Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: NSA Spying: They're Trying to Make Warrantless Surveillance Permanent

  1. #1

    NSA Spying: They're Trying to Make Warrantless Surveillance Permanent

    Earlier this year, it was reported that a massive call records program was no longer being used and was probably going to be scrapped. But in yet another flip-fop, the administration is pushing congress for a permanent renewal of the mass surveillance programs started under the Patriot Act and then amended under the USA Freedom Act.

    “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.'' - JFK

    “I love agitation and investigation and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error.” - James A. Garfield



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    And permanent it shall stay.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  4. #3
    It was already permanent.

    They're just trying to make it "officially" legal after the fact ...


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  5. #4
    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.
    Nailed it.
    There is no spoon.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.
    Oh for $#@!'s sake...seriously?

    Tell me why I should get an ulcer over this when fully 95 percent (probably more) of the idiot population of Amerika willfully, happily, clamors over each other to festoon themselves with devices and gadgets and doo-dads that monitor and track and trace and surveil their every single move, action, words and location?

    And pay top dollar for it.

    I'm supposed to get wound up about NSA, after being wound up for 25 years about it, only to watch Amerikunts put themselves under total surveillance, but yet I'm supposed to ignore the fact that my country is being invaded?

    Who's distracting who here?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Oh for $#@!'s sake...seriously?

    Tell me why I should get an ulcer over this when fully 95 percent (probably more) of the idiot population of Amerika willfully, happily, clamors over each other to festoon themselves with devices and gadgets and doo-dads that monitor and track and trace and surveil their every single move, action, words and location?

    And pay top dollar for it.

    I'm supposed to get wound up about NSA, after being wound up for 25 years about it, only to watch Amerikunts put themselves under total surveillance, but yet I'm supposed to ignore the fact that my country is being invaded?

    Who's distracting who here?
    I believe that most of us could agree on a lot of these things. However, there’s one thing prevents this for me. There is no $#@!ing way I will ask for ANY government solutions. Ever. Call me a commie liberal illegal alien fornicator anarchist whatever. I don’t care. History has shown my position to be solid.

    The only invasion I am experiencing has been fully sponsored by those same people you are asking to fix it. Problem, reaction, solution doesn’t become invalid because you dig the cause. Leave my wallet and liberty be.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    I believe that most of us could agree on a lot of these things. However, there’s one thing prevents this for me. There is no $#@!ing way I will ask for ANY government solutions. Ever. Call me a commie liberal illegal alien fornicator anarchist whatever. I don’t care. History has shown my position to be solid.

    The only invasion I am experiencing has been fully sponsored by those same people you are asking to fix it. Problem, reaction, solution doesn’t become invalid because you dig the cause. Leave my wallet and liberty be.
    Absolutely!!!
    There is no spoon.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    I believe that most of us could agree on a lot of these things. However, there’s one thing prevents this for me. There is no $#@!ing way I will ask for ANY government solutions. Ever. Call me a commie liberal illegal alien fornicator anarchist whatever. I don’t care. History has shown my position to be solid.

    The only invasion I am experiencing has been fully sponsored by those same people you are asking to fix it. Problem, reaction, solution doesn’t become invalid because you dig the cause. Leave my wallet and liberty be.
    I fully understand and realize that the people in charge of preventing this have no interest in stopping it.

    I have repeatedly called for the activation of the militia, organized and un-organized, for mobilization and defense of the border, as per the constitution.

    Serious question, and I intend no snark at all: is that "too much" government?

    Or is this yet another, untold failure of the CONstitution that the Anti Federalists missed: the inability to act in the real defense of the nation when warranted, justified and legally binding?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.
    Scary Foreigners? lol

    The Scary F threads that are prevalent here today are from the morons that think
    letting 3rd world thugs and diseased felons and terrorists into America should be
    our number one priority , that somehow since is works nowhere, we need it here and
    somehow it is more pressing than the myriad of real problems that we actually
    do have.

    We have a plethora of Open Border idiots on this
    forum that think the rights of non citizens are the
    problem in America, the biggest problem that we face.
    We have miles of important issues crushing our liberties,
    real issues, that the O B idiots are willing to bury with
    issues like 'public domain' and Open Borders, those issues
    today are the very least of our actual problem areas.

    Our real and pressing problems;

    DHS
    NDA
    NSA
    TSA
    FEMA
    FBI
    NDAA
    PATRIOT ACT
    POLITICIANS
    FIAT CURRENCY
    FEDERAL RESERVE
    ENDLESS WARS
    END OF DUE PROCESS
    Corrupt collisional media
    Asset Forfeiture
    POLICE HOME INVATIONS
    END OF POSSE COMMITATUS
    HILLARY STILL AT LARGE
    THE SWAMP GROWING
    WELFARE RUN RAMPANT
    ...and so much ....
    Last edited by Stratovarious; 08-22-2019 at 02:56 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Serious question, and I intend no snark at all: is that "too much" government?
    I posed this question in the Milton Friedman thread:
    .
    .

    Aside from the fact that restrictionism is WRONG from both an economic and freedom standpoint.


    If the gubermint, in its history of blatant and multiple lies and abuses, really did want to preserve freedom, liberty and fiscal responsibility (which it doesn't), and actually believe (however falsely) that closed/walled in borders are the solution (which it isn't), riddle me this:

    Why build a wall or any other barrier 30 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles in, when all that would be required is to have "Border Patrol" patrol the Actual Border which is the Rio Grande, far-and-away from rightful property owners, so that Private Property and Businesses would NOT be affected, Americans would NOT have to show papers please, and eliminate the "Constitution-Free" Zone?

    NSA isn't enough. Neither is "eVerify". Neither is anything this government wants to do. This government is the direct opposite of anything relating to Free Markets, liberty and freedom.


    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Slave Mentality again.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ender again.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Why build a wall or any other barrier 30 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles in, when all that would be required is to have "Border Patrol" patrol the Actual Border which is the Rio Grande, far-and-away from rightful property owners, so that Private Property and Businesses would NOT be affected, Americans would NOT have to show papers please, and eliminate the "Constitution-Free" Zone?
    I'm all for it.

    I am in favor of using the militia because of the manpower requirement.

    Other than that, yeah, let's do it.

    Active armed patrols.

    No asylum, no custody, no "concentration camps", no court hearings, no handouts, no birthright citizens.

    "Turn around, now, and go back to where you came from."

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'm all for it.

    I am in favor of using the militia because of the manpower requirement.

    Other than that, yeah, let's do it.

    Active armed patrols.

    No asylum, no custody, no "concentration camps", no court hearings, no handouts, no birthright citizens.

    "Turn around, now, and go back to where you came from."

    A little better, AF However, you are still not seeing how immigration actually helps our American economy. Keeping in mind that I wholeheartedly agree - End birth right citizenship, End welfare.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-Immigration

    and

    https://youtu.be/h23HiKfziSY
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  16. #14
    Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

    https://mises.org/library/open-borde...ivate-property

    11/16/2015 Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

    This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015.

    Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

    This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

    I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

    Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

    But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

    What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

    The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

    Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

    When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

    Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

    He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

    Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

    And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

    If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
    In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

    “Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

    Hans continues:

    By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.
    It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

    In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

    Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

    But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

    (This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

    In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

    Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

    Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”
    Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

    Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

    Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

    Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.
    These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

    Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

    To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

    The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

    No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

    Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

    In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

    The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

    It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    It was already permanent.

    They're just trying to make it "officially" legal after the fact ...

    That's freedumb for you.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.

    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    However, you are still not seeing how immigration actually helps our American economy.
    Not being able to watch a video where I am right now and already having read the Friedman thread, I'd have to ask, "how"?

    In 50 years, since the immigration policy in the United States was turned from Coolidge's vision to Ted Kennedy's, we have been flooded with millions and millions of semi literate, sub IQ migrants from all over the globe: the national debt has skyrocketed in part to care for them, national IQ has dropped, life expectancy has dropped, wages have stagnated, the dollar is worthless and size and scope and power of government has increased across the board.

    Doomatarians, including Ron Paul, predict imminent and total collapse is coming any day now.

    So how has opening the gates to this unwholesome flood helped us in any way?

    And even if it did, assuming what you said was true, (it's not) I would gladly trade some economic gain in ephemeral dollars, before allowing my home to become New Angola or New Honduras.

  21. #18
    I thought this thread was about warrantless surveillance.
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    I get most of my news from Swordsmyth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a lie.
    @Brian4Liberty, devil keeps spreading this lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will report violations of the forum rules to the forum staff when they are egregious enough.

    You should remember that.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I thought this thread was about warrantless surveillance.

    Don't you realize that every thread must be about the ONLY important issue facing us, immigration, because every single evil that has been visited upon us, large or small, is the fault of those damn dirty immigrants. There's simply no point in wasting too much (or any) time or energy discussing or opposing anything else. Immigration is the only issue that matters.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    I posed this question in the Milton Friedman thread:
    .
    .

    Aside from the fact that restrictionism is WRONG from both an economic and freedom standpoint.


    If the gubermint, in its history of blatant and multiple lies and abuses, really did want to preserve freedom, liberty and fiscal responsibility (which it doesn't), and actually believe (however falsely) that closed/walled in borders are the solution (which it isn't), riddle me this:

    Why build a wall or any other barrier 30 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles in, when all that would be required is to have "Border Patrol" patrol the Actual Border which is the Rio Grande, far-and-away from rightful property owners, so that Private Property and Businesses would NOT be affected, Americans would NOT have to show papers please, and eliminate the "Constitution-Free" Zone?

    NSA isn't enough. Neither is "eVerify". Neither is anything this government wants to do. This government is the direct opposite of anything relating to Free Markets, liberty and freedom.


    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Slave Mentality again.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ender again.
    Because Congress has warped the laws so the the Border Patrol is just a speed bump and won't change them or provide money to hire enough Border Patrol.
    And because the legal system pretends that the military patrolling the border would violate Posse Comitatus.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I fully understand and realize that the people in charge of preventing this have no interest in stopping it.

    I have repeatedly called for the activation of the militia, organized and un-organized, for mobilization and defense of the border, as per the constitution.

    Serious question, and I intend no snark at all: is that "too much" government?

    Or is this yet another, untold failure of the CONstitution that the Anti Federalists missed: the inability to act in the real defense of the nation when warranted, justified and legally binding?
    Government has its proper place to defend against foreign enemies.
    None of the replacement ideas proposed by the anarchists have any hope of working as shown by history and simple logic.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Oh for $#@!'s sake...seriously?

    Tell me why I should get an ulcer over this when fully 95 percent (probably more) of the idiot population of Amerika willfully, happily, clamors over each other to festoon themselves with devices and gadgets and doo-dads that monitor and track and trace and surveil their every single move, action, words and location?

    And pay top dollar for it.

    I'm supposed to get wound up about NSA, after being wound up for 25 years about it, only to watch Amerikunts put themselves under total surveillance, but yet I'm supposed to ignore the fact that my country is being invaded?

    Who's distracting who here?
    We are being invaded by cultures that will give government far more power than this and the open borders crowd just denies it through either stupidity or malice.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I thought this thread was about warrantless surveillance.
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Don't you realize that every thread must be about the ONLY important issue facing us, immigration, because every single evil that has been visited upon us, large or small, is the fault of those damn dirty immigrants. There's simply no point in wasting too much (or any) time or energy discussing or opposing anything else. Immigration is the only issue that matters.
    It was, until post #4

    Identity politics is more entertaining. The (D) and (R) distraction is the Big Con that many in these forums eat up daily.

    The Scary Foreigners threads rule RPFs. Freedom.
    I had no intention of de-railing this thread.

    But the issue was brought up by SM and I addressed it.

    I'll leave now.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    It was, until post #4



    I had no intention of de-railing this thread.

    But the issue was brought up by SM and I addressed it.

    I'll leave now.

    My comment was not meant as a jab at you personally. More against the general atmosphere around here wherein almost every thread becomes an immigration debate and almost every evil thing gets blamed on immigrants. SM's comment, I think, was aimed in the same direction and some of your fellow immigration hard liners ar the very worst offenders.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Must be part of the plan to reduce the deficit
    Last edited by invisible; 08-23-2019 at 07:26 AM. Reason: wrong thread again
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I fully understand and realize that the people in charge of preventing this have no interest in stopping it.

    I have repeatedly called for the activation of the militia, organized and un-organized, for mobilization and defense of the border, as per the constitution.

    Serious question, and I intend no snark at all: is that "too much" government?

    Or is this yet another, untold failure of the CONstitution that the Anti Federalists missed: the inability to act in the real defense of the nation when warranted, justified and legally binding?
    Hmmmmm.....most Americans have voluntarily chosen not to own a gun too. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the 2nd amendment? I'm having a hard time following your logic here. (Oh, and the same folks seeking to make warrant-less surveillance permanent are also simultaneously attacking the 2nd amendment as you well know.)

    Speaking of the 2nd amendment, the reaction from the Latino community to the white supremacist shooting of the Walmart in El Paso was to start taking gun classes.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Must be part of the plan to reduce the deficit
    I would have thought it was part of the plan to oust Paul Ryan - but Ryan beat them to it by not running for re-election.

    Speaking of which, it has just occurred to me that losing the House to the Democrats really would have ousted Ryan as Speaker, if he hadn't quit.

    3D chess? Hmmmmmm ....
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-23-2019 at 09:16 AM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I fully understand and realize that the people in charge of preventing this have no interest in stopping it.

    I have repeatedly called for the activation of the militia, organized and un-organized, for mobilization and defense of the border, as per the constitution.

    Serious question, and I intend no snark at all: is that "too much" government?

    Or is this yet another, untold failure of the CONstitution that the Anti Federalists missed: the inability to act in the real defense of the nation when warranted, justified and legally binding?
    Put simply, we are screwed at this point. Take care. We are all in this $#@! river together.

    And to answer your question: Yes, the anti-feds missed a whole bunch of stuff IMO.
    I do not consent.



Similar Threads

  1. Trump Signs Warrantless Spying Bill Into Law
    By r3volution 3.0 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-19-2018, 10:27 PM
  2. USA LIBERTY Act - Making Spying On You Permanent
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-06-2017, 10:34 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2017, 01:35 AM
  4. EFF: Obama on Warrantless Spying WORSE THAN BUSH!
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 12:23 AM
  5. Groups Challenge Warrantless E-Mail Spying Law
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 10:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •