User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 28 of 28

  1. #21
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    That was my thought exactly: by the definitions used in that bill, the Founding Fathers were prime examples of "Violent Radicalization" (how much more radical can you get than planning and starting a whole revolution war??) and "Homegrown Terrorism"

    As a non-American, it saddens me to no end to see you guys (and by that I mean the country, not individual people) fall prey to the exact same kind of rhetoric that was used to create and justify the European authoritarian regimes of the last century or two
    Well.. yes... the founding fathers were revolutionaries and terrorists. And..?

  2. #22
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Well.. yes... the founding fathers were revolutionaries and terrorists. And..?
    And I find it both ironic and sad that a country founded on a revolution carried out by "terrorists" should now declare that this kind of attitude is unwelcome, dangerous and anti-American.

    Don't you?

  3. #23
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    And I find it both ironic and sad that a country founded on a revolution carried out by "terrorists" should now declare that this kind of attitude is unwelcome, dangerous and anti-American.

    Don't you?
    I'd say more "unsurprising" than anything else. All establishments want to protect themselves, while declaring that any insurgency that were part of their birth is now totally inappropriate behaviour.

    Is it really sad to find terrorism unacceptable just because their ancestors used revolution as a means of political upheaval? We are allowed to learn from our pasts, and from the experience of other countries.

    Personally, I don't think it wrong to try to prevent terrorism and revolutionaries. I'm pondering on better ways to achieve social change. Sometimes you just have to allow people to make noises and wait for a population to change en masse and wake up to its responsibilities?

    I don't think the answer is revolution and blowing each other up.. hmm. I wonder where one should draw the line? Freedom of speech should be important, but if it involves brainwashing young impressionable youths into extremism? Seems wrong to me. It's all difficult to put together into a coherent (w)hole.

    I live in hope for my american neighbours across the pond...

    -Geoff

  4. #24
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Why would you think that? It looks to me as though that is precisely the bill's intended purpose.
    They did specifically outline in the bill that the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for seeing that the rights of Americans aren't violated. Chertoff seems like a trustworthy guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

    In General- In carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described in this subtitle do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

    Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the commitment of the Department to racial neutrality.

  5. #25
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    What should be stressed is that intent to curtail individual rights was unlikely. This bill is instead the modern federal government acting like the modern federal government -- attempting to solve a legitimate problem with illiberal/crypto-fascist/criminal sedition or insurrection by adding to the bureaucracy and doubling laws already found in Title 18, Chapter 115 of US code.

  6. #26
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    What should be stressed is that intent to curtail individual rights was unlikely. This bill is instead the modern federal government acting like the modern federal government -- attempting to solve a legitimate problem with illiberal/crypto-fascist/criminal sedition or insurrection by adding to the bureaucracy and doubling laws already found in Title 18, Chapter 115 of US code.
    My real question, then, is whether the modern federal government should be acting the way it does with the breadth it does. Have they taken so much power that they have become dangerous to us? That's what worries me.

  7. #27
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    My real question, then, is whether the modern federal government should be acting the way it does with the breadth it does. Have they taken so much power that they have become dangerous to us? That's what worries me.
    In absolute terms, the American federal government is not as economically or socio-politically regulatory as other electoral democracies -- even as it does lag behind in odd ways, e.g., less friendly to business than Ireland or Hong Kong. Federalism and the separation of powers place certain restrictions on -- at least the increase in -- federal purview. Largely, it's a question of culture and electoral sentiment, in both of which it is currently a faux pas to very narrowly define the government's powers.

    Big and clumsy? Yes. Dangerous by way of active malice? No, and I advise you to reject that kind of paranoia.

  8. #28
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    But the signs are there. They've been there for a long time. The signs don't mean that the worst end will necessarily happen. But refusing to face that possibility is called denial and it only increases the likelihood of the worst happening.
    All dynasties come to an end. It probably won't be within our lifespans.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] "do what you love, and MONEY will come" - not really?
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2009, 01:01 PM
  3. Common sense - what is it and who has it?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:21 AM
  4. What is possible and what is not
    By Gauche in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 06:32 AM
  5. What is "hope," and why do I "need" it??
    By ArbiterDewey in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 05:04 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO