interested in reading the reviews.) 

Hope you enjoy your play. 
 

  • She wrote (in part): They do say it only takes one man to make a difference, I was being negative and I apologize, it's the skeptic in me, it doesn't mean I don't believe things can change, I just think the wheels of justice move very slowly.

    I would be interested in reading your book, I'll see if I can get it at borders (I get lots of coupons from them, it pays to get emails sometimes) and if not I will just order it, you don't have to send it for free, writing isn't easy and you've earned my money just for doing it.

    My husband does research so I know how difficult it can be to write.

    Saying you're not capable of turning a blind eye makes me think you must be a skeptic or lack religion, if not I would be interested to hear why you would have a religious belief, when faith is a blind belief in a greater being.

    What made you decide to look into the government like this? You probably explained it on your webiste but there's a lot to read and I haven't gotten through even half of it yet.


My Reply: <<"I was being negative and I apologize">>

No problem Kathy. I appreciate both the "negative" response and the follow up. 

<<"My husband does research so I know how difficult it can be to write.">>

Ya, about the only thing I can say to people who act like reading is a chore is: "You think it's hard to read a couple hundred pages, you should try writing them! :-)

<<"Saying you're not capable of turning a blind eye makes me think you must be a skeptic or lack religion">>

Here is something I wrote a while back concerning the Bible: "I don't believe the Bible is anything more than another control mechanism created by man. Like any form of "government" it relies on fear, lies, and manipulation to control the minds of its adherents." 

That said, it does NOT mean I don't believe in an underlying "universal" awareness that far exceeds our understanding. I don't see it as "the man in the sky." ...More, I see it as a system that we are all a small part of. 

A definition of "God" that I came up with years ago: "The collective knowledge and power of ALL energy combined..."living" and otherwise." (On this tiny planet and throughout the immeasurable universe.) 

Taken as a seamless whole, you'd wind up with something that contains and constitutes the "TRUTH" of how it all works. This truth, in my view, equals "God."

Regarding the government, it's a long story. Suffice to say, I started paying attention and noticed that they lie...that made me start digging. The deeper I dug, the dirtier it got.

 

 

  • She wrote:  I agree with what you said about the bible, I say the same thing, people who believe strongly in the bible look at me all confused. There are certainly things in the bible that are worth following and yet....I kind of think I am able to know what I should or should not do, without having the bible tell me, it would be nice if those who believe in all that, would actually behave in the way they should.

    As for "God" ? I don't know what I think, I know I have no evidence of a greater being other than the fact that there are many questions not answered, that doesn't mean they never will be though. I live my life not worrying about doing enough to get in heaven or going to hell for not believing. I try to do good things and live my life in a positive way for no other reason than making others happy, which in turn makes me happy.

    What do you think of Ron Paul? I mentioned your book and "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and someone else mentioned that Ron Paul endorsed the book? 

    What about Jenny McCarthy and all that she's doing recently with vaccines? What are your feelings in regards to that?

    I'm sure you could keep digging up more and more negative information about government etc.. but isn't it kind of depressing to only look for the negative things? Do you try to find anything positive about the government and if so what have you discovered?


My Reply: Thumbs up on Ron Paul. (Good to see, after so many years, he is FINALLY being recognized for his consistent defense of constitutional limits on government power.)

I applaud what Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are doing. I've posted many things about the "vaccine issue" at the site over the years. 

"<<but isn't it kind of depressing to only look for the negative things?">>

That's kind of like asking "sure, you could keep finding criminals out in society, but doesn't that get depressing? Aren't there some good things society has done?" :-)

I'm not worried about the "good people" in any given group (church, government, charity, corporation, etc.) it's the criminals, doing all they can to "blend in" and prey on innocent people, that I'm worried about. 

It just so happens that criminals in government (because of the power we give them) always end up being the most dangerous. The level of evil that gravitates toward these positions of power is beyond anything most people can comfortably imagine. (I am not exaggerating.) 

...and because normal people can't imagine it, and because the predators use their power to keep the masses ignorant, the history of "power run amuck" continues to repeat itself. 

I don't get depressed about the things I can't do anything about (there will always be thieves, rapists, murderers, war profiteers, pedophiles, etc.) What does sometimes bring me down is how little others are willing to do in order to defend themselves (and ultimately their kids) against these criminals. Here is something I wrote a while back that sums up the frustration: 

"The masses are willing to accept that people can be ignorant, dangerous, dishonest, selfish and irresponsible...so they assemble a group of people, call it "government," and act as if they've solved their problem."
 

  • She wrote (in part) As for government, it is a necessary evil. To not have it, would make things much worse than they are now, not at all saying there isn't room for improvement. Separation of Church and State is an excellent example. Problems arise when we try to change the constitution. 

    The person who brought up Ron Paul is not a fan of his. It would be very interesting to have you in the forum I belong to but I fear they would rip you apart, not saying you can't hold your own but....it would be senseless to get you involved when I know how it would end. 

    I am not a supporter of Jenny McCarthy, AT ALL. I feel what she is doing is extremely dangerous. If you have done your research into autism, how can disregard what science as shown? Vaccines do not cause autism and to stop vaccinating children will not only put them at risk but others around them as well. Look at what is happening in the world now because of parents fearing vaccines. People think H1N1 is scary, it's not as scary as the world could be in 10 years if people stop vaccinating their children.

    You said you're not worried about the good people and included the church among them. The church is one of the biggest organizations that preys on the innocent. 

    No matter what organization there is out there, churches, charities, government et...there will always be good people and bad people, to exclude any would be foolish. 
     

My Reply: <<”As for government, it is a necessary evil.”>>

I don’t believe any “evil” is “necessary.” If government, in its current form, is in fact evil, then it should be abolished and replaced with something that isn’t. (Not claiming to know exactly what that looks like…but if we keep chipping away at what’s wrong, we’ll get there eventually.) 

<<"The person who brought up Ron Paul is not a fan of his. It would be very interesting to have you in the forum I belong to but I fear they would rip you apart...it would be senseless to get you involved when I know how it would end.">>

If you mean attack, call names, belittle (basically act like children) you're probably right...it would seem senseless. But that isn't "skeptical" behavior, it's juvenile. It also happens to be something that people without strong arguments do to keep others from considering other points of view. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. 

Something I wrote on this a while back:

"Attack the messenger: When this is done, the attackers' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence he presents isn't credible.” Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something reasonably intelligent people could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? "

Regarding “vaccines” here are a couple thoughts I’ve written in the past on the topic: 

"Most people are (correctly) worried about LOSING their right to CHOOSE what goes into their bodies (and the bodies of their children.) Or to put it another way: They're not ready to hand that decision over to Big-Pharma and the government.

We cannot ignore the fact these MANDATORY vaccination "policies" are being written at the behest (and for the benefit of) multi-billion dollar drug companies. Companies that use their money and influence to secure the favor (and coercive power) of government so they can literally force their products down your throat. "
Regarding the issue of thimerosal, it always seemed pretty logical to me that some people WOULD be genetically susceptible to an adverse reaction. (Unable to eliminate the toxin or simply having a different reaction to lower levels of it.) 

You said you like to hear things from different sides of an argument. Here is an article with some interesting information regarding vaccines in general. If you’ve got some info that contradicts the claims, let me know. (I haven't looked into it too much yet, will be for the new book though.) 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james.htm

For me, it boils down to whether or not you think people should be allowed to hear all information and decide for themselves. (Or, put another way, whether people should be FORCED to accept what somebody else has decided is “the truth.”) 

<<"You said you're not worried about the good people and included the church among them">>

I am not worried about the "good people" who attend church or who are members of "the church," I'm worried about the ones who are raping children in the back room. The latter are criminals. 

If it becomes an issue of the leaders of the organization (church, government, etc.) doing the raping or "covering up the raping" then the organization itself becomes a breeding ground for crime. When that happens, I think the structure of the organization itself is a valid target. 
 


http://www.stopjenny.com/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/vaccine-skeptics-vs-your-kids 

The reason we don't see chicken pox, polio, mumps, whooping cough, et..is because of vaccines. Sure drug companies make money they use that money to back more research, research isn't free. 

There's always a risk some child will have a bad reaction to a vaccine, but the benefits outweigh the risks.

the forum I am on might attack senselessly in some ways but they also back up their attacks with evidence. 

the good people who attend church are the victims, I'll agree with that but my point was, the church is an example of an unnecessary evil, they have too much power and few are willing to go up against the church because it's "Gods house" blah blah blah people are much more willing to go up against the government.

You say something needs to change and I would agree, it'll still be called government though, maybe the New and Improved? :)

My reply: <<"You say something needs to change and I would agree, it'll still be called government though, maybe the New and Improved? :)">>

Let's hope so. 

Thanks for the links!
 

Side Note: I didn't bother addressing what she said about the church or vaccines mainly because I was looking to "take a break" on this thread. A few days later I sent her a follow up: 
 

I wrote: I've got a book recommendation for you: The Lords of Poverty by Graham Hancock

Just an advance warning: If you care about people who are "less fortunate," this book will probably upset you a bit.
 

She wrote (in part) It's things like this that Obama wants to change, the man has WAY too many things that need to be fixed for it all to happen over night. Even if you don't like Obama, you have to respect his idea to want to change. Things change slowly but hopefully we are moving towards that.

I'll try to read some of that book, I did see it's online. I don't have much time to sit and just read anymore, too many things to do, not enough time.

Has your opinion of Jenny McCarthy changed at all from those links?


My reply: Regarding Obama, I just don't know where to begin. ...sorry to keep doing this, but I'm just going to go with something I wrote back in April: 
 

The way I see it, there were 3 ways the Obama administration could have handled the Bush era abuses of power:

1. Repeal the ILLEGAL / unconstitutional legislation and signing statements enacted under Bush and hold those who violated the law accountable for their crimes.

2. Repeal the Illegal / unconstitutional legislation and signing statements, but PROTECT Bush and company by refusing to prosecute those who abused their power / broke the law.

3. Neither repeal the illegal / unconstitutional legislation and signing statements NOR hold those who violated the law accountable.

This isn't "our government." It hasn't been for some time. Instead, it is a government by, for, and of the elite interests that control it. It is a lawless sham.

...For, by and of the elite. Watch just 10 minutes of the video below for some more insight into the "change" Obama brought to power.

http://tree3.com/obamashort.wmv


I hope you can find the time to read The Lords of Poverty. It's a good book. 

As far as Jenny McCarthy is concerned, I stand by my earlier statement: For me, it boils down to whether or not you think people should be allowed to hear all information and decide for themselves. She should be allowed to speak and list the studies / doctors that support her views and her detractors should be allowed to do the same. (More useful than attacking her for “picking her nose and posing nude.”)

 

 

  • She Wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

    "Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.

    Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease. "

    For every doc Jenny finds, there are many more that will say otherwise. You seem to just believe what Jenny has said because she claims to have done the research. Thing is, I could easily do research (well not THAT easily) to support just about ANY claim I want to believe in as well, it doesn't mean I am right, it just means data is available on both sides, you need to find SOLID evidence. Andrew Wakefield fixed his data but because he's a "Doctor" people believed him. 

    You have to look at what history has shown us, have vaccines made a difference with the number of children dying from chicken pox, whooping cough etc... and the answer will be YES they have. 

    Have the number of cases of autism risen? Yes. Why? Scientists don't know exactly but genetics seems to be the core reason, showing no link between vaccines and autism. People can easily place blame on shots because now they have no solid reason for it. It used to be back when autism first reared it's ugly head, that they felt the mothers were to blame, accusing them of being cold towards their children. 

    * A 1997 National Childhood Encephalopathy Study showed no indication that the measles vaccine contributes to the development of long-term neurological damage, including educational and behavioral deficits.
    * A 1998 study in Sweden showed that there was no difference in the prevalence of autism among children born before the introduction of the MMR vaccine and those born after the vaccine was introduced.
    * A 2002 study showed that there was no higher risk of autism in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated children, there was no association between the age at time of vaccination, the length of time that and that had passed since vaccination, or the date of the vaccination and the development of the autistic disorder – in short, the study gave strong evidence against the belief that the MMR vaccination causes autism.

    It's all about statistics, with or without vaccines, autism will still be on the rise, to not vaccinate, not only will we have children with autism but also have children/adults dying from diseases we had under control. 

    As for Obama, I like him, I feel he cares about America and wants to improve it, I think there is only so much one man can do, even with the power of a president, he can't rub a magic lamp and suddenly have everything the way it should be. Even if McCain or shall we say Ron Paul, had won, they'd be in the same boat, there is only so much any of them can do even if they are president for 8 years, it takes time, A LOT of time, to change how fucked up things are.

    Shall we agree that time will tell with Obama and keep an open mind, he hasn't had nearly enough time to prove himself yet.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

My Reply: If you're trying to convince me that there is no link between vaccines and autism, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I have not done enough research for me to draw my OWN definitive conclusion either way. ( That said, I have done enough research to know that I cannot trust vaccine manufacturers or the government...) 

If you're trying to convince me that people should NOT be allowed to say what they believe (and present whatever evidence supports their claims) then I disagree. I don't believe that ONE group should ever be permitted to "decide" what evidence is presented and what evidence isn't. 

Most people "draw their conclusions" based only on what they hear in the mainstream media. Well, what happens when somebody else is controlling the information that comes to them through that channel? ...somebody who is protecting "profits" instead of "people?" Here are a couple relevant links (short videos) that I posted yesterday. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ckeqIoZz9c

Regarding Obama, I'm sad to say that I've seen all I need to see. If Ron Paul got in and immediately broke his campaign promises, I'd say the same thing about him. 

It all starts with our monetary system. ...it's a fraud. Until it is fixed, the financial elite will continue to be the "power behind the thrown." And they will never put somebody on "the thrown" who challenges them or their agenda for this country. 

If somebody manages to get there on their own (say a "Ron Paul" or other grass-roots candidate) they will do everything they can to ostracize, demonize and weaken that person. If that doesn't work, well, my guess is they could easily wind up like MLK, JFK or RFK. 
 

  • She wrote: I didn't look at the links because I see it's a fox news thing and I don't watch the news because the media only reports what will get the ratings.

    If you get sick do you go to a doctor? What if he prescribes you something, will you not take it? 

    I didn't look to see if you have any kids. But lets say that you do, do you take them for regular check ups with a doctor?

    Sure drug companies want to make money, they use that money to do research to find new drugs to work better, to improve the drugs they already have, to continually follow up on medications out there and make sure they are FDA approved, recalls are done when drug shows severe side effects. 

    It takes on average 10 years before a drug can be made available for the public, 10 years in which it costs the companies a lot of money, for 3 years or better, it stays as a brand name ONLY so they can get some of that money back, after that it can become a generic drug and is much cheaper. 

    Because of you mistrust in government and drug companies you are ignoring science. 

    If Ron Paul ever became president, the same thing would happen, he'd make promises, that he might really want to go through with, and yet would still come up short. Seeing as how people had doubts we'd have a black president, I can't say we'd never have a Ron Paul, I just think it's very unlikely.


My Reply: <<"I didn't look at the links because I see it's a fox news thing and I don't watch the news because the media only reports what will get the ratings.">>

Well, I appreciate your honesty. That said, it has nothing to do with "Fox reporting a story that will get ratings." Actually, it's the opposite.

It covers how Fox KILLED a story about bovine growth hormone (and the danger it poses) because one of Fox's sponsors (the maker of the drug) didn't want the story aired. 

<<Because of you mistrust in government and drug companies you are ignoring science.>>

I'm not "ignoring science." I have specifically stated that I haven't researched the "science" enough to say, one way or the other, what I believe the truth is. 

However, I have ALSO tried to make clear that the "link" or "lack thereof" is NOT the main issue for me. REGARDLESS of who is right or wrong: 

" it boils down to whether or not you think people should be allowed to hear all information and decide for themselves." 

Do you think she should NOT be allowed to speak her mind and present whatever evidence she has (weak or strong) in defense of her position? Is that what you're saying? 

If you say "she should not be allowed to speak" then I disagree with you. If you say "she can speak, but I think she is wrong" then we really have nothing to argue about. 

Regarding Ron Paul, he has stayed true for decades. Even when it was clear that he was not going to win the presidency and he was under pressure to "endorse McCain" for "the good of his party" he, thankfully, refused. 

That reinforces my opinion of him (that he is loyal to the founding principles and to his word rather than to "party" and "political gain") but of course there is no way to know without seeing him "in the White House."
 

  • She Wrote: <<"If you say "she should not be allowed to speak" then I disagree with you. If you say "she can speak, but I think she is wrong" then we really have nothing to argue about.">>

    We have nothing to argue about because you agree she is wrong or because you feel she is right and you're just agreeing to disagree? I think she has the right to speak, I'm all for freedom of speech, what is scary is how so many are believing her and not looking at what has been proven wrong.

    You never answered if you would take prescription medication.

    I did look into bovine and do remembering hearing something about it awhile ago. It appears that many have stepped up to protest and things are working in the right direction to make changes. 

    I dislike the media because I don't feel like trying to figure out what is bullshit and what is not, if it's important enough for me to know, I will eventually find out and find actual facts.

    I think the way you and I differ is that I want to see the good, look for the good and you're trying to find all the bad. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, if change is to happen someones got to find what needs to be changed. 

    I prefer doing what I can to make things good now, around me, with the people I know and my community.

    If someone wants me to protest, sign a petition, etc..and I believe it's a worthy cause, I will do it but just like with charities, there is only so much I can do.

    As far as people being allowed to decide for themselves, I agree they should and yet.....there are far too many people that would make HUGE mistakes if they were allowed to do what they wanted. Praying for a sick child rather than getting them medical help, is the first example that pops into my head. I'm all for having a religious belief if a person wants to, I disagree with it, when it hurts someone.


My Reply: <<"We have nothing to argue about because you agree she is wrong or because you feel she is right and you're just agreeing to disagree?">>

We have nothing to argue about because I cannot say "she is right" or "she is wrong." I haven't done anywhere near enough research to say "for sure" how I feel about the claims. I am only talking about what I feel is the larger issue: A person's right to say what they believe and present evidence in support of that belief. 

<<You never answered if you would take prescription medication.>>

I avoid ingesting drugs / chemicals in general.(I eat organic food, no aspartame, no fluoride in the water, I've had multiple surgeries but only took a fraction of the pain meds after, etc.) That said, if I had an infection or something and I needed some antibiotics, I'd take them. 

If the government / media told me that there was a "flu pandemic" that required I immediately take some vaccine, there is at least a 90% chance that I would NOT. 

"<<I think the way you and I differ is that I want to see the good, look for the good and you're trying to find all the bad. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, if change is to happen someones got to find what needs to be changed.">>

Well, you "want to see the good" but obviously you "see the bad" too or else you wouldn't be doing things to try to help out. ...that is basically what I see as 'the good." (Resisting what is wrong...doing what you can to help make things right.)
 

  • She wrote (in part) You said you applaud Jenny and yet don't know if she's right or wrong? I'm a little confused.

    I agree 100% with you on taking a vaccine if there is a flu pandemic. 1976 showed us it's not a wise decision to create a vaccine too quickly without properly testing it first before dishing it out to millions of people. That said MMR's have been tested and proven to do more good than bad.

    If you're not drinking fluoride in your water, you really should make sure you're getting fluoride in another way, it's important for your teeth. I work in a pharmacy and in China they don't have fluoride in there water, people traveling there for several months, get prescriptions filled for fluoride.

    You saying you do take medications, means you don't totally distrust drug companies. It all goes back to what has been shown in history of things that work. Cocaine may work to relieve pain but eventually we discovered it does more harm than good and made it illegal to use. To not do that would have left it up to the people to decide for themselves and well.... not all people are smart enough/care enough to not cause themselves harm and some just more prone towards addictions. Those addictions hurt our society, as does drinking and yet that's legal. (I am conflicted in this regard)

    I'm not saying I believe the government should control every aspect of our lives, it pisses me off that companies can fire a person if they smoke cigs or increase what they pay for insurance. I don't see smoking as being much different than eating too much McDonalds and being obese, obesity causes A LOT of health conditions as well and in fact more health costs than smokers on average. But do I think the government should tell us what we can eat? NO and so I will continue to pay towards my health insurance even knowing it's increasing in part because of the health costs going up from people EATING TOO MUCH.

    As long as what a person is doing or believes in doesn't harm anyone else but themselves than I think the government should leave it alone. Not getting vaccines, putting your kids in school, paying your taxes et...does hurt others, it hurts our society and YES I am just as pissed as the next guy with paying taxes, I work hard for my money and just like everyone else I don't want my hard earned money going to some loser who is getting government help because they refuse to work.

    That said, I've been on the side where I needed some help, but unlike some I did go to school, got a job and eventually managed on my own but for about 2 years, I did need some help because I was in a bad situation, so although I dislike the welfare system and know it has a ton of flaws, there are those exceptions where it's actually doing some good.

    Have you ever been on any forums? I started about 8 years ago (wow time flies) and I've learned so much, I don't agree with everything but it sure is interesting at times, I've been on several...


My Reply: I applaud the fact that she is speaking her mind (despite being attacked.) I applaud the fact that she is making people THINK (for themselves) about what they put into their bodies and the bodies of their children. I applaud the fact that this, by extension, will make it harder for vaccine manufacturers to "lobby" mandatory vaccination laws into existence. 

"<<If you're not drinking fluoride in your water, you really should make sure you're getting fluoride in another way">>

Well, I could go on and on about that. Suffice to say, I"ve used a natural teeth-cleaning solution for years now and it does a much better job of keeping the plauque off my teeth than toothpaste did. Regarding the general arguments "for" fluoride, here is a pretty mild article against its use, with a good summary being: 

"The most widely cited study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970, and it is used by fluoridation advocates to this day. But the study failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity, not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in question experienced was also seen in other non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then Mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, described the so-called Hastings Experiment as a "swindle"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/healthy-living/is-fluoride-safe-780948.html 

This short video shows that the ADA (Finally) admitted that fluoride could be dangerous for infants. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yblka13FfCA

<<"...not all people are smart enough/care enough to not cause themselves harm and some just more prone towards addictions. Those addictions hurt our society, as does drinking and yet that's legal. (I am conflicted in this regard)">>

People should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they're not violating the rights of others. The "hurts society" argument can be used against anything...I think it could be more effectively used against the "war on drugs" itself. 

For me, it should be a simple issue of: If somebody violates another's rights, they should be held accountable. But don't assume ALL of those who do drugs WILL violate another's rights and, because of that assumption, punish them in advance. I'm against that just as I'd be against the worst case "drunk" being held up as a justification for why YOU should not be allowed to drink. 

http://www.leap.cc is a good source for info "against the war on drugs" from a law enforcement perspective. 

<<"YES I am just as pissed as the next guy with paying taxes, I work hard for my money and just like everyone else I don't want my hard earned money going to some loser who is getting government help because they refuse to work.">>

I assume you're referring to Federal Income Tax. Although "The loser who refuses to work" is an irritant, he is the least of our problems regarding "what the money is going to." 

Federal Income Tax (something this country did not have until 1913) was put in place by RICH elites. It is yet another way for them (acting through the federal government) to control us. 

One example: The Federal Government takes money from the individual states, then it holds that funding over the states' heads with strings attached. The more the state NEEDS the money, the more likely they will comply with whatever mandates are attached to the so-called "federal funding." 

I AM glad you were able to get some help...we have to ask though: "Is this the only, let alone the BEST, system for providing such help? What are all the "costs?" (Not just financial, but in corruption, real crime, loss of state and individual rights, etc.) It's a very big topic. 

Regarding time on forums: 

Back in say 2003-2005 I spent a LOT of time at one site (SuzukiHayabusa.org) It's a motorcycle forum, but they had a "whatever is on your mind" section. Again, I spent TONS of time there talking mostly about politics. After a while, I decided it made more sense for me to put the time into research, writing and then posting at my site. (If you're going to spend 20 or 30 hours fleshing something out, it's no good to just have it buried and forgotten in a 25-page thread.) 

That's not to say I don't think they're useful. I like to poke around and read them sometimes...but if I'm going to post something that challenges the "active members' ideas," I know I have to prepare for days or even weeks to tie it all up. I have so much that I've got to do here, I'm worried about getting sucked into that again. 
 

  • She Wrote: I knew fluoride could be dangerous for infants, that's why they have special tooth paste for kids and why you have to make sure they don't get a hold of adult tooth paste. I hadn't heard anything about it in the water but....your study is outdated, there have been studies in China, several in fact and what they are trying to show is that too much fluoride affects IQ? hmm interesting, I'll have to research that a bit more.


In any case, because of the research done in China, scientist here are also looking into it. One study I saw had other factors that came into play that could have been the reason for a decline in IQ. The thing with IQ, is even though there have been TONS of studies about it, there are soooooo many factors to consider, it's very difficult to pin point exactly why certain people have lower IQ's than others. Why is it in parts of Italy, one side has higher IQ's than the other?? (heard that at a conference, how weird is that?) they don't know why, it was said because the smart Italians went to the US hahah it was a joke. You could debate for years about IQ and why some have higher IQ's than others, it does get rather annoying because there is no end to what can be said. 

I agree about chat boards, they can suck the life away from you, I go in waves, sometimes I post a lot, other times, I have no idea what's going on, still I have learned a lot and mostly to "think" about everything and not just believe, as I was taught by my parents, you don't question "God" eeekkkk well yeah I do now :)

I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money or doing it because she really wants to make a difference? The thing with celebrities is people listen, they don't think, they just listen and follow. Sally Fields said Boniva was great, people believed her and guess what? Boniva isn't all that great, really nasty side effects in more than a few people. 

I do wonder, if Sally Fields really takes Boniva, if she does and she has the same nasty side effects, would she speak out against it? There might be some clause that says she can't for a certain amount of time or she'll be sued? I wouldn't know, would you?

I applaud people like Eve Tetaz, she's not making any money but she voicing her opinion and standing up for what she believes. Not saying I agree or disagree with her, like you said it doesn't matter, she's having her voice heard but she has no $$ motivating her to do so. I applaud people with the guts to do that and even say "take me to jail, I stand firm in my opinion" what would Jenny do if jail were looming over her head??? Hire a ton of expensive lawyers to defend her, would she go to jail for her beliefs against vaccines?? We will never know but it is an interesting question, thing is again, she'd probably make a ton of money off of it or write a damn book, soo again,it's much harder for me to applaud when there is greed for money involved.

Matthew Shepherd's family, I applaud them, they have a cause, they are fighting, they are organized, and they are not becoming millionaires in the process nor are they hurting anyone with their influence. 

Many times things are added to the law books because of normal, every day people, not just because government wants to control our lives. Amanda's law, pushed by parents, Safe Haven law, Amber alerts, just to name a few. There is also one for fire works I believe in the name of a child that was killed during a fireworks show. I've even known speed limit signs to be added or removed based on public opinion.

Damn here I go rambling again, I was going to add more about government not being the only thing trying to control our lives but the public in general. Bike helmets being one that springs to mind, if it were up to some people, they'd make it a law that you have to wear one if you ride your bike, just like now it's a law to "click it or ticket" if I don't want to wear a seat belt, that should be my choice, I do however agree with putting children in car seats.

Basically when you look at government, you have to also look at just people, people push government to make decisions, if you feel strongly enough against something the government is doing, strive to make a change. My one suggestion would be, pick one thing and go full speed ahead, make your voice heard, like Eve Tetaz, maybe even end up in jail, if you believe strongly enough in your cause, jail will only bring you more notice and have your voiced heard louder.

My Reply: <<"too much fluoride affects IQ?">>

That is what I meant when I said the piece was a "mild article against its use." 

The article I sent you points out that the study used to justify its use is, as you put it, "outdated" and was flawed. It mentions many of the problems associated with its use, but it does not mention the worst of them which is there is evidence that they KNOW it "chemically lobotomizes" people. 

This is the reason I began avoiding fluoride. (I have read in many places, but have not confirmed, that it was first "widely used" by Hitler and Stalin to keep their concentration camp victims sedated and compliant.) 

...it provides some disturbing perspective to the much-touted recommendation: "Be sure to drink your 8 glasses of (fluoridated) water per day!" 

<<"You could debate for years about IQ">>

Yep, and in the end it probably isn't the "smartest" way to spend one's time. :-)

I decided years ago that IQ isn't nearly as important as it's made out to be. (Evidenced by the fact that it's never difficult to find two people with comparably "high IQ's" on opposite sides of the same issue.)

IQ seems to measure only one narrow band of "intelligence." That band (from what I can tell) is not enough to accurately predict whether a person will "conclude accurately" (determine what is true, what isn't true) in the real world. 

<<"I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money or doing it because she really wants to make a difference?">>

There are a few things here. It will take some time that I don't have right now. I'll try to get back tonight or tomorrow. 
 

  • She wrote: <<"Yep, and in the end it probably isn't the "smartest" way to spend one's time. :-)">>

    HAHA Yep!

    Ironically my husband does research with IQ. At times there are some pretty interesting things he comes up with. His latest and yet not published is about IQ and religion, on a state level. 

    <<"that it was first "widely used" by Hitler and Stalin to keep their concentration camp victims sedated and compliant.)">>

    That's what I found as well, I would have to guess it was large amounts, not what is in our water. I wouldn't take drink your 8 glasses as the government way to make us complaisant, getting dehydrated can really mess you up but I don't necessarily think you have to drink water, just fluids in general.

 

 

My Reply:  <<"Many times things are added to the law books because of normal, every day people, not just because government wants to control our lives.">>

Agreed...that is really the point of trying to keep government "limited." (It doesn't matter what some fanatical group or powerful lobby wants, if the government doesn't have the power, it can't force their wishes on everyone else.) 

I know we could go "round and round" over the Jenny issue, but I definitely wanted to put some stuff out there. 

<<"I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money">>

Ok, so I've got a few thoughts on this:

1. Let's say a person is trying to find the "cure" for cancer. How do we know if he is doing it because he wants to ease suffering or he simply wants to make a lot of money? In the end, does it make a difference? If he uncovers information or produces a product that will end or massively reduce the rates of cancer then we all benefit regardless. 

Ok, but what if he is intentionally LYING about his "cure?" This is probably more in line with what you're saying. ...That the person KNOWS what they're preaching is bullshit, but they don't care because they can sell it to people who WANT to believe it and make lots of money doing so. 

This is obviously a crime...at the very least, it is fraud. The problem is, how do we KNOW whether a person or organization is "lying" or truly believes in what they're "selling" to the public? To put that another way, is there ANYONE we could not accuse of lying? Can I not accuse the vaccine industry of lying / hyping threats to make billions in extra sales? 

So, we come back to the need for a free exchange of information so people can make their own choices. It is not a perfect system, but it is less dangerous than the alternative. (One group deciding what can or can't be presented.) 

Needless to say, if evidence surfaces that a person or organization WAS clearly lying (perhaps a document surfaces that admits they knew what they were saying was untrue; something like: "screw these idiots, they'll eat it up all day long, we'll laugh all the way to the bank") then those involved must be convicted for their crime. 

2. Punishing moral markets: I've been meaning to write an article on this for a long time. ...addressing the fact that we've been conditioned to "look down on" people who earn money by doing "good work." 

The odd part of this conditioning is it only seems to apply to those attempting work outside of the established / accepted channels. So, for instance, a paramedic or nurse works to "help people" but they're not expected to do their work for nothing. A brain surgeon "saves lives" (very important work) but makes many millions per year doing so. How do we decide who should be labeled and demonized as only "trying to make a buck" and who shouldn't? 

What if it is a little bit of both? For instance, a woman might be able to choose "earning a living" as manager of a chain of fast-food restaurants or as a nurse...she chooses "nurse" because she wants to both "earn a living" AND contribute to the well being of society, VS simply "earn a living" and contribute to obesity. 

3. "Money" translates into access to resources and that translates into more power to affect change. (Whether "good" or "bad.") So, generally speaking, the less money an individual or organization has to work with, the less it can get done. 

I know some of these people are already considered "rich," but they're not that rich. Even Oprah Winfrey could blow through ALL her money "advertising a cause" she felt deeply about in less than a week. If there is no money coming in to replace that outlay, she'll be in a much weaker position. 

On the other side, if she uses some of her money / access to resources to create products (or charity campaigns) that bring more money "in" than goes "out," she can continue and expand her efforts indefinitely. 

I'm certainly NOT doing what I do because it "pays well" (this work has done nothing but consume money and other resources over the past 6 years.) That said, I wouldn't feel guilty to have it start "paying the bills" some day. ...matter of fact, it would feel real nice to both "do good" and get paid for the work. 

 

  • She Wrote: The first thing that popped into my mind after reading that is, "Church" no one can really prove if there is a God or not, but you'll have very strong opinions on both sides. The church can do some good (like your examples) it also makes a TON of money and has done some very bad things.

    Jenny probably really believes what she is doing as being a good thing, Hitler thought was he was doing was a good thing to. Jenny isn't breaking any laws that I am aware of but convincing parents to not vaccinate is already showing to be a problem by whooping cough and other diseases coming back.

    Eventually history will show us what will happen when millions do not vaccinate their children, I would rather be wrong in my thinking and have it show nothing but I believe, it's going to show that children/adults are going to start dying from the same things they died from 50+ years ago and at an increased rate. Maybe not as much in the US because we have laws that say you have to get vaccinated before going into school but in other countries....time will tell

    I would rather collect data that can give us a pretty good insight to what will happen, rather than actually doing it and then finding out when the risk is so great. 

 

 

  • She Wrote: Lets play a game... and not like the one in Saw, although I thought the movie was genius :) the first one anyway

    Here is the idea, we could go around and around about government, laws, IQ, Jenny.......and still go round and round

    S0...here's what I was thinking. We take turns picking a topic, abortion, capital punishment, fluoride etc..whatever. We both have 3 turns to make our argument about how we think it should be handled, anything goes as long as it's a possibility and for most things I do think anything is possible.

    One rule, you can't use court cases to support your reasoning. 

    If we were the government, could make everyone do what we say, what would we do? We don't have to go into how we'd punish those who do not, just what we would do to change the world.

    I'll pick the topic, you say how you'd handle it, if I agree, you win, if I don't, I say what I'd do, if you agree, I win, if we go back and forth for 3 turns each and neither agree with the other, it's a draw.

    Abortion

    What would you do?

    "Let the games begin" :)


My Reply: I like the idea of exchanging perspectives. (I feel a little weird about making it a "win / lose" thing though :-)

Ok, regarding Abortion: 
Personally, I'm very much against it. 

Making abortion illegal: 
I'm against that too. (That said, unless the mother's life is at risk, I think there should be firm limits on how "far along" a pregnancy can be....) 

This is off the top of my head. I have never given a lot of thought to the issue so I'm ready for your thoughts. 
 

  • She wrote (in part) We don't have to do a win or lose thing then, I just thought it would make it more interesting.

    I'm pro-choice. As a female, it's my body and I feel I should have the right to do with my body as I wish. If I don't want to carry a baby inside of me for 9 months, I shouldn't have to.

    To make it illegal would only cause women to find other ways of ending an unwanted pregnancy, which in turn could cause deaths, as it did before they finally made it legal. It makes NO sense to me AT ALL, to chance a young girl having an illegal abortion and possibly dying. I would much rather my daughter end a pregnancy than to end her life, that goes for any female. That female has already touched peoples lives, that fetus has touched no ones.

    That said, I agree there should be a cut off time and there is. I believe it's 3 months? Any abortion done later than that, should only be done to save the mother. 

    I'm torn between how much right the father should have because I do feel it's unfair that a man might want to keep his child and yet he has no choice in the matter. And yet it would get complicated with who pays for child support and the woman having to bear the burden of pregnancy.

    I also don't think it's necessarily fair that a woman has the choice to keep the child and then force the father who may not have wanted a child, to pay child support. When a pregnancy happens from a one night stand, I think if the woman wants to keep the child, the man does not, and the couple is NOT nor have they ever been an actual couple, ,the woman should have the right to keep the baby but also do it knowing she will be supporting that child on her own. Both are equally to blame for not using proper protection. It gets more complicated if the two are a couple and have been together for awhile.

    I also think, woman who have too many abortions should be made to have their tubes tied, there should be a limit to how many you can have. In fact (and I'll have to look it up but I don't have time now) there was a time when women who were drug addicted would be offered the opportunity to have their tubes tied after having an abortion, I believe they were paid to do it, which caused all the problems. People felt it was wrong to bribe the women with money so they could just go buy more drugs and no longer be able to have babies. But my thoughts are, if you're going to fuck up your life with drugs, you shouldn't be having babies that will be equally fucked up.

    Another thing people don't consider are women who are raped. I wouldn't want some rapists baby growing inside of me, not to mention how the child would feel when they found out, if they did. 

    I was happy to have the choice but on a personal level, I never would have had an abortion unless I was raped. It's not a concern now for me because I had a hysterectomy over a year ago.


My Reply: I think we're pretty much on the same page with this issue. 

As I said, I'm against abortion (personally) so I'm even more against the idea of women using it as birth control. ...not sure I'd go with the "force them to tie their tubes" though. (There are a lot of woman who are really fucked up when they're young but might, if they're lucky, grow up someday and "get it together." ...a girl who first "got pregnant" at 13 could easily get knocked up a few times before she was even 17.) 

It would be nice if somebody invented a procedure that was easy to undo. High-risk girls could be paid to undergo the procedure and, if they wanted children at a later date, they would have to return the money and pay to have the procedure undone. ...I'd be more comfortable with something like that.
 

  • She Wrote: It's very possible to undo tubes being tied, they've been doing it for years, in fact, getting your tubes tied doesn't mean they won't untie on their own. I worked with a lady, that not only got them tied, but also had them cut and burned because she DID NOT want anymore kids. Got remarried and her hubby wanted his own child. Well guess what? Medical science is amazing, she now has a son that I believe is about a year old now. Getting them tied is not the end.

    I agree women can be messed up and then straighten up their lives but? seeing babies addicted to crack, is horrible and so unfair to the child, babies die or have life long problems because of their moms doing drugs while preg and in most cases, the mom doesn't even keep the kid. It's a sad situation where more needs to be done.

    The main question on abortion though is, do you feel it should remain legal? Putting aside drug addicted moms. Do you feel the government has a right to tell woman NO they can not do what they want with their bodies and make it a crime to have an abortion?

    And it's your turn to ask a question.


My Reply: I would not support making abortion illegal. 

Question: Do you think the government should lie to us for "our own good?" 
 

  • She Wrote: That's a mighty broad question, to answer I would need something more specific. I think in some aspects the government tell us too much because what we know, others will know as well. Example: military stuff, if our defense is weak in a certain area...it not only scares people but lets terrorists know where to get us. But I don't think you were referring to the military.


My Reply: Regarding "terrorists knowing where to get us," I always found it interesting that during the greatest period of fear mongering following 9/11, the borders were left wide open. (And they're still open.)

Seems kind of odd doesn't it? ...the "threat" is so "huge" that we've got to have the "Patriot Act" and the "John Warner Defense Act" and "Homeland Security" and wars of aggression and warrantless wiretapping and torture and (etc. etc.) but the border, over which millions have illegally entered this country since 9/11, isn't part of "securing the homeland against terrorism." 

OK, something specific: Should the government, if it has decided it wants to attack a country, intentionally LIE to the people to gain support for attacking that country? 

So for instance, let's say we're talking about Cuba. The people we call "government" want to attack Cuba, but the Cuban government hasn't done anything to provide moral or legal justification for the attack. (The American people will not support it.) 

...so "the government" lies to the people to manufacture consent. ("Cuba attacked one of our ships" or "the terrorist attacks were sponsored by Cuba" etc.) Are you for or against?
 

  • She Wrote: I'm always against War, there are no winners when it comes to War, people die, Americans die, innocent people in the country we attack die. 

    This question all seems to be leaning towards 9/11 and Bush lying to get us to go to War, we now know he lied but at the time Americans wanted revenge for what happened, I wanted revenge I admit, I was angry and wanted someone to pay. Lying to us about it, was wrong.

    Do I think something needed to be done about terrorism, OF COURSE, do I think it's bad to have our military over in Bagdad (sp?), Iseral (sp? I can't think how to spell those damn counties right now) Iran, Iraq etc..not necessarily but I don't think we need as many as we have over there. I think to have us there to monitor more closely what's going on, isn't a horrible idea but I think trying to train them to control their own lands isn't working out so well and we should probably just let them run their own country to the ground if they want.

    They've been fighting for centuries and will continue to fight with each other, over religious beliefs, there's nothing we're going to be able to do, that will stop that. 

    still I feel it's in everyone's best interest to try and maintain peace around the world as much as possible and never to allow any ONE country to try and take over another, we and the rest of the world, need to make sure that doesn't happen EVER. 

    There is NO reason that we should EVER see what happened in WWII happen again, there is too much information available to us to not be able to know what another country is trying and I would certainly hope all counties, would be more than willing to do what is necessary to prevent it.

    All of that said, I think the US gets too involved in other countries problems, but I don't fully understand it all so it's hard to for me to say what I think should be done or point out what is wrong with it all. I just seems like we have enough of our problems right now and we need to work on that but it also seems to me that what happens to the US affects the rest of the world and we have out hand into too many things to just yank it out.

    My answer is, yes I'm against the government lying to go to War, but think at times it might be necessary to use our strengths to counter attacks or defend our land (not necessarily declaring war) but I don't fully understand it all (probably like most Americans) to know if what we're doing is the right thing or not, I just hope history has taught our military a few things and they do the right thing.

    OH and as for the pirates out there, I do think we need to do something about them, but NOT just the US, it's not just our ships being attacked and I have no sympathy for the pirate that was shot from capturing the captain

    So let me hear your opinion and then I'll pick the next topic unless I totally disagree. 

My Reply: <<"Do I think something needed to be done about terrorism, OF COURSE, do I think it's bad to have our military over in Bagdad (sp?), Iseral... Iran, Iraq etc..not necessarily but I don't think we need as many as we have over there.">>

So, if Russia was attacked by 15 Germans and 4 Mexicans and in response Russia ignored Germany, invaded Mexico, invaded Canada (killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people in the process) and, with the United States surrounded, began threatening our country, it would be OK? It would be "justified" under the banner of "doing something?" 

This is analogous to the Federal government's actions after 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, Iran had nothing to do with the attacks, and Afghanistan was only linked by a handful of people. 

The reason we were given for attacking these countries was a lie...In reality, the 9/11 attacks were used by the NeoCons to fulfill an already-established agenda. This is a reasonable good documentary on the topic. ...there are also a few short audio clips if you're short on time. 

http://joeplummer.com/pnac.html

"<<My answer is, yes I'm against the government lying to go to War, but think at times it might be necessary to use our strengths to counter attacks or defend our land (not necessarily declaring war) but I don't fully understand it all (probably like most Americans) to know if what we're doing is the right thing or not">>

I'll give you a hint: If they have to lie and manipulate to gain support, it is the WRONG thing. 

Intuitively, people would be "outraged" if another country lied about our actions to justify attacking and killing our citizens, but too many people, hypocritically, are happy to give "our liars" the benefit of the doubt. 

Bottom line: People who are willing to lie (and steal and murder and maim) to enrich themselves and their well-connected buddies won't hesitate to say "But, we were just doing what we thought was best." The idea of a "democracy" that allows its "leaders" to lie, in order to shape public opinion, is a farce. (Nevermind the fact this country was never meant to be a "democracy." That is a whole other story.) 

As we've discussed, I have no faith in religion or books that claim to be the infallible word of "God." 

The thing that strikes me as odd: Many who share my skepticism of religion have almost unending "faith" in the men who call themselves "government." --They deal with this seemingly irrational faith by refusing to look at the piles of money and power stolen in its name and the piles of dead bodies that lie in its wake. It's as if they've given up one "man-made" God for another.
 

  • She Wrote: It seems you had what you wanted to say, regardless of what I had to say, which is fine, I respect your opinion and find it interesting to read. 

    I do not want you misinterpreting what I said. I never said I was FOR war, I even pointed out the same things you brought up and said no one wins. I added, that I was not necessarily against our military being there, but did NOT say so they could blow innocent people up, I said in order to keep peace and to never allow any country to take over another. I'm not saying Iran, Iraq, Afgan are trying to but I can't help thinking, it's not a bad idea to keep an eye on things, and I would keep a close eye on Korea, Russia, Japan, every place actually, WWII was NOT that long ago, there are still many who faught in it and who recall all too well what it was like. 

    I did say I was angry and wanted revenge after 9/11, because I was angry, sickened, heart broken, in shock, I had a lot of feelings running through me. I would imagine what I felt would be very similar to how I'd feel if someone did something bad to my kids and YES I'd want revenge, if I knew who did it, I'd want to kill them.

    Of course I realize the government is fucked up in a lot of ways, that money makes the world go round, taking it from those who have the least amount. I know that the money, supplies and all the help we send to Africa doesn't usually go to who it's supposed to go to. Does that mean we stop helping? Not necessarily but I do think they should figure out a better way.

    I don't have the magic solution to "fixing" how things are done, they're are good and bad people in government, believing that doesn't make me any less of a skeptic, it's reality, that's the difference between government and the Church, you can see how the government was formed and is working even if you feel they need to do it differently, the church uses this false belief in a greater being to scare people into doing things, giving a certain amount of your income, volunteering, giving people hope of an after life in Heaven and all the while the church is using that money in ways I probably wouldn't agree with and molesting little children then covering it up, just to name a few.

    Most know the government can be fucked up, how many are willing to admit the church is?


My Reply: If I came off as a prick I apologize. 

The people who call themselves "The Church" and the people who call themselves "The Government" are both after the same thing (the power to "govern" / control what people believe, how they act, and profit in the process.) 

They both use fear to secure and expand their power, they both manipulate and twist logic to gain support for their "policies" and they're both responsible for some really terrible things. 

Because those who call themselves "the government" can actually seize money (via taxes) or obtain money from THEIR rulers (the bankers) and because they control the world's armies (responsible for about 100 million deaths over the past 100 years or so) and control the "justice systems" that are supposed to "hold them accountable for their crimes," they are currently a greater threat than the church in my opinion. 

Banking / government elites have put us in a very bad position. The fact that most people don't have any idea how bad it is only makes things worse. The fact that most people will turn to the very crooks who PUT US in this position (as things deteriorate) is the icing on the cake. 

That said, more and more people are starting to "wake up" and challenge / question those in power. They are FINALLY starting to judge them by their actions, not their words. Hopefully this trend will continue and lead to the establishment of a system that is more honest and just than the one we're now living under.
 

  • She Wrote: I agree with what you're saying, what once was just ignored or accepted isn't anymore. Barack can't take his wife on a jet to New York and have a romantic dinner without being held accountable for it, maybe in the past other presidents have (I don't know?) but not today, we paid for that trip and although I thought it was a cute idea for his wife, it's not so cute when you know WE paid for it. 

    There are still a lot of things that will happen that we don't know about but I do think America is looking at things much closer now and wanting answers. (not just about Baracks activities)

    How many times do we have to hear some congressman voicing objections about "Gays" only to find out he has a gay lover?

    And with that, next question, might as well make it about "Gays" how do you feel about Gay marriage?


My Reply: <<"how do you feel about Gay marriage?">>

The same way I feel about "non-gay" marriage: The government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

 

  • She Wrote:  Good answer and oh so quick :) ...your turn


My Reply: It's hard for me to think of questions to ask. For me, on almost every issue, it comes down to the same thing: If a person isn't violating the rights of another, then what they're doing isn't anybody's business. 

So that applies to: Gay marriage, doing drugs, the right to own a gun, etc. My answers are always going to lean toward that "bigger point." (In other words, whether a person agrees or disagrees with something personally doesn't bother me...when they try to FORCE everyone to live by their opinion, violating the rights of others in the process, that DOES bother me.) 
 

  • She Wrote: I think it all boils down to you hating the government and feeling that any laws the government has created are wrong but the thing is, many of those laws were creating by the people.

    Do you feel people should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want because HEY I'm a good driver, I can drive and not crash into anyone.

    Should I be allowed to drink as much as I want and get into a car, I know I can drive while drunk, the government shouldn't have some stupid law telling me I can't, it's legal for me to drink and it's legal for me to drive, if I feel I can, I should be allowed, I won't get into an accident.

    Should I be allowed to smoke some pot before I go to work? I know I can still function, it doesn't affect my judgment, so what if I'm filling out prescriptions for other drugs, I won't make a mistake.

    What about taking prescriptions written for someone else, it's my body, I should be allowed to do that if I want, I won't end up in the hospital because of it, they shouldn't make it a federal offense for me to take any medication I want to take.

    If I want to mix certain OTC medication with a few other things and make meth, I should be allowed,, the chances of me blowing up my house are slim, I know what I'm doing.

    Don't tell me I can't have a gun when I have kids in the house, I have taught my kids well and they know not to touch the gun I have sitting on the kitchen table, it's my gun, they shouldn't touch it, or their friends, it's stupid to have a law where I would be held accountable if some kid blows their head off, it's not my fault other parents can't teach their kids how to respect someone's property.

    The government doesn't need to tell people to stay off property, everyone should know not to trespass and if they do, I should be allowed to handle it in my own a way.

    Extra insurance if I own a pit bull or not even being allowed to own one in some areas, well that's just stupid I say, I am a good dog owner, I use my dogs to protect myself and my property, my dog would never get lose and rip anyone apart.

    I could go on for days with examples of things that may violate my rights and that of others but bottom line is, they are there to protect us from ourselves and others because some people are careless and just plain stupid. 

    Even as much as I may dislike the church in a lot of ways, I can see some (be it small) benefit to having them, the main thing being, unity and that some people have this need to be in a community setting, sitting around praying for help because they are unable or unwilling to do what they should do to make things better. Sometimes a church can bring comfort and joy, marriage and funerals. A priest can be like a counselor to help with marriage (although HOW the hell they'd understand marriage is beyond me but my brother did go to a priest for help, he felt it did some good??) or redirect someone who is going down the wrong path. the bible can maybe direct a person into being a better person with the 10 commandments, although they are common sense, some people might need the fear of a greater being zapping them with a lighten bolt to convince them to not do certain things?

    The church and the government are not that different, they both have their rules or order. I don't always agree with either but I do see the necessity in having them, more so the government than the church because even without the church we will survive. Everyone needs a leader, someone to direct the masses, we have the government. It creates our laws, gives us rules to follow, forces us to treat each other with respect or tries to, obviously people don't always and when they don't, they pay, or they go back and forth to court costing WE the people money from the taxes that WE the people pay.

    It's not a perfect system, it needs improvement, no one would deny that but other than raging on and on about how much you dislike the government and that you feel as long as peoples rights are not violated by the opinions of others you're okay with things. You have your own opinion that violates my rights of having an organized system where people are held accountable. The world is made up of opinions. If you know of a better way of doing things, then you should prove that you can make things better, have your voiced heard, give solid reasoning that your way of doing things would be better, but it would still be your opinion. If all you can do is say how "this doesn't work, this is wrong, I don't agree with your opinion etc..." you are doing nothing but making what you already see as a problem, an even worse problem. 

    An example: kids in a classroom, telling them they have to go school is forcing them to do something they don't want to do. So we'll just let them go if they want. Then for those that do choose to go and learn, whenever a problem arises like another kid coming and bullying them, we'll just say "well there's no rule that says they can't, you need to figure out how to handle that on your own" see the teachers get paid to be there, they're not forced but the money is a motivator. 

    So if no one is going to force kids to behave and a kid can do what they want, some kids will kicked the crap out of others for taking their things and then some, maybe most will just be pushed around, while trying to learn. As these kids get older and become adults (?? of how many would have an education because I would guess most would not because HEY they don't have to go to school) you would think the kids who are educated would get ahead in the world but you don't always have to be smart sometimes being a bully will get you ahead, if those smart kids don't want to get killed or have their business burnt to the ground, they'll do what the bullies want and pay for protection but then there's always bigger bullies to push the others around and when that fails, there's always killing. 

    We see things very differently, yep I like to have my freedom, I think I should have the right to make my own decisions, I don't like being forced into doing things, but I accept the laws and rules of our land because I realize, some people would just destroy our lands and each other, if we didn't have them. With every benefit, there is a downside. If you give government a little power, they'll take a mile. Tell me how things can be changed in a way that is realistic, an actually idea, rather than just saying how much you disagree with government. How would you handle things? 

    I'm allowed to take drugs, okay, that's your idea? I can just do drugs when I want? Tell me how that works, don't give me any rules, don't force me to do it at certain times, only in my home, not at work, how I obtain them, how does me being allowed to do drugs NOT affect anyone else, in your little world?


My Reply: <<“I think it all boils down to you hating the government and feeling that any laws 
the government has created are wrong”>>

Nope, you’re wrong. I support laws against theft, murder, rape, slavery, threatening others, offensive assault, etc. What I “hate” is people who use the power of government to commit these intuitive “crimes” on an enormous scale and without accountability.

<<“but the thing is, many of those laws were creating by the people.”>>

The VAST MAJORITY of laws were written by lobbyists and signed by “representatives” that never read the bill. Contrary to your assertion, that has nothing to do with “protecting us.” 

<<“Do you feel people should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want because HEY I'm a good driver, I can drive and not crash into anyone.”>>

That is already the case on racetracks and on autobahns and I believe there are still some roads in the U.S. where there are no speed limits (speeds are regulated by people’s common sense.) That said, I think a reasonable argument can be made for speed limits…one, the roads were built and are maintained via public funds and two, there is the argument of direct threat (100 miles per hour through a school zone, or on a crowded street, is a direct threat to others who have a right to be on that street.) 

Regarding drugs, you already do drugs (you drink alcohol.) Why are you allowed to do your drug and somebody who wants to smoke pot is not allowed to do theirs? Then there is the issue of the “cure” being worse than the disease. …you remember prohibition, right? You realize that as bad as SOME people’s actions are (when under the influence of alcohol) our “alcohol related problems” in this country are much lower since they repealed prohibition…

<<“Should I be allowed to smoke some pot before I go to work? I know I can still function, it doesn't affect my judgment”>>

That depends on a few things. …if you’re a graphic designer or musician, I don’t think one could argue that it’s a “direct threat” to anyone else if you’re high while doing your job. If you’re filling out prescriptions, it becomes more complicated (potential for threat) but that exists as it is now. I don’t know any pharmacy that would hire an unreliable / unsafe person. (Say somebody who comes to work DRUNK or stoned, or wasted out on LEGAL prescription drugs.)

<<“Don't tell me I can't have a gun when I have kids in the house, I have taught my kids well and they know not to touch the gun I have sitting on the kitchen table, it's my gun,”>>

Let me get this straight, are you arguing that a person who has children should not be allowed to have a firearm? And by the way, I don’t know ANYONE who leaves loaded guns lying around where children can get to them. Do you? 

I take it you don’t own guns and have no experience with them (which is the only thing that would explain the hysteria / fear that you’re projecting about them.) 

<<“it's stupid to have a law where I would be held accountable if some kid blows their head off,”>>

That is quite a leap of logic there. I’ve never heard anyone argue against laws that punish negligence or involuntary manslaughter. What I find odd is how “up in arms” anti-gun rights activists get about this specific “threat to children,” but don’t say anything about the other threats that are FAR greater. Or, as I wrote a while back:
 

"Everyone agrees it's a tragedy when a child accidentally shoots himself or another child. But it is also a tragedy when children are killed by other causes…and as it turns out; guns are among the LEAST likely causes of accidental death. 

Put another way, does the media ever make people who own swimming pools look like irresponsible / dangerous members of society? (A child is far more likely to drown than to die from a firearms accident.) How about those who own automobiles? Accidental deaths by automobile FAR outnumber those caused by firearms. Should responsible car owners be demonized for the sins of irresponsible or dangerous drivers? Of course not."


So many get panicked (because the media has conditioned them to panic) over threats that pale in comparison to other things that go on every single day. But because you actually KNOW something about the other things, you can’t be terrified into thinking the threat is bigger than it actually is. As an example, consider the NORMAL flu (something you’re probably not to terrified of) VS the “Swine Flu.” I wrote this at the start of May: 
 

“The "normal flu" has killed nearly 14,000 people so far this year...but no panic. How many have died due to this new "outbreak?" Less than two hundred? Does the situation really warrant this level of hysteria or is it just another case of "hype for gain." I wonder what effect this “crisis” will have on government vaccine purchases and vaccine manufacturers’ profits.”


<“Extra insurance if I own a pit bull or not even being allowed to own one in some areas, well that's just stupid I say, I am a good dog owner, I use my dogs to protect myself and my property, my dog would never get lose and rip anyone apart.”>>

Again, hysteria and fear. Have you ever owned a pit bull? Have you ever known somebody who has? How many people are killed by pitbulls every year? Care to guess? 

I own a Fila Brasileiro…banned in the UK, but not here. HMMMM. So my WONDERFUL dog is OK here, but so dangerous it must be banned in the UK. Same dog, different geography. Go figure. (And on that point, please search “pit bull deaths per year.”) 

<<“It's not a perfect system, it needs improvement, no one would deny that but other than raging on and on about how much you dislike the government and that you feel as long as peoples rights are not violated by the opinions of others you're okay with things. You have your own opinion that violates my rights of having an organized system where people are held accountable.”>>

That is absolutely absurd. I am “raging on and on” about CRIMES that are committed by government or corporations. Can you try to get that through your head? 

I am SEEKING accountability, not seeking to avoid it. I am seeking to expose criminals in the system who abuse their power and the flaws that permit them to exist (flaws that are there in large part because of people who have blind faith in their Gods, be it government or otherwise, and don’t want to hear about things that contradict their desired view.) 

Ignorance of how the system really works perpetuates this problem. So I’m trying to educate people about the contradictions. I consider that more useful than putting my head in the sand, ignoring the LIES that are told to manipulate, control and exploit. 

How do you think all improvements in “government rule” have come about over the ages? Do such improvements come about from people sitting by and obeying government and ignoring its abuses, or do they come about because people refuse to accept those abuses of power? 

How did documents like the Magna Carta and our Constitution come into being? …was it the people who did nothing to fight lawless “authorities” or the people who fought to secure and defend others against lawlessness that brought the changes into existence? 

The main difference between you and I is you WANT others to tell you what you can and cannot do. You believe others are qualified to do this and that they only seek this power with “your best interests in mind.” I know that is absolute bullshit because I’ve studied history (recent and past.) 

I refuse to sit back and be ruled by people who are morally inferior to me. (Those who lie, cheat, steal, murder, maim, enslave, threaten, exploit, etc. and CLAIM that they are “the good guys.”) 

If you would take the time to see how utterly corrupt the system is (starting with our monetary system) you MIGHT finally start to see the bigger picture. …but you don’t WANT to see it. It challenges your faith. It’s so much easier to just believe what was drilled into your head from the time you were a child.

That is fine. People who choose faith over truth will always be “ruled” by somebody. People like me will always do our best to make sure those rulers are not dishonest, violent, sadistic criminals.(If you truly believe in having a group “protect people from themselves because many are lazy or stupid” you might want to consider how that philosophy applies to what I’m doing.) 

<<“how does me being allowed to do drugs NOT affect anyone else, in your little world?”>>

How does you being “allowed” to drink “NOT affect anyone else,” in YOUR little world? 

And for the last time, I’m not anti-government. I’m anti crime. And, I’m against “solutions” to “problems” that only end up causing greater problems. (Iraq war is a perfect example of both.)
 

  • She Wrote: I rarely drink, I have smoked pot, know the affects, I do own a gun and do know how to use it and YES there are people who leave their loaded guns out and kids have died because of it. I am not against people owning guns but I am in favor of more strict punishments for those who leave them where children can find them.

    I have dogs, have been attacked by a dog, I know the power a dog can have and what a pit bull can do (a pit bull was just an example of one of the many dogs that can turn easily and are used to fight) any dog can become a danger if the person who owns them trains them to be mean. Holding them accountable if someone gets hurt or another animal is okay with me. If you own a dog you have a responsibility to make sure that dog will not harm anyone, some people are careless or just stupid. Enough people have been attacked by dogs that it was necessary to make certain restrictions. 

    Swine flu was hyped up by the media, as for what profit the drugs companies made? I don't know but I think it has more to do with doctors prescribing medicine than it did the government or drug companies pushing anything. Tamaflu was already around and the only medication that can be used to treat swine flu at this point, I haven't seen sales of that drug sky rocket, ,at least not in my store.

    Because children have died from swimming pools there are also restrictions to owning a pool. 

    I would have to look at statistics to see how things have changed since prohibition but if I were to guess I'd say you're wrong, in part because there are many more people in the world now and more people driving, it would be hard to say exactly how much it has, the biggest difference would be with organized crime. Now instead of alcohol, who have organized crime with drugs.

    I've always been on the fence in regards to how making pot legal would change things. I'm not sure if it would make things better or worse and I never said I was against people smoking pot or doing any type of drug that is consider illegal, what you do in your own home, is your right, but I do know heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. can REALLY fuck you up, it causes people to lose their jobs because they become all consumed with the desire to keep getting that high. In the long run, they end up costing society in more ways than just money. Having it illegal also costs society because it makes the drug dealers rich (they are the corrupt people who are gaining from the little guy)

    Give me some examples of laws that were created that do not protect us. I am being serious. 

    You know very little about me, as I do you, my impression of you disliking the government comes from what you have written and how you go on about bad government and yet agree with certain laws that do still control society. It's a contradiction based on your own personal opinion, what you might think is a senseless law, might not be one in someone else's view. 

    I think seat belt laws are wrong and I should be able to drive without it if I want, I think bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want (out here, the people voted and said no, majority rules) I think Gays should have the right to marry (we voted, the majority said no, majority rules) I don't always like the laws or agree with them. 

    How you can say I have faith is laughable, I have faith in myself, I have no faith in others actions because I can't control what others might or might not do, even with laws in place. 

    My point is and has always been, everyone and every corporation, government office, has flaws. You have flaws, you make mistakes, you are NOT perfect, nothing or anyone is and never will be. 

    So yeah I know the government makes mistakes, I know they have flaws, I know they are not perfect, I'm not blinded by anything. I have things I feel are worth fighting for, such as gay rights, pro-choice, and science. I can't fight everything, so I choose the things I feel must compelled to fight for at this particular moment in time.


My Reply: <<"YES there are people who leave their loaded guns out and kids have died because of it.">>

I'm sure there are people who are careless with their guns...I just don't know any. Considering there are something like 150 million (or more) guns in this country, I have to imagine the number of owners who actually put kids at risk with their weapons, to the point it requires some kind of monitoring / restriction, is low. 

<<"I am not against people owning guns but I am in favor of more strict punishments for those who leave them where children can find them.">>

Please define what you consider a "child" (age) and what you mean by "strict punishments for those who leave them where children can find them." 

...for instance, if I live in a rural area and I'm 14 years old and I OWN my own hunting rifle, I obviously "know where to find it." Is my parent a criminal? Or do you mean stiffer punishments for accidental shootings due to negligence? 

<<"any dog can become a danger if the person who owns them trains them to be mean. Holding them accountable if someone gets hurt or another animal is okay with me.">>

That's fine. But it is also a far cry from banning people's right to own a certain kind of dog or punishing everyone for the actions of less than one tenth of 1%. 

<<"Swine flu was hyped up by the media">>

That was my main point...that people can easily be whipped into a frenzy of fear NOT based on a rational assessment of a threat, but based on how the media portrays it. 

Regarding the potential to profit (financially) from hyping threats, it definitely exists...but it isn't just an increase in vaccine sales and stock prices that can be "gained" from pandemic fear mongering...In my view, mandatory vaccinations would be the ultimate political / monetary prize. 

<<"you go on about bad government and yet agree with certain laws that do still control society. It's a contradiction based on your own personal opinion">>

It is very simple and there is no contradiction: I believe violating another person's rights is a crime. It has nothing to do with violating a "legislative" law in my view, it is more a matter of violating intuitive law or our "inalienable rights" as The Founders put it. (Rape is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, slavery is wrong, forcing others to live as you want them to live, when their actions do not violate your rights, is wrong...intuitively, without somebody stating it.) 

When government writes laws that are in agreement with intuitive law, I "agree" with their law. When they write laws that violate our rights, I disagree. (As an example: Slavery was legal, but it still violated intuitive law...it was a CRIME regardless of what the "legislative law" said.) 

Continuing, when government VIOLATES the rights of an individual (even IF it has passed a "law" that says it is permitted to do so) I consider its actions a crime. No different than if I or another person violated somebody's "inalienable rights." 

When people within the government commit crimes (violate people's rights) I expect them to be held accountable. Finally, because "intuitive laws" (which are also sometimes "legislative laws") never have and never will enforce themselves, individuals must act to expose and punish crimes (violations of people's rights) and that absolutely MUST include violations 
committed by people who call themselves government. 

In short, the only thing legislative law does is provide the "legal justification" to allow, prevent or restrict an individual's actions. The "law" cannot enforce itself nor can it be considered "just" or "unjust" based solely on the fact that it is has been written down. Just because government has written a law against murder and I support that law against murder does not mean I then must 1: Support all other laws the government writes and 2: Ignore it when the government itself murders people. 

<<"Give me some examples of laws that were created that do not protect us.">>

First: "Protect us" from what? I am not a child and the government is not my parent. I do not WANT or expect it to "protect me from myself." After the age of 18, that is MY job. 

Government's only legitimate role is to intervene on my behalf if somebody violates my rights. Likewise, it is supposed to intervene on your behalf if I violate your rights. Unfortunately, these constitutional limits on government power have been ignored so long, and people have become so accustomed to ideas that are totally antithetical to the founding principles, that most people accept absurdities like "the majority rules." 

Sorry, but this is NOT supposed to be a "democracy." In a democracy 51% can "legally" decide to enslave the other 49%. That is not the government the Founders won for us. (There is no intuitive "right" of a minority or majority to violate the rights of others...using "government" to justify it "legally" doesn't cut it.) 

This gets to the heart of the problem. There is absolutely NOTHING that cannot be "sold" under the banner of "protecting us." 

Take alcohol for example. If some people are "irresponsible drinkers" who "violate the rights of others" (intuitive crime) the appropriate governmental role is to punish those irresponsible drinkers for their crimes. The government has no right to commit the LARGER crime of violating everyone's right to drink. (It has no right to "make criminals" out of everyone else for the NON-CRIME of drinking.) 

But what if drinking is unhealthy? Shouldn't the government "protect us" from drinking since it's unhealthy? No. The people who call themselves the government are not our parents. Drinking may or may not be unhealthy, but that has no effect on whether a person who drinks has violated another persons' rights. 

Besides, simply writing a "law" that declares something "illegal" will not prevent people from doing it. In the case of "non-crimes," it only causes more problems. That is why I brought up prohibition earlier. ALL the costs during prohibition must be measured: Outright enforcement costs, the rise and funding of criminal organizations to meet demand, all of the additional crime that funded and suffering it caused, loss of personal liberties...and what about enforcement priorities in general? Do we really want our government looking for, arresting and jailing people for NON-crimes when there are real criminals out there violating people's rights? 

Now, to answer your question about laws that "don't protect us" there are too many to list. But The patriot act, the military commissions act and the John Warner defense act come immediately to mind. 

Assuming the role of government is to protect inalienable rights, we are not "safer" when it declares (erroneously) the "right" to violate those rights. In fact we are far LESS safe because the government can do more to destroy freedom in this country than any band of terrorists ever could. 

Now for the depressing part: A criminal (in government or out) does not care whether or not he has the "right" to do something. ...criminals think only in terms of "might." (In that sense, "rights" are useless against those who are ABLE and determined to violate them.) For this reason, we can't accept or encourage "lawlessness" in government. (Government always has and always will have the ability to commit crimes on a scale that dwarfs the "threat" posed by common criminals.) 

So, if men in government break the law, they must be held accountable. If they conspire to break the law or attempt to justify violating people's rights (crime) they must be held accountable. The government can never "protect our rights" by violating them. That is my view. 

On a lighter note, search "dumb laws" if you want a good laugh.

 

 

  • She Wrote:  <<"Take alcohol for example. If some people are "irresponsible drinkers" who "violate the rights of others" (intuitive crime) the appropriate governmental role is to punish those irresponsible drinkers for their crimes. The government has no right to commit the LARGER crime of violating everyone's right to drink. (It has no right to "make criminals" out of everyone else for the NON-CRIME of drinking.)">>

    That makes no sense to me. So everyone should be allowed to drink with no laws against drinking? What do you wait for the person to mess up and then punish them? Let's just see how responsible people can be, we'll let them drink and drive if they want because we don't want to force any rules on people? And after they kill someone from drunk driving, THEN we'll do something because they were irresponsible?

    Drunk driving laws are not strict enough in my opinion, there is no reason a person convicted several times for drunk driving should have their license taken away several times and STILL be allowed to drink and drive, throw their ass in jail, obviously they are a danger to society.

    I've looked up dumb laws before and some are funny, many have been on the books for years and no one ever bothered to have them removed even if they are ridiculous and outdated. 

    I really don't see you or I ever coming to a happy medium with our views. You have a very strict way you see things, where you're not going to bend. I see your points but I don't agree for the most part.

    I am proud to be an American, I am happy to live in America, I would never want to live any where else and feel the way we do things, is far better than some other countries. I'd would HATE to live in Korea, Japan, China..... I'll take my not so perfect government over that any day.


My Reply: <<"Let's just see how responsible people can be, we'll let them drink and drive if they want because we don't want to force any rules on people?">>

I didn't say anything about drunk driving laws or "not forcing rules on people." 

...Just like going 100 miles per hour through a school zone, I think reasonable arguments can be made against driving drunk. (An impaired driver on a public road is a significant / direct threat to others...that would be a violation of other people's rights by my own definition.) 

However, that doesn't mean, because some people drive drunk, that ALL people should lose their right to consume alcohol. (Millions of people drink every day and don't violate anyone's rights.) 

...There are worse governments, that is true. But what does that mean? As long as our government is better than North Korea, we're OK? 

I'm sorry, but that is a very dangerous view to take. Can you imagine Jews, living under the murderous regime of Joseph Stalin, saying "Hey, keep your mouth shut, you got it good over here...you could be living in Germany."

Again, injustice NEVER rights itself..."power concedes nothing without a demand."

We were the "freest country in the world" when we had slaves, when women couldn't vote, when blacks were forcibly segregated. The country was made BETTER than what it was when it was founded because people spoke out and fought what was wrong. 

Well, there have been many changes that have taken the country in the opposite direction. I'm against that...I'm not "going along with it." It isn't because I'm "un-American" it's because I feel the changes themselves are "un-American."
 

  • She Wrote: <<"However, that doesn't mean, because some people drive drunk, that ALL people should lose their right to consume alcohol. (Millions of people drink every day and don't violate anyone's rights.)">>

    I'm just going back to this because it's easier to pick one example than to go off into soo many others.

    How do you propose to keep laws/rules for those who are not responsible and also allow all the other people to have their rights without laws because they ARE responsible? 

    You can't have laws that are only for the people who mess up and wait for others to do the same and then enforce the laws upon them? I don't understand how that can be a solution?

    Of course I think there is always room for improvement, America has shown that when change needs to happen, the people rally together and protest to get those changes, sometimes those are good changes and sometimes not so much.

    The example of Jews is a good example, what makes America so great? They don't have to shut up like they would in Germany, we have freedom of speech, which also allows you to voice your opinion of what you feel is wrong with America. That's what makes us so great and makes me proud. Even when I think (not saying you) people voice something I feel is ridiculous or dangerous (Jenny? perhaps) they still have the right to say it.
     

My Reply: I'm sorry I haven't been able to help you understand my position. I'll try one final time and then we can call it quits. 

If the law protects individual rights, I support it. (You can't rape, murder, steal, attack, threaten others, etc.) 

If the law violates individual rights, I do not support it. (For instance, I do not support the government taking away your right to drink because a small percentage of people are irresponsible drinkers.) 

It isn't a matter of keeping rules for some who are responsible and some who aren't. ...the rules are the same for everyone "don't violate other people's rights." (That IS how our system currently works. Nobody is allowed to rape...those who rape or attempt to rape are arrested, those who don't are not.) Those who drink and violate or attempt to violate somebody's rights are arrested, those who don't are not. ...it's not the drinking, but the violation of another person's rights that leads to arrest. 

Yes, we have freedom of speech...Unfortunately, the government has been steadily working to erode our freedom in that regard too. So, I'm guessing we agree that the elimination of free speech would be a bad thing. I'm guessing we also agree that free speech is good because it protects unpopular speech...it protects our right to point out what is wrong. (There has never been much of a need to protect popular speech.)
 

  • She Wrote: Back to the drinking thing, I don't feel in any way my rights are being violated, I can drink if I want to or are you talking about making moonshine? My understanding of that, is it's illegal because it's made in an unlicensed still. I would guess most law officials could care less if you're making it for personal consumption but when you're making it for profit it's a different story. I'm not completely clear on the laws other than knowing it's illegal.

    Or were you going back to prohibition times? OR perhaps the age at which you can legally drink? Considering how easy it can be to become an alcoholic I don't see it being much of an issue to say you can't drink until you're 21, we both know if you want to badly enough, you can regardless of the law.

    I guess that's where you lost me. You can drink, I can drink, if we drink and cause harm, the law steps in and we get punished. Where is the problem with our rights being violated?

    Yes taking away our freedom of speech would be an issue with me, if anyone is putting that at risk, it's the damn media, although I'm not in favor of stopping the media, I do wish more people would just stop believing everything they hear from the media, in some sense, the media is far worse than the government.  


My Reply:  Yes, prohibition...I thought that had been established. 
 

  • She Wrote: hmm well then, this whole discussion makes absolutely no sense. The government saw the errors in prohibition and it ended. I was trying to understand your point on drinking and tossing in prohibition over and over again, doesn't show how the government is messed up now, it shows that when mistakes were made, eventually lessons were learned.

    What IS your point?

    Life is about trial and error, sometimes you can learn from past mistakes, other times you have to learn by making the mistakes. It was a HUGE ooops without a doubt, I don't see prohibition happening again and don't see how it's going in that direction.


My Reply: "The point" was to establish the difference between government intervention that is legitimate (protects individual rights) and government intervention that is illegitimate (violates people's rights.) 

I used prohibition because it seemed like an easy example...by now, I seriously wonder if you're even trying to understand what I'm writing. I covered this here: 

"Take alcohol for example. If some people are "irresponsible drinkers" who "violate the rights of others" (intuitive crime) the appropriate governmental role is to punish those irresponsible drinkers for their crimes. The government has no right to commit the LARGER crime of violating everyone's right to drink. (It has no right to "make criminals" out of everyone else for the NON-CRIME of drinking.)"

But what if drinking is unhealthy? Shouldn't the government "protect us" from drinking since it's unhealthy? No. The people who call themselves the government are not our parents. Drinking may or may not be unhealthy, but that has no effect on whether a person who drinks has violated another persons' rights."
 

  • She Wrote: If the government wanted to protect us from unhealthy things, they would shut down all fast food places. Prohibition happened, it didn't work, it has ended. 

    I do see your point on prohibition but how it applies to the present day, I do not because it's over. Give an example of what is happening right now, where the government is not allowing us to do something because it's harmful to us. Other than drugs, because there are still drugs that are legal that are unhealthy and messing people up, you just need a doctor and a prescription in order to do it legally but it's happening, I see it every day I work.


My Reply: <<"I do see your point on prohibition but how it applies to the present day, I do not because it's over. Give an example of what is happening right now, where the government is not allowing us to do something because it's harmful to us. Other than drugs">>'

How can you possibly say "other than drugs." The so-called "drug war" IS modern-day prohibition. 
 

  • She Wrote: Because other than drugs, what other examples can you give? You seem to only focus on drugs, drinking, sex?????? If you (not saying you do) want to be a pot smoking, drunk, who has sex with different woman every night, YOU CAN DO IT. Uncle Sammy really doesn't give a shit what YOU as an individual person does. Yes "illegal" drugs are against the law, but honestly the FBI, CIA, could give a rats ass if Joe Plummer is in his own house smoking a bong and banging chicks.

    Now if Joe Plummer decides he wants to make a living off of selling drugs, large amounts of drugs, Uncle Sammy will care and eventually haul your ass to jail. In order to get busted, I mean REALLY busted, you have to have a ton of drugs on you, a small bag of weed, they DON'T CARE. 

    If you're not only selling drugs but then getting chicks hooked on drugs and then forcing them to sell their bodies so you can make more of a profit, Uncle Sammy will care and try to bust you, justly so in my opinion.

    If you have already got convicted of some other crime and were put on probation, even a joint on you could send your ass to jail, why? Because you already broke the law and part of your punishment is, YOU CAN'T DO DRUGS. HELLO you fucked up, now you have to play by their rules until you're off probation,same goes for drinking, you break the law you lose your rights until you have met the conditions of your probation. 

    No I don't see what your point is, you just want pot to be legal so you can smoke it where you want? You can't even smoke a cig in a public place around here, you think making pot legal to smoke would give you that right? Hardly. Is it that maybe if it were legal, it would be cheaper, more easily available?

    I am NOT at all saying, you're a pot smoking, drunk, that wants to bang chicks. My point is, if you wanted to do that, you could, thousands of people do and they don't end up in jail. The laws are there to attempt to prevent harm, the laws are not strictly enforced unless you over step the line. 

    As for actually making pot legal, I'm on the fence, because I don't feel it would solve a problem, we do not see the same affects of making it illegal as we did with alcohol, it's a problem but not nearly as large of one as alcohol was, perhaps because more people prefer drinking? Just pot isn't a huge deal to me but pot can be mixed with other stuff that is a much huger deal. You make pot legal, then you have pot with meth mixed in, or they want cocaine legal, where does it end? And YES I think meth, cocaine, heroine etc..should be illegal, it fucks ya up and affects those around you. Pot is more like drinking with its affects, if it's just pure pot, nothing mixed in.

    No good will come from making heroine, cocaine, meth, LSD etc.. legal.

    As for pot for medical treatments, I totally support that, if you have a prescription for it, you should be legally allowed to smoke it, there have been studies done that show it helps in some cases.


My Reply: I don't smoke pot, I don't drink, and I have never cheated on my wife (married 11 years this month.) And all of that is completely irrelevant. 

The "purpose" of this entire (seemingly worthless) exercise has been to explain a general concept. The concept of: Legitimate government power VS illegitimate government power. 

The fact that somebody can break an illegitimate law and get away with it does NOT make that illegitimate "law" (and ALL the consequences that arise from it) "OK." 

First, your "Uncle Sammy" IS ruining people's lives directly...the lives of individuals who haven't violated ANYBODY'S rights, and he is also (inadvertently) creating the SAME criminal empires that existed during prohibition (which give rise to REAL crime and destroy even more lives.) 

Tell these people your story about how harmless the "drug war" is: 

http://www.makemarylandgreat.com/topics/protect-our-liberties/raid-mayor-cheye-calvos-home

My comment on the story above:

"How can anyone get their mind around how OUT OF CONTROL things have gotten in this country when a SWAT team can kick in your door, murder your pets (or worse - your family) NOT because they believe you have killed somebody, not because they believe you "have a bomb" or "hostages" or are "torturing children in the basement" but because they believe you could be dealing POT!"

It is clear to me that you don't understand the basic concept of liberty. ...that a person has the right to live their life as they please provided they don't violate the rights of others. Nor do you appear to know much about the history of government power. Our founders knew a lot about it...that's why they TRIED to limit government power. Today, nobody pays any attention. Our "leaders" violate the constitution right and left...who cares? 

Well, you go right on and keep supporting all this crap.... You think that seat belt you're forced to wear is a problem, or that "no smoking" law is an annoyance, your CHILDREN (and their children) will wish that's all they had to deal with. Or, worse, maybe they'll be properly trained and won't even know what was stolen from them.

I'm done. You win. Game over.
 

  • She Wrote: I never said the war on drugs was harmless, nor did I say I supported it. I gave two examples of laws that I felt violated my rights, seat belts being the best example of a law that DOES NOT harm anyone else but yourself. (excluding child safety seats because not putting your child in one, could cause harm to the child and not you directly) you have given no solid answers to that question.

    Busting in someone's house because they are suspected of dealing drugs and they did not, is wrong, mistakes happen, out of all the homes that are suspected of being drug homes, how many have been mistakes verses the number that actually had drug sales going on? Again I never said I thought the drug on wars is working the way they had planned nor did I ever say I supported it.

 

 

I wrote: Since we were just talking about flu in the other thread, I thought I'd send these two links over:

"The White House asked Congress on Tuesday for authority to spend up to $9 billion more for an H1N1 flu vaccine and other preparations against the novel flu strain that first appeared in April."


Link: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/07/AR2009060702549.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

And here is another:
"--The report of a secret French government plan to vaccinate every French citizen over three months of age, over 100 million doses, is more than alarming. According to the French Le Journal du Dimanche, anticipating a probable return of the virus in the fall, the government will spend nearly a billion euros to buy vaccines. Authorities will announce in the fall if they decide to make the vaccine mandatory. 

The French report comes just after the State of Massachusetts State Senate passed a mandatory vaccination bill that authorizes mandatory vaccination against purported H1N1 Swine Flu. In New York State the state hospital planning authority is debating making mandatory annual vaccination against flu of all public health employees, despite the fact that no approved vaccine for H1N1 exists"
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13835

And finally, I liked this...thought I'd share it:

 

5 Monkeys

  • She Wrote: If those monkeys were actual humans and the same thing was done, I don't believe you'd see the same reaction. Unlike the monkeys in the computer generated example, we can communicate with each other and easily learn the truth.

    As for the rest, I'm glad I don't live in France.

 

My Reply: <<"If those monkeys were actual humans and the same thing was done, I don't believe you'd see the same reaction.">>

Check out these particular humans, trained from birth to "obey authority." (And ask yourself, how much MORE "obedient" they might have been under a direct threat. ...not a "blast of cold water" like the monkeys. Instead, maybe a trip to the other side of the "experiment.")

 

http://joeplummer.com/obey_orders.html  

 

  • She Wrote: The experiment was motivated by greed, the people who participated were given money for doing what they were told, they also could not see the harm they were causing. 

    Take away any type of motivation and allow them to see the person suffering from pain and I bet it would turn out differently.

    In any case, I wouldn't doubt that humans do things for $$ using that experiment also shows that if YOU were in the same situation (government where money was a motivator) you would most likely do the same. How is that showing that you would be any different?

    The Nazi's were motivated to do what they did because some believed Jews were evil, not unlike Christians that feel those who do not believe in God will go to hell, I do believe people can be brained washed. They were also motivated by fear (real fear) of death or the killing of their families members if they didn't do what they were told. 

    I can't honestly say what I would do if I were told, not to do what I was told, would mean the killing of those I love. That's a tough one, I'd like to say I'd stand up for my principles and yet, I would stand up for those I love as well, it would be a very difficult decision. 

    If you were told, those you love would be harmed if you did not stop writing your books, what would you do? Because we live in America, it's not as likely to EVER happened but if you lived in Iraq, Korea etc... things like that DO happen.

 

My Reply: I'll just quote something you wrote a while back "You don't know me." 

Do I strike you as the type of person who just accepts "authority?" 

You have no idea how much money I walked away from so I could do this work. If you did, you wouldn't suggest "greed" would sway me. 

Fear of death? ...what are my choices? My family and I live like a slaves under the rule of evil, disgusting, subhuman thugs (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) or we die resisting? ...please. 

The only thing that would "buy me off" is the realization that the people I'm trying to protect LOVE their servitude. They WANT to be ruled by bankers, technocrats and dictators. -that I can't "help" those who don't want helped. 

Then maybe I would finally accept the view of the elite...that the people in general are mindless herd animals that must be ruled. And the mere fact that they, the elite, are in power provides Darwinian proof that they are the most "fit" to be in control.

That said, I'm going to do everything I can to disprove that assertion. 

 

She Wrote: I was making a comment to the research you showed me, the research suggests that people can be controlled, correct? I pointed out that they were not just being controlled but had a motivational reason for that control, money.

It's the same with government or any number of situations. People can be motivated by many different things, money being a huge one, fear being another one that will cause people to do things, they might not have done otherwise. 

You assume you know yourself well enough to say, money will not be a motivator. What if everything you had was taken away? What if a loved one needed a medical procedure in order to survive, you didn't have the money, but more than enough money was offered to you to cover the costs and have a little extra? Would that sway you?

Saying fear of death wouldn't scare you, that you wouldn't want to live under Hitler? We can look back at that situation now and see all the errors of judgment but to actually live it, would you have?

I'd like to believe I have high enough morals that I wouldn't do horrible things for money or out of fear of death. I've even said I'd rather die then turn on a gas chamber and kill 100's of Jews and yet if my family were to be killed in front of me if I didn't, realistically thinking, I can't say 100% what I'd do, YES I'd like say I would NOT do it but I don't know, I love my family and even though I REALLY disagree with the killing of the Jews, I just can't say what I'd do in that situation. My best guess would be, I'd take my own life, I'd rather be dead than to have to make a decision for something like that.

The point is, that research didn't prove anything other than to show that those in the government are human just like you and I, some can be swayed, the researched suggests people can be easily swayed regardless of what they're actions do BUT again, the research didn't reveal the actual suffering the person thought they were subjecting the person to, to actually see the suffering would have been different. Out of sight, out of mind so to speak. It's easy enough to do something you know is wrong when you can't see the affects your crime is doing, it takes a certain kind of person to continue to do it, when they do see what they've done. 

The reason you haven't convinced me of anything yet is because I don't see a solution. I see the need for a government, I see the need to improve it (as you do) I'm not seeing any solutions to how you feel things should be changed other than to say, you don't want your rights taken away. My argument is, some people deserve to have their rights taken away. 

How do you find a happy medium in that? How can you allow everyone to have the freedom to do what they want, without having laws in place to protect those who do the right thing against others who do not?

 

My Reply: <<"I pointed out that they were not just being controlled but had a motivational reason for that control, money.">>

I believe they were paid four dollars and fifty cents each. In exchange for that, they were willing to shock another human being until they screamed in pain, demanded to be let go, and frantically warned that their heart could fail. 65% (A hefty "majority") were willing to do this for $4.50. They continued until they were told they could stop. 

I find these types of experiments very disturbing. There was another one (a prison experiment) where EVERYONE knew it "wasn't real" and yet, many of those who were chosen to play the role of "guards" began to exhibit truly sadistic behavior. 

Then, for the really "disturbing examples" of what people are capable of, we just look to the real world. 

Regarding the "monkeys" video: They had a motivation too: At first they were motivated to avoid cold water, then to avoid being attacked by the other monkeys. The key thing I was pointing to: Once they were trained by the original "authority," they were much easier to control. (No need to spray them any longer...they would take care of punishing "dissident monkeys" themselves.) 

<<"I REALLY disagree with the killing of the Jews, I just can't say what I'd do in that situation. My best guess would be, I'd take my own life">>

Well, if you're willing to kill yourself, hopefully you'd be willing to "risk your life" resisting. You might still wind up dead, but at least you would have taken some of the murderers with you. 

<<"How can you allow everyone to have the freedom to do what they want">>

I think we have different ideas of what "freedom" means. 

To me, freedom means being able to do what you want, so long as you don't violate the rights of another person.

Freedom does NOT mean having the right to rob, rape, murder, maim, torture, drive 100 miles per hour through a school zone, light people's children on fire, etc. People who do these things are violating other people's rights and so they are punished. They lose their freedom / their "right to be free." It's that simple. 

I never said anything about not having any laws...I never said anything about not having government.

<<"The reason you haven't convinced me of anything yet is because I don't see a solution.">>

Let me try a SLIGHT variation on what I've been saying:

If people within the German government violate your rights, it's a crime and those responsible should be punished. If I violate your rights, it's a crime and I should be punished. That IS the solution. Accountability and consistency (inside and outside of government.) 

I'm pretty sure that is the best I can do. 

 

  • She Wrote: Okay so here's where we differ. I feel it's better to prevent a situation, rather than waiting for it to happen.

    I child proofed my home when my kids were young, in order to prevent injuries. I disciplined them (a way of controlling them) in order to teach them right from wrong. 

    I'm not saying "we" are children and that "we" need to be controlled and taught how to behave but some people do.

    If it were a perfect world where people could do what they wanted, without violating anyone else's rights, you and I would have nothing to debate BUT it is NOT a perfect world with people like that.

    If you feel we should have a government, then what is it that you feel the government should be allowed to do or is it just that you feel the government we have now, needs to be punished?

    Of course if someone in the government breaks laws, I feel they should be held accountable, just like anyone else. Thing is, there's a lot of things people, not just government officials, do that are crimes. Or do you feel because they are in government that we need to go after them more so? If that's the case, I think the church should be held accountable just as much and those priests who molested children, should pain severely. 

    Where do you propose we keep all these people if we send them to prison, or do you think they should be punished some other way? Martha Stewart springs to mind, she broke the law, but how many others did the same thing as her and NEVER got caught? What if everyone who did the same thing as her, did get caught, where would we put all of them? Jails are filled to the max in most states, some jails let people out early ONLY because they have no room.

    Or are you thinking, if we just let all those put in jail for smoking pot or did other drugs go free, there would be plenty of room? Out of those busted for those crimes, how many of them did more than just get high? Driving while high, is the same as driving drunk, you risk harming others when your judgment is impaired. I don't believe cops are out there sniffing around houses, trying to smell pot so they can bust in the door and arrest people, there's generally a lot more to it than just that.


My Reply: <<" If it were a perfect world where people could do what they wanted, without violating anyone else's rights, you and I would have nothing to debate BUT it is NOT a perfect world with people like that.">>

No, if you simply understood the difference between punishing "crime" and punishing "non crime" we'd have nothing to debate. 

Crime = violation of a person's rights = legitimately punishable / prohibited by law. 

Non Crime = NOT a violation of anyone's rights = NOT legitimately punishable / prohibited by law. 

Smoking a joint = Non Crime
Smoking a joint and driving = Crime

The government has no right, in an attempt to punish / prohibit the crime of "driving high" to punish / prohibit the NON crime of smoking a joint. 

Rape= Crime
Sexual Intercourse = Non Crime

The government has no right, in an attempt to punish / prohibit the crime of rape, to punish / prohibit the NON crime of sexual intercourse. 

<<"If you feel we should have a government, then what is it that you feel the government should be allowed to do">>

Same answer, worded differently:

The government should punish / prohibit crime. That is, intervene on our behalf if somebody tries to rob, rape, murder, assault, enslave, threaten or otherwise violate our rights. 

It should NOT punish / prohibit NON crime...do not punish / prohibit our ability to do things that do not violate another person's rights. 
 

  • She Wrote: <<"Smoking a joint = Non Crime
    Smoking a joint and driving = Crime">>

    I could smoke a joint now if I wanted and chances are I would not be convicted of a crime if I'm not driving in my car like an idiot. Companies that do drugs tests, do that on their own, the government isn't demanding that they do. I don't smoke pot because I don't care to and because my company does drug tests. Even if legally it's a crime, it doesn't really concern me because I know I could do it and get away with it, as do many pot smoking people. As long as you're not making a HUGE issue of it, selling and making profit off of your pot, it's too small of a concern for the government to go after individual pot smokers.

    <<"Rape= Crime
    Sexual Intercourse = Non Crime
    The government has no right, in an attempt to punish / prohibit the crime of rape, to punish / prohibit the NON crime of sexual intercourse.">>

    ??? I don't see how the government is punishing people for having intercourse. Rape is a sexual violation of ones rights, it's completely different from mutual consent. 

    <<"The government should punish / prohibit crime. That is, intervene on our behalf if somebody tries to rob, rape, murder, assault, enslave, threaten or otherwise violate our rights.">>

    How do you propose the government do this, without violating your rights? Have super man come flying down when a robbery is taking place but otherwise just stand in the shadows waiting?


My Reply: <<"??? I don't see how the government is punishing people for having intercourse.">>

Do you HONESTLY not know that I was giving that example to clarify my point? ...First I used the pot example, then I gave another example to make the "concept" (something I'm having a hard time getting across to you) easier to understand.

<<"How do you propose the government do this, without violating your rights?">> 

What are you talking about? How does the government have to "violate my rights" to protect me from being robbed? How does it have to "violate your rights" to protect you from being raped? PLEASE explain that one to me? 
 

  • She Wrote: <<"What are you talking about? How does the government have to "violate my rights" to protect me from being robbed? How does it have to "violate your rights" to protect you from being raped? PLEASE explain that one to me?">>

    This is a HUGE WTF how is the government violating YOUR rights by protecting you from being robbed or me being raped? The government made it a law, stating to do so would be AGAINST the law and you will be sentenced accordingly, by a jury or judge. If you have no plans to rape or rob anyone, what the HELL are you bitching about?

    I'm sure you think I'm an idiot but it goes both ways.

    To repeat what I already asked and you ignored:

    "How do you propose the government do this, without violating your rights? Have super man come flying down when a robbery is taking place but otherwise just stand in the shadows waiting?"

    Which still begs the question, HOW ARE YOUR RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED?


My Reply:  First, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not just talking about MY rights (which is all most people care about) I'm talking about OTHER people's rights. I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't do drugs...I CHOOSE to wear my seat belt. Yet I don't feel YOU should be forced to live as I do. 

This argument isn't about a "personal grievance" it is about lawful government in general. 

I didn't answer your question about "how do you propose government do this without violating your rights" because it doesn't make any sense based on the answers I've already given.

I guess I'll try to dumb it down a bit:

The government has written laws against rape. It does not have to "violate our rights" to punish / prohibit this behavior. For instance, with rape, the government does not force you to wear a chastity belt (a violation of your rights) in an attempt to prevent you from being raped. Right? 

IF your question is: How does the government punish / prohibit rape without violating the RAPIST's rights, that has already been answered a hundred times. (The rapist does not have the right to rape...his "rights" are not violated if he attempts to rape and is stopped or if he rapes and is punished.)

Regarding your superman comment, the only thing I gather from that is you're talking about law enforcement PREVENTING crime VS simply enforcing laws. 

IF so, how does the government prevent crime now? For instance, how does it prevent rape? ...does it force all men to wear shock collars around their genitals and give all woman a remote control "just in case" somebody tries to rape them? ...or, does it "swoop down like superman" or "stand in the shadows waiting?" 

OR

Does it do something else (Correct answer: Yes) which is: Follow leads / evidence under basic standards of probable cause and due process... 

Please read the Bill of Rights and understand that those are rights AGAINST government power. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth are all particularly relevant to this conversation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
 

  • She Wrote: No need to dumb it down any longer, I find your views to be without logic and unrealistic. Things are not in black and white, there are many gray areas, you speak as if you're behind bars and you're unable to see the whole picture.

    I don't need you fighting for my rights and I venture to guess, most people would rather speak for themselves than have you do it. You underestimate people and give off the impression that your way is the only way. 

    I have no ill feelings towards you, as my husband pointed out in the beginning of our conversations, there's no point in writing to you, you see things your way and no other way, I can agree to parts of what you have said but those parts are things I already felt in the first place, I just can't look at an issue without being rational and taking a realistic view and realistically you points are weak.

    Like I said before, this is going in circles and I'm ending it now, at least on my end. Having the last word, hasn't never been something I strive for so if you have more to say, by all means do but I'm pretty much done with this conversation.

    Have a wonderful life and I truly do hope you do, I hope you take a moment to appreciate the little things in life, appreciate what being an American means, hugs those around you, laugh a lot and live a life full of dreams that come true.


My Reply: You are right that we're likely to just go round and round, so I'll end with this:

I can agree with parts of what you have said too.

For instance, I believe gays should be able to marry / do what they want (provided they're not violating another person's rights of course) and I think you should be able to drive "unbuckled" and, at the very least, be allowed to smoke your cigarettes in a "smoking section" of a bar or restaurant. 

That said, I'm not out "petitioning the government" about these issues because they're very minor compared to some of the other things that are going on...greater crimes (violations of people's rights AND written law) that most people don't know, or don't care to know, about. 

I "show my appreciation" for being an American by defending the limits on government power our founders won for us. (Limits that wealthy / self interested people have been trying to destroy since this nation was founded.) I DO see the whole picture...that is the problem. I see the good, I enjoy the good, but I also know that there are those working to exploit our "goodness" for their own gain. 

Take care. 

BOOKS
2015 Edition
OTHER WEBSITES
Please reload