# Greatest Living American?



## Shaver

It's your call.

Here's my vote, Iggy Pop (pictured here with Debbie Harry)


----------



## VictorRomeo

I'll run with Big Bird. Here he is meeting with Pat Nixon at the White House.


----------



## TSWalker

Thanks to this thread, I have realized that almost all my heroes are dead or British. Often both.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Dead or fictional.

I blame it on the pussification of the American Male. 

Neil Armstrong (and the rest of the space program) are really the last of a batch I can point to.


----------



## Langham

TSWalker said:


> Thanks to this thread, I have realized that almost all my heroes are dead or British. Often both.


British? I was just trying to think of one, and I realised all the greatest were dead too.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> British? I was just trying to think of one, and I realised all the greatest were dead too.


Great men from the British Isles? Ranulph Fiennes, Lemmy Kilmister, Stephen Fry, Stephen Hawking, Patrick Moore, David Attenborough, William Speakman-Pitt (V.C.), Brian Blessed, Tim Berners-Lee etc. etc. etc. Pick one at your leisure. :icon_smile_wink:

I must confess a little surprise that such a patriotic bunch of gentlemen as the Americans weren't loading this thread with suggestions........


----------



## drlivingston




----------



## pleasehelp

Apatheticviews said:


> Dead or fictional.
> 
> I blame it on the pussification of the American Male.
> 
> Neil Armstrong (and the rest of the space program) are really the last of a batch I can point to.


I disagree with this. There are many great living Americans, even if they aren't celebrated in the media the way they once were. The classic "heros" may have been replaced by silly celebrities and morally bankrupt policiticans, but if you look around the United States, you'll continue to see great Americans all over the place:

1) My family is full of great Americans. Many of them have put the needs of others in front of their own, and sought to do what is right rather than what is easy. They've been innovators, fighters/soldiers for causes they've believed in and have done many good deeds.

2) I work with, and associate with many, great Americans. Hard workers and people with a strong moral compass.

3) As a NYer, I see many great Americans giving their time and money to help those people hurt by the recent storms.

4) Our armed-forces and police have many many great Americans that put their own safety on the line to try to protect others. Throughout my lifetime, I've seen examples of great Americans rallying in the time of need for their neighbors.

5) Our hospitals are full of doctors (many of which of massively underpaid) working to heal the sick and injured. They continue to work away in a legal regime that hamstrings their profits and ability to practice their craft.

I could on for many pages, but I think that if people look around they'll see great Americans everywhere. I think the problem that this thread may illustrate is the lack of great Americans that the media focuses on.


----------



## tocqueville

"Greatest" is hard to pick. But I can think of some pretty great ones. A few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(U.S._politician)

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn

[/URL]I'd buy any of these guys a beer:

https://www.cmohs.org/living-recipients.php


----------



## TSWalker

tocqueville said:


> "Greatest" is hard to pick. But I can think of some pretty great ones.


That's exactly my issue. Bill Gates is a successful businessman and a philanthropist, but is he a Rockefeller? Colin Powell is a great American, but is he an Eisenhower? Lewis Black is funny, but he's no George Carlin... and Carlin was no Lenny Bruce!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

*From the political arena, I consider both George HW Bush (#41) and Bill Clinton (#42) great Americans.
*
I may be the only one, but I consider us very lucky to have had 20 consecutive years of great presidents, from Reagan to Clinton. The last 12 years have exposed how lucky we were from 1980-2000.

*From the literary arena, I'm very fond of Bob Dylan and the novelist Cormac McCarthy.
*
When I think of my favorite songs lyrics, they were written by or influenced by Dylan. When I think of novels that have profoundly influenced my thinking on what manhood is, McCarthy's novels comprising the Border trilogy (All the Pretty Horses, The Crossing, and Cities of the Plain) are at the top of my list.


----------



## tocqueville

I wasn't that impressed by GHWB, although certainly in comparison with his son.,, Obama has been decent, but no more than that. Here's hoping for a fruitful four years.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Great men from the British Isles? Ranulph Fiennes, Lemmy Kilmister, Stephen Fry, Stephen Hawking, Patrick Moore, David Attenborough, William Speakman-Pitt (V.C.), Brian Blessed, Tim Berners-Lee etc. etc. etc. Pick one at your leisure. :icon_smile_wink:


Well I stand corrected, but some of your list can only be described as great eccentrics. I suppose there are one or two great sportsmen also, but too many great people turn out to have feet of clay.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Well I stand corrected, but some of your list can only be described as great eccentrics. I suppose there are one or two great sportsmen also, but too many great people turn out to have feet of clay.


I do not wish to quibble but *all* of the fellows on my list are exceptionally talented and unique men who are either pure heroes or at the very least have contributed enormously to either British or World culture. :icon_smile:


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I do not wish to quibble but *all* of the fellows on my list are exceptionally talented and unique men who are either pure heroes or at the very least have contributed enormously to either British or World culture. :icon_smile:


I don't wish to quibble either, but your selection seems a little partial. I would say (surely without much fear of contradiction?) that ALL holders of the VC are great men, but you have mentioned only one (of I think only three living British VC holders). Stephen Fry might be talented and highly intelligent, but I find him oddly irritating and would say he is flawed rather than great. Patrick Moore seems to have spent much of his life as a caricature eccentric from central casting. Now Lemmy - well, perhaps. But this thread is supposed to be about great Americans, I fear it has been hijacked.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Since fame and greatness are not the same, I have no confidence that I have ever heard of the greatest living American, much less know that he is *the* greatest. He's probably working on a fusion reactor or space travel or defense against asteroids or brain imaging or some other innovation that will fundamentally solve one of our species' greatest problems. And he might be a woman. Greatness is best judged in hindsight.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Tim Burton


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bill Moyers.

Attempts to open eyes, still speaks the truth.
(Although we, as a society, will remain willfully ignorant until the end.)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I too have realised most of my heroes are both Irish and dead.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Great men from the British Isles? Ranulph Fiennes, Lemmy Kilmister, Stephen Fry, Stephen Hawking, Patrick Moore, David Attenborough, William Speakman-Pitt (V.C.), Brian Blessed, Tim Berners-Lee etc. etc. etc. Pick one at your leisure. :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> I must confess a little surprise that such a patriotic bunch of gentlemen as the Americans weren't loading this thread with suggestions........


A curious definition of great!
An egotistical adventurer who, whilst enjoying his own eccentric career of endurance, hasn't actually done anything but fulfil his own desire for self-agrandizement and adventure.
A second or even third rate guitarist, by his own admission.
A moderately witty entertainer.
An astrophysicist.
A right-wing popular astronomer, who used to appear on television.
A very fortunate televsion presenter and part-time scientist.
A winner of the VC, one of thousands.
An actor who makes a living from the possesion of a beard and a loud voice.
An inventor.
These are your examples of "great" men?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> A curious definition of great!
> An egotistical adventurer who, whilst enjoying his own eccentric career of endurance, hasn't actually done anything but fulfil his own desire for self-agrandizement and adventure.
> 
> A second or even third rate guitarist, by his own admission.
> A moderately witty entertainer.
> An astrophysicist.
> A right-wing popular astronomer, who used to appear on television.
> A very fortunate televsion presenter and part-time scientist.
> A winner of the VC, one of thousands.
> An actor who makes a living from the possesion of a beard and a loud voice.
> An inventor.
> These are your examples of "great" men?


I could, of course, re characterise every single one of these gentlemen and denounce your harsh trivialisation of their achievement.

In fact, please choose one and I shall. :icon_smile:


----------



## TSWalker

Chouan said:


> These are your examples of "great" men?


Pray, what is yours?

Tim Berners-Lee changed the world for the better. Were it not for him, we would be having this discussion in green 80-column text. If you wish to exclude Motorhead and Iggy Pop from categorical greatness, so be it, but to dismiss inventors, astronomers, astrophysicists... I ask again, what is your definition of greatness?

To add some living Americans to the list (great but not "greatest"): Steve Wozniak, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oprah Winfrey (I'm not a fan, but credit where due), Jon Huntsman Sr. & Jr., Jeff Bezos, everyone working at NASA....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Great men from the British Isles? Ranulph Fiennes, Lemmy Kilmister, Stephen Fry, Stephen Hawking, Patrick Moore, David Attenborough, William Speakman-Pitt (V.C.), Brian Blessed, Tim Berners-Lee etc. etc. etc. Pick one at your leisure. :icon_smile_wink:


Oh dear, heavy disagreement coming up here on four of those.

Ranulph Fiennes - a privileged egomaniac, who comes across in interviews as if exploring the world is his god given right, while most people have to work for a living.
Lemmy Kilmister - an alcoholic average bass player and average singer
Stephen Fry-very funny, but very tiring with his constant rude,offensive anti-theist commentary at every opportunity.
Brian Blessed - an average character actor, with one expression, and one style - loud and abrasive

Moore & Attenborough I'll grant you, both have educated the public in a good way and provided lots of educational entertianment

I don't know who Speakman-Pitt and Berners-Lee are so I can't comment.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> I could, of course, re characterise every single one of these gentlemen and denounce your harsh trivialisation of their achievement.
> 
> In fact, please choose one and I shall. :icon_smile:


Pleasse tell me a bit about Speakman-Pitt and Berners-Lee


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pleasse tell me a bit about Speakman-Pitt and Berners-Lee


Tim Berners Lee invented the internet! A reasonable achievement in anybody's book, I would have thought.

During the Korean war, and when his position was being over-run, Speakman-Pitt fought off the enemy using beer bottles, after he ran out of ammo. This singular tenacity aside - anyone who has been awarded the VC is clearly a great man.


----------



## Shaver

TSWalker said:


> Pray, what is yours?
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee changed the world for the better. Were it not for him, we would be having this discussion in green 80-column text.* If you wish to exclude Motorhead and Iggy Pop from categorical greatness, so be it,* but to dismiss inventors, astronomers, astrophysicists... I ask again, what is your definition of greatness?
> 
> To add some living Americans to the list (great but not "greatest"): Steve Wozniak, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oprah Winfrey (I'm not a fan, but credit where due), Jon Huntsman Sr. & Jr., Jeff Bezos, everyone working at NASA....


I am minded to allow that the impact both Iggy and Lemmy have made on popular culture is enormous. Quite simply (for better or for worse) modern music would not be _anything_ like it is now without the seminal influence of these two gentlemen.

Popular culture influences thought (except on the Trad forum obviously :devil and thus in a very real sense the imaginations of these guys have altered our own. That's greatness, right there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> During the Korean war, and when his position was being over-run, Speakman-Pitt fought off the enemy using beer bottles, after he ran out of ammo. This singular tenacity aside - anyone who has been awarded the VC is clearly a great man.


Definitely! Good pick.

As for the inventor of the internet....hhmmmm....not sure about that...not sure if the balance of good v evil re: consequences of the internet is in the black....I feel it is well in the red!


----------



## jeffdeist

Lemmy lives in the US so we take credit for him these days. And yes he is a great American.


----------



## TSWalker

Shaver said:


> I am minded to allow that the impact both Iggy and Lemmy have made on popular culture is enormous. Quite simply (for better or for worse) modern music would not be _anything_ like it is now without the seminal influence of these two gentlemen.


Yes, but greater than these are the dead. John. Jimi. Jim. Bob. Peter. Joe. Kurt (begrudgingly).

Death appears the shortest path to immortality. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## blairrob

TSWalker said:


> Yes, but greater than these are the dead. John. Jimi. Jim. Bob. Peter. Joe. *Kurt* *(begrungingly). *


Fixed for ya'.


----------



## Chouan

TSWalker said:


> Pray, what is yours?
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee changed the world for the better. Were it not for him, we would be having this discussion in green 80-column text. If you wish to exclude Motorhead and Iggy Pop from categorical greatness, so be it, but to dismiss inventors, astronomers, astrophysicists... I ask again, what is your definition of greatness?
> 
> To add some living Americans to the list (great but not "greatest"): Steve Wozniak, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oprah Winfrey (I'm not a fan, but credit where due), Jon Huntsman Sr. & Jr., Jeff Bezos, everyone working at NASA....


If Tim Berners-Lee hadn't one of the many other very intelligent people working in the IT world would have done. You're suggesting, effectively, that without Newton defining gravity we would still not understand the concept now. 
Individuals can do world changing things, but does that, of itself, make them great? If that is my definition, and I think it is, are any of the people I mentioned truly great? Is Hawking great? Has he changed the world? Or is his acheivement that of continuing his work despite a debilitating illness. Admirable, yes, but a sign of greatness?


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> I am minded to allow that the impact both Iggy and Lemmy have made on popular culture is enormous. Quite simply (for better or for worse) modern music would not be _anything_ like it is now without the seminal influence of these two gentlemen.
> 
> Popular culture influences thought (except on the Trad forum obviously :devil and thus in a very real sense the imaginations of these guys have altered our own. That's greatness, right there.


Explain, please, how Lemmy has influenced the cultural world. Indeed, explain, pray, how Lemmy has influenced the Rock World? Tony Iommi did so with his style of play, but I wouldn't describe him as "Great" either!


----------



## Chouan

Is every winner of the VC a great man? Was Lt.Colonel H.Jones VC a great man? Not according to people who served with him. Was Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC a great man, or was he an immoral, womanising, egocentric bully?


----------



## Pliny

Stephen Fry?

His relation C. B. Fry ( 1872 1956), was a great Englishman = played cricket for England, soccer in an FA Cup final and he held the world record for long jump, helped establish the League of Nations, and was offered the Kingship of Albania. He was an outstanding pollie, diplomat, academic, teacher, writer, editor and publisher.

Shaver, surely John Lydon is greater than Lemmy? But I wouldn't say either is 'great'.

Great Americans?

Woody Allen, Scorcese, Wynton Marsalis, Ali, Keith Jarrett. Beyonce, Frank Gehry, Stephen Donaldson, Sandra O'Connor (Supreme court),


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Explain, please, how Lemmy has influenced the cultural world. Indeed, explain, pray, how Lemmy has influenced the Rock World? Tony Iommi did so with his style of play, but I wouldn't describe him as "Great" either!


Is there anyone in the Western world who is not familiar with the tune 'Ace of Spades'? Do you not concede that it is used as a shorthand for wild abandoned exuberance in adverts, movies, to accompany YouTube videos etc? The psyche of modern man is to a large part infiltrated by this clarion call of frenetic rythmic melody. What more do you want from 'Greatness'?

Motorhead, further than Sabbath, propelled the majority of the rock world toward thunderous apocalyptic bombast. Poplular musical genres drifted further from the gentler blues/jazz roots toward a harsher more modern sound. In essence the 'bar' by which aggresion in music is judged was considerably raised by 'Overkill'. Metallica (one of the most succesful rock groups of all time) concede that without Motorhead they would not exist. To influence your peers and their descendants. What more do you want from 'Greatness'?

It is a mistake to confuse talent with accomplishment in respect of popular music. Clearly not a single popular musician could aspire to the dizzying heights of, say, Verdi. The value is a different aesthetic entirely.

.
.
.

.
..


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Is every winner of the VC a great man? Was Lt.Colonel H.Jones VC a great man? Not according to people who served with him. Was Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC a great man, or was he an immoral, womanising, egocentric bully?


As you will happily besmirch a gallant war hero purely because he had an eye for the ladies, I can see now that you will not be satisfied with anything less than utter perfection.

As my honoured fellow member TSWalker asked of you 'what is your definition of greatness'? Who do you consider to be great?


----------



## Shaver

Pliny said:


> Stephen Fry?
> 
> His relation C. B. Fry ( 1872 1956), was a great Englishman = played cricket for England, soccer in an FA Cup final and he held the world record for long jump, helped establish the League of Nations, and was offered the Kingship of Albania. He was an outstanding pollie, diplomat, academic, teacher, writer, editor and publisher.
> 
> *Shaver, surely John Lydon is greater than Lemmy? But I wouldn't say either is 'great'.*
> 
> Great Americans?
> 
> Woody Allen, Scorcese, Wynton Marsalis, Ali, Keith Jarrett. Beyonce, Frank Gehry, Stephen Donaldson, Sandra O'Connor (Supreme court),


Horses for courses but yes, Lydon is a great man. Slightly embrassing these days admittedly.

Scorcese! Now there's a good call. :icon_smile:


----------



## VictorRomeo

OK. Back on track - we've digressed somewhat and it's a shame this thread did not go the way it should or could have. I'll accept part of the blame for my only suggestion.I will however proceed to suggest Noam Chomsky - one of the greatest intellectuals ever. And he's still alive. Won't go down so well with the right wingers, but none the less he's a very impressive fellow.


----------



## Shaver

^ A reasonable suggestion. Whilst his theory of language is now discredited, still it was an impressive attempt to establish a cohesive description of the underlying themes of structure and function towards identifying a universal meta-language.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> ^ A reasonable suggestion. Whilst his theory of language is now discredited, still it was an impressive attempt to establish a cohesive description of the underlying themes of structure and function towards identifying a universal meta-language.


I believe that he moved away a long time ago from his theory of 'deep structures' that underlie grammar.... Chomsky has produced a number of successive theories, which one(s) do you also consider to be discredited? Just curious.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> I believe that he moved away a long time ago from his theory of 'deep structures' that underlie grammar.... Chomsky has produced a number of successive theories, which one(s) do you also consider to be discredited? Just curious.


A number of the assumptions of the Theory of Syntax, the notion that linguistic structures must be largely innate have been eroded by detailed examination of localised tongues. As I recall the theory has been most expressly challenged by variants of Native American - but I may be in error here. This isn't my area of specialism but as I understood it despite tinkering with his great idea, and to attempt to incorporate contradictory data as it appeared, the essence of linguistics remains the same? Only to happy to be enlightened if my knowledge is partial or outdated. :icon_smile:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Only to happy to be enlightened if my knowledge is partial or outdated. :icon_smile:


No, can't help in any detailed sense - I'm already out of my depth! I have an notional understanding of his work as a linguist but that's it - I can comprehend why his theory of generative grammar is no longer considered true. I'm much more excited by his historical, political, ethical and philosophical thoughts.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> No, can't help in any detailed sense - I'm already out of my depth! I have an notional understanding of his work as a linguist but that's it - I can comprehend why his theory of generative grammar is no longer considered true. *I'm much more excited by his historical, political, ethical and philosophical thoughts.*


I'm interested, please share.....


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> I'm interested, please share.....


Well for example, in his book Hegmoney or Survial (a thoughtful read), Chomsky he argued that the neoconservative administration of Bush differed from previous Republican administrations in one distinct way - that it was completely open about what he called the Imperial Grand Strategy. That they would be willing to use force to ensure U.S. global hegemony despite international condemnation. He viewed the invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK as a core example of this and it fit a series of critera set out to guarantee success; the country was practically defensless and was defeated with ease, that they had unlimited access to their massive oil reserves. To achieve this they had to pain a picture of a country with WMDs and were willing to use them(false) and that it was a hotbed of Al Qaeda(tenuous at time of invasion). Now books like this were, are, not without critics however most critiques never actually deal with the book, the content and the subjects within. Instead they tend criticise the Left, social and liberal values in a rather vague and meaningless nature. It's also worth noting he's no great fan of Obama either - not left-wing enough for him I suppose!


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> As you will happily besmirch a gallant war hero purely because he had an eye for the ladies, I can see now that you will not be satisfied with anything less than utter perfection.
> 
> As my honoured fellow member TSWalker asked of you 'what is your definition of greatness'? Who do you consider to be great?


The fact that he used his position as a senior officer to have sexual relationships with the wives of his subordinates is more than simply "having an eye for the ladies". To then escape the consequences of his behaviour by using his seniority and "celebrity" status are not, to me, the qualities of a great man. Then using one's celebrity and seniority to bully a junior officer into a flight in an aircraft that neither Gibson nor his Navigator were trained or qualified to fly resulting in both their deaths isnm't the action of a great man either.
If a hero in a military context is what you desire, then how about Paul Henry, of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

VictorRomeo said:


> Well for example, in his book Hegmoney or Survial (a thoughtful read), Chomsky he argued that the neoconservative administration of Bush differed from previous Republican administrations in one distinct way - that it was completely open about what he called the Imperial Grand Strategy. That they would be willing to use force to ensure U.S. global hegemony despite international condemnation. He viewed the invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK as a core example of this and it fit a series of critera set out to guarantee success; the country was practically defensless and was defeated with ease, that they had unlimited access to their massive oil reserves. To achieve this they had to pain a picture of a country with WMDs and were willing to use them(false) and that it was a hotbed of Al Qaeda(tenuous at time of invasion). Now books like this were, are, not without critics however most critiques never actually deal with the book, the content and the subjects within. Instead they tend criticise the Left, social and liberal values in a rather vague and meaningless nature. It's also worth noting he's no great fan of Obama either - not left-wing enough for him I suppose!


Bush 43's doctrine of "Pre-emptive Self-Defense" still seems like Orwellian double talk to me. Don't know if it's part of Chomsky's IGS, but it seems to fit like a glove.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> The fact that he used his position as a senior officer to have sexual relationships with the wives of his subordinates is more than simply "having an eye for the ladies". To then escape the consequences of his behaviour by using his seniority and "celebrity" status are not, to me, the qualities of a great man. Then using one's celebrity and seniority to bully a junior officer into a flight in an aircraft that neither Gibson nor his Navigator were trained or qualified to fly resulting in both their deaths isnm't the action of a great man either.
> If a hero in a military context is what you desire, then how about *Paul Henry, of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.*


^Accepted. Noble self sacrifice always meets with my approval.

However, returning to Gibson & Col 'H' - we must accept that many of the qualities that make a man an exceptional soldier are intrinsically dissimilar to those qualities which would allow them to become saints.

Further revisionist history will inevitably set itself to sharpening it's teeth upon the legacy of great military men.

Gibson 'the Arch Bastard' was described by Harris (another reputation sullied by revisionist slurs) as being as great a warrior as the British Isles had ever bred. 
I imagine those living in the vicinity of the Eder dam in 1943 don't have very fond memories of him though. :devil:

.
.
.
.
.#
.


----------



## TSWalker

Chouan said:


> You're suggesting, effectively, that without Newton defining gravity we would still not understand the concept now.


I am suggesting that while neither Leibniz nor Newton were _necessary_ for the discovery/invention of calculus - as each man proves vis-a-vis the other - both men should be considered great (in part) for that discovery/invention.

I must confess I am still curious as to your definition of greatness.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Bush 43's doctrine of "Pre-emptive Self-Defense" still seems like Orwellian double talk to me. Don't know if it's part of Chomsky's IGS, but it seems to fit like a glove.


The notion of preemptive self-defense is not remotely Orwellian double talk, which is not to say it is morally permissible. The proximity of defense to danger is a matter of degree, with traditional notions of morality requiring a high level of imminence. In other words not all self defense is necessarily moral, and preemptive self-defense may well be an immoral category of self-defense. But that does not render it not self-defense or doublespeak.


----------



## Shaver

^A mighty country, under no threat, pounding a tiny nation until it is just a smoking crater - this cannot really be considered self-defense, can it? Pre-emptive or otherwise. Except as pure doublespeak.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> ^A mighty country, under no threat, pounding a tiny nation until it is just a smoking crater - this cannot really be considered self-defense, can it? Pre-emptive or otherwise. Except as pure doublespeak.


Hear, hear! Well said sir.

And if that kind of long distance "proactive self-defence" is permissable for the USA, then....well, you know the rest...


----------



## wdrazek

Having lived here more than a half century, I am saddened to say that its hard to name a truly great living American. 

Our politicians tend to be like Clinton/Obama which is to say pandering to the average folk but in the keep of the Wall St. crowd who very nearly crashed the world economy. Or they are like Bush/Cheney. Militant, intolerant, oil driven and ruthlessly imperialist.

In business, Bill Gates is a philanthropist, and is now akin (IMO) to the second gen Rockefeller's. Before this, he was as ruthless and cut-throat as John D. Rockefeller.

Among our artists/entertainers, would it be Kayne, JLo, Kim K? Or from the prior generation, Bruce Willis, Bruce Springsteen, Whitney or Sly Stallone?

I would have to cast my uneasy vote with one of the few journalists/ socialcommentators who actually have some courage to speak truth. Think Bill Moyers... Michael Moore... or a guy like Jon Stewart.

Then again there is always Oprah. And she certainly is the real deal..

We don't have a Bono. Or a Mandella. Nothing even close. Instead, we get Rush Limbaugh, Snoop Dog and Michelle Bachmann.


----------



## Tilton

Michael Moore and Jon Stewart are first names that comes to mind when you think "Great American"?


----------



## wdrazek

As I said, its hard to find many these days. The politicians are dysfunctional in the extreme. Business leaders driven by the pursuit of wealth and oblivious to societal gains. The media for the most part do nothing to shed light on what's actually going on.

Those two are drawing attention to the man behind the curtain. Hardly anyone else is, and in order for improvement to take place awareness must come first.


----------



## eagle2250

Tilton said:


> Michael Moore and Jon Stewart are first names that comes to mind when you think "Great American"?


If this is true, the USA is much worse off than we ever considered it to be and is perhaps already lost!


----------



## VictorRomeo

eagle2250 said:


> If this is true, the USA is much worse off than we ever considered it to be and is perhaps already lost!


Oh, don't worry.... you still have Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to help you sleep at night.....

But just let me interject with one teenyweenie little piece of semantics...._your_ _notion of_ the USA......


----------



## Tilton

Well... no, not really. Michael Moore is a different animal all together and if he's your cup of tea, he is certainly the epitome of... whatever he is - but I would never call him a patriot: the guy blamed the Tea Party for the Boston bombing(!). Generally, conspiracy theorists, unwilling to engage in rational debate with those holding the opposite opinion should probably be excluded from the likes of "great Americans" or a true patriots (for this same reason, I wouldn't consider Rush or Coulter to be in the aforementioned category, either). But Jon Stewart is no more "great American" than any other newscaster. He isn't writing his own shows, he isn't uncovering deeply-hidden secrets, he isn't breaking stories that no one else is America is covering. He is reading a script, written by a team of writers, that pokes fun at how seriously news media outlets takes themself and obvious hypocrisy in American politics. He isn't turning journalism upside down and rocking the worlds of politicians - he simply recycles news from earlier in the day, reported by every other outlet, but with good timing, punch lines, and snarky remarks.


----------



## eagle2250

VictorRomeo said:


> Oh, don't worry.... you still have Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to help you sleep at night.....
> 
> But just let me interject with one teenyweenie little piece of semantics...._your_ _notion of_ the USA......


LOL. Indeed, with centurians of the stature you suggest watching over us, we may all sleep contentedly through the dark and scary night!~


----------



## CuffDaddy

Tilton, I think Stewart's greatest value is not as an analyst or commentator on the news, but as a commentator on the MEDIA itself. That's when he's at his most insightful and (not conincidentally) his funniest. If you believe that the lousy quality of broadcast/cable journalism/news/analysis is a significant part of what's wrong with America today, then perhaps Stewart's efforts have the potential for great change.

That said, I stand by my earlier remarks that I am virtually certain I have never heard of the greatest American. He or she is probably toiling in a lab somewhere, or perhaps in a clinic or some other place of nameless public service, or maybe swathed in a drab uniform. Maybe we will eventually learn their name, but probably not.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Tilton said:


> Well... no, not really. Michael Moore is a different animal all together and if he's your cup of tea, he is certainly the epitome of... whatever he is - but I would never call him a patriot: the guy blamed the Tea Party for the Boston bombing(!). Generally, conspiracy theorists, unwilling to engage in rational debate with those holding the opposite opinion should probably be excluded from the likes of "great Americans" or a true patriots (for this same reason, I wouldn't consider Rush or Coulter to be in the aforementioned category, either). But Jon Stewart is no more "great American" than any other newscaster. He isn't writing his own shows, he isn't uncovering deeply-hidden secrets, he isn't breaking stories that no one else is America is covering. He is reading a script, written by a team of writers, that pokes fun at how seriously news media outlets takes themself and obvious hypocrisy in American politics. He isn't turning journalism upside down and rocking the worlds of politicians - he simply recycles news from earlier in the day, reported by every other outlet, but with good timing, punch lines, and snarky remarks.


To be fair, none of those mentioned here come anywhere close to being the greatest living American....That does not however prevent Jon Stewart from being my favourite American political satirical news show host - ever! The team he fronts are genius and his delivery biting yet genuine - I believe he has a great heart and a humanitarian spirit missing from most media and TV types. With that said, he's no mouth piece... In his myriad debates with Bill O'Reilly, he... well..... owns O'Reilly. Every time. Bottom line for him is though and he's the first to say it.... "his show nor his channel purports to be anything other than satire and comedy."...


----------



## Chouan

Tilton said:


> Well... no, not really. Michael Moore is a different animal all together and if he's your cup of tea, he is certainly the epitome of... whatever he is - but I would never call him a patriot: the guy blamed the Tea Party for the Boston bombing(!).


Does a "Great American" also have to be a patriot? Why would you suggest that he's not a patriot? Not that I'm suggesting that he_ is_ a Great American, you understand.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
The dictionary tells us a patriot is "one who loves, supports and defends his country," words that do not bring Michael Moore's face or name to my mind! However, I suspect a severly sick, twisted and fevered mind could see him as such. And yes a "Great American" (or insert any country name that applies) should also be a patriot!

Michael Moore is in it for the money and the adrenalin rush, not to support his country.


----------



## Dmontez

CuffDaddy said:


> Tilton, I think Stewart's greatest value is not as an analyst or commentator on the news, but as a commentator on the MEDIA itself. That's when he's at his most insightful and (not conincidentally) his funniest. If you believe that the lousy quality of broadcast/cable journalism/news/analysis is a significant part of what's wrong with America today, then perhaps Stewart's efforts have the potential for great change.
> 
> That said, I stand by my earlier remarks that I am virtually certain I have never heard of the greatest American. He or she is probably toiling in a lab somewhere, or perhaps in a clinic or some other place of nameless public service, or maybe swathed in a drab uniform. Maybe we will eventually learn their name, but probably not.


This.

As far as the hunt for the greatest living American goes, It will go on, and on through political debate that neither side will ever concede to the other.

In this day and age I do not believe we will ever figure out, or allow one person to be the greatest at anything.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Both CuffDaddy and Dmontez have hit the nail on the head. The greatest living American is not and never becomes the 'look-at-me' politician or celebrity, but rather an average Joe who get's up every day and goes to work, raising his/her family; being pressed into service and doing his duty, as each crisis arises, and fading back into anonymity as the crisis passes; one who steps up and helps their neighbors and even total strangers, during times need. When one's focus shifts from living for the benefit of others to living primarily for one's own benefit/gratification, the consideration of potential greatness is by nature, a futile pursuit!


----------



## Joseph Peter

drlivingston said:


>


Isnt he Canadian? Good Lord, I hope so.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Both CuffDaddy and Dmontez have hit the nail on the head. The greatest living American is not and never becomes the 'look-at-me' politician or celebrity, but rather an average Joe who get's up every day and goes to work, raising his/her family; being pressed into service and doing his duty, as each crisis arises, and fading back into anonymity as the crisis passes; one who steps up and helps their neighbors and even total strangers, during times need. When one's focus shifts from living for the benefit of others to living primarily for one's own benefit/gratification, the consideration of potential greatness is by nature, a futile pursuit!


Hmmmm... that's as maybe but my vote _still_ goes to Iggy Pop: dynamic exemplification of the American Dream writ large. An extraordinary man that could only have been bequeathed to the world by the fermentation of those most admirable qualities of the Americas as described and promoted by the Constitution in order to secure the blessings of Liberty.

.
.
.
.
.

.


----------



## VictorRomeo

eagle2250 said:


> Michael Moore is in it for the money and the adrenalin rush


Is that not a major component of the American way?!


----------



## Tilton

CuffDaddy and Eagle are on point. 

Chouan: yes, a great American absolutely must be patriotic, by the actual definition of patiot provided above. Michael Moore is not that.

I think CuffDaddy and Eagle said it just right, when I think about it. I have no doubts that my parent's gardener/handyman, Hector, is a significantly greater American than I am. He has a BS in electrical engineering in Honduras but doesn't complain that he is relegated to manual labor in the US - he is thrilled to be here all the same, he legally immigrated to the US, he works six days a week maintaining a pretty good number of homes and properties, he shows up every single day he goes to my folks' house with a smile and willingness to work. The only days he absolutely will not work are Christmas, Easter, and 4th of July. One Sunday/month he volunteers with Habitat. He earns mostly cash but reports it all as income on his taxes and insists on writing receipts for payments, he and his wife adopted their a family friend's daughter who was born with downs syndrome when the parents wanted to give her up for adoption. He has voted in every single election since he earned his citizenship nine years ago. Recently, one of his long-time clients became terminally ill and could no longer afford his services. Not only does he still continue to provide those services for free, but his wife started cleaning the man's home (he is single and in his 80's) and bringing him a week's worth of casseroles so he doesn't have to worry about cooking dinner for himself. When he first started helping my parents out, my mother paid him an extra $20 his first day as a "tip"; he mailed her a check back for $20. I'm sure he is also supporting family still in Honduras, as well. The guy is a saint and men like that are few and far between.


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The dictionary tells us a patriot is "one who loves, supports and defends his country," words that do not bring Michael Moore's face or name to my mind! However, I suspect a severly sick, twisted and fevered mind could see him as such. And yes a "Great American" (or insert any country name that applies) should also be a patriot!
> 
> Michael Moore is in it for the money and the adrenalin rush, not to support his country.


So somebody with opposite polical views to yourself cannot be patriotic & those who support them are all sick, twisted and have fevered minds?

One can love & support something without accepting its flaws (most people are critical of their children's misdeeds & try to correct the issue yet still love them). I'm not overly familiar with Moore's work but did he not push for social changes which he felt would better the country and aid society? You may disagree with his (and his supporters) social agenda but I'm not sure where you can rightfully say they're all all mentally ill because they disagree with you as to what
defines a healthy & stable America. oh wait let me guess. it's more of that B.S. from the divisive 2 party U.S. system which has failed miserably under both of thrm for longer than I've been alive?

You know. the more I think about it, the more I come to believe we can actually categorize the unpatriotic in 2 ways. True Republicans and True Democrats. They have both damaged our country beyond recognition with this " tit for tat" nonsense. Neither si. e willing to negotiate or even listen before declaring the other mentally ill. It seems a republican could no more admit the medical system needs changing than a democrat could admit constitutional obligations on 2nd admendment rights. The republicans want to invade my personal life and tell me that abortion is wrong while the democrats want to sell my 15 yo daughter the morning after pill without parental notification (Neither comes under anything that is anyones business be it a minor or a family decision). Limbaugh spouts lies on one extreme while Moore goes on the other direction. both are fueled by by playing off of negative emotions that set citizens against each other. Is anything ever changed for the better there? no. And what's even worse is that most issues are decided on by politicians while the true voice of the populace is silenced. While I won't disqualify someone's patriotism on political views alone (perhaps a few wish for true societal benefit) none of these people are "great" Americans.


----------



## VictorRomeo

I despise patriotism. I really do. I am no patriot - certainly not to any form of political and/or religious ideology or dogma. Today, I'm am loyal to a core belief in a familial shared human experience that transcends borders, race and so on. I could not really care less whose flag flies over my head. I am loyal to one broad, over-riding principal in life.... "How can I help?"


----------



## CuffDaddy

Here's a vigorous round of appluase for justonemore's views (even if I may disagree about the parental notification for morning after pills - some 15 year old girls have abusive families, or families that would constrain them from making the choice that will be best for their own life - it's hard to know what the rule ought to be).


----------



## eagle2250

^^
LOL. While I have defended and would defend in the future his right to express such views and do indeed fully agree with the opinions expressed in the third paragraph of his post #69, I think justonemore needs to do a bit more homework regarding Michael Moore and his body of work to date. I also have considerably more faith in our Constitution, the governmental structures and the two party political system (please note, this does not make me a fan of our career politicians...which I absolutely am not!) we enjoy these days than does justonemore...but then he is one who, when he doesn't like what he sees, runs off to occupy the cheap seats and offers his criticisms from afar, rather than getting all sweated up and dirty by directly participating in the democratic process and working more directly to correct the ills he perceives. Justonemore, if you want to engage in a "cage fight," you have to first climb back into the cage! Even the UFC tells us, when you crawl out of the cage you are disqualified from the fight. LOL.


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle', as far as I can tell, justonemore's views on Michael Moore are this:  "Limbaugh spouts lies on one extreme while Moore goes on the other direction. both are fueled by by playing off of negative emotions that set citizens against each other. Is anything ever changed for the better there? no." Doesn't sound like he's really arguing in his favor to me.

BTW, -2 points for failing to reference Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" in the second half of your post.... or were you saving it for round two of the inter-continental cage match?


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. While I have defended and would defend in the future his right to express such views and do indeed fully agree with the opinions expressed in the third paragraph of his post #69, I think justonemore needs to do a bit more homework regarding Michael Moore and his body of work to date. I also have considerably more faith in our Constitution, the governmental structures and the two party political system (please note, this does not make me a fan of our career politicians...which I absolutely am not!) we enjoy these days than does justonemore...but then he is one who, when he doesn't like what he sees, runs off to occupy the cheap seats and offers his criticisms from afar, rather than getting all sweated up and dirty by directly participating in the democratic process and working more directly to correct the ills he perceives. Justonemore, if you want to engage in a "cage fight," you have to first climb back into the cage! Even the UFC tells us, when you crawl out of the cage you are disqualified from the fight. LOL.


I think you've confused me with one of the Koch brothers. As an average schmo I don't have much political leverage. In reality I can cast one vote for whoever is presented to me by one of two parties, neither acceptable. What else can I do? Call my Senator? Don't make me laugh. Wtite a letter to the newspaper?

I think the best way to protest is to not support them with my labor/time/ money. Can I do that in the U.S. without going to jail? of course not, I legally have to pay taxes. Can I do it by moving overseas? indeed I can as anything under 85'000 isn't taxed (that's right I haven't been in the U.S. for 5 years but I should pay taxes on anything over). Have I made sacrifices in doing so? yes. Will I be silent because I have done so? no. Although I'm basically a political refugee I still want my country back.

Perhaps your faith is indeed mightier. I see no purpose in walking into the same wall everyday and having faith that tomorrow you'll walk through it. Isn't it smarter really to just go around it?

I'm always in the cage & can do just as much from here than there (and more). Tell me, who has a better oview of the game, the catcher or the people in the "cheap seats"?


----------



## justonemore

CuffDaddy said:


> Here's a vigorous round of appluase for justonemore's views (even if I may disagree about the parental notification for morning after pills - some 15 year old girls have abusive families, or families that would constrain them from making the choice that will be best for their own life - it's hard to know what the rule ought to be).


It' indeed a slippery slope and I do understand the counter arguements but they haven't convinced me that this is really a good idea.

A parent of a minor engaging in risky behavior should probably have the right to know such things. Pregnancy is only one of the worries when teens start experimenting. Advances in HIV treatment or not, I'd still prefer my wife has a chance to talk to my daughter about safety. No notification? The behavior goes unchecked.

Although rare, should a serious medical side effect occur, it would be nice to know the recent medical history. " No my daughter hasn't taken any medication".

I would guess a vast majority of parents are not abusive over such things and most likely show their support in a manner deemed most ethical according to their experience and background. Here we have the gun control situation. All parents are to be punished for the acts of a few crazy or illbred parents? Why should I give up my parental rights because of this?

I am reponsible for the brats until they're 18 right? Contract law in most states holds informed consent at 18 doesn't it?

I'm not against access for minors, just uninformed access. If forced to go with all or none, I'd choose all (but I wouldn't be happy with it).

We do touch on religious freedom here. Although I can't think of any good reason a 15 year old should carry out a pregnancy, I can understand how some religious parents could be concerned as to the issue as it's basically the government stating that children can't be brought up within the family's values.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Agreed. I think it's a genuinely hard question. Any particular rule will have negative consequences in some cases. I don't know which one will be better or worse overall. It would certainly be my hope that my daughter would come to me and/or my wife with this kind of issue without the coercion of the state, but teenagers are strange creatures.


----------



## justonemore

As my oldest is only 5, I still have a few years of that famous "calm before the storm". lol


----------



## CuffDaddy

Same here. I've been warned, though...


----------



## Shoe City Thinker

If we are talking about great American men that built the Internet, may I offer to the following:

Dennis Ritche, invented the C programming language and co-author of the UNIX operating system
Ken Thompson, inventor of the UNIX operating system. The Internet would not exist if it were not for UNIX
Vint Cerf, who really was the inventor of the Internet (IP/TCP protocol stack which is how computers communicate on the Internet)


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> I think you've confused me with one of the Koch brothers. As an average schmo I don't have much political leverage. In reality I can cast one vote for whoever is presented to me by one of two parties, neither acceptable. What else can I do? Call my Senator? Don't make me laugh. Wtite a letter to the newspaper?
> 
> I think the best way to protest is to not support them with my labor/time/ money. Can I do that in the U.S. without going to jail? of course not, I legally have to pay taxes. Can I do it by moving overseas? indeed I can as anything under 85'000 isn't taxed (that's right I haven't been in the U.S. for 5 years but I should pay taxes on anything over). Have I made sacrifices in doing so? yes. Will I be silent because I have done so? no. Although I'm basically a political refugee I still want my country back.
> 
> Perhaps your faith is indeed mightier. I see no purpose in walking into the same wall everyday and having faith that tomorrow you'll walk through it. Isn't it smarter really to just go around it?
> 
> I'm always in the cage & can do just as much from here than there (and more). Tell me, who has a better oview of the game, the catcher or the people in the "cheap seats"?


As a social worker for refugees and asylees living in the US, your claim to be "basically a political refugee" is rather callous and insulting toward those facing real persecution. Not wanting to pay taxes that support a government you do not like is not the same thing as persecution.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> As a social worker for refugees and asylees living in the US, your claim to be "basically a political refugee" is rather callous and insulting toward those facing real persecution. Not wanting to pay taxes that support a government you do not like is not the same thing as persecution.


Would self imposed political exile be a better term for you? probably not, so I'll just stick with my original statement no matter your opinion as to what makes a "real" political refugee. As the U.S. has a higher percentage of it's population in jail than any other "civilized" country persecution is just as likely. I agree the U.S. is only 3rd in executions (behind only China & Iran). Perhaps you think a stack of dead bodies is needed? What is your minimum definition? Are you trying to claim there is no religious & political persecution in the U.S.? I believe the IRS was just caught targeting conservative political groups & people claiming to be patriots. I believe under Bush the FBI visited a few people that held contradictory political view s. The U.S. government admits to using infiltration agents for certain political & religious groups. Let's see. The federal government has now condoned the collection of a DNA data base even for those not charged for a crime. Have they not passed laws allowing for the monitoring of citizen emails & other electronic communication? Under Bush weren't they monitoring people's library books? Hasn't it just been found legal to kill U.S. citizens without a trial through drone strikes? Did the police not just shut down & search a major U S. city under the guise of terrorism? Do you know how much time & money are spent lobbying by American police agencies to restrict civil rights & liberties? The court system is well known as being biased as to race/sex/etc. Any clue as to how many people are jailed wrongly due to overzealous prosecution? I believe 16 people were released from death row in Illinois alone because of this. Of course police corruption plays a part in these wrong prosecutions as well. does the U.S. not use Privately owned for profit prisons which lobby lawmakers and judges? I remember several civil liberty issues arising from this as well. I still seem to remember places such as Ruby Ridge & Waco Texas. There was another case where the government went in and took everyone's children with no proof of abuse. Weren't the Mormons pretty much forced into Utah just to eventually have their doctrine forcibly changed by government regulation. The U.S. has what a third rate medical system & fourth rate education system? How many people each year are killed by police officers in the U.S. ? Homosexuals and minorities have never been persecuted in the States I suppose? What about federal hate laws used in persecuting those that commit assault on minorities (assault is assault)? Slavery? Japanese Interment? Native American issues? Teaching of creationism is schools? Denial of Evolution? Didn't the Government condone kidnapping, torture & perpetual imprisonment without a trial (all international crimes). Isn't the U.S. the largest exporter of arms? Are they not supplying weapons to terrorists & other groups of dubious ethical standards? How about all the foreign interests lining our politicians pockets in order to usurp citizens representation? If the court system is equal why do those who can afford a team of lawyers & experts get of scott free while the poor get a public defender and life in jail? How about coreced confessions in the form of plea deals? You know, people that aren't guilty but wish to avoid a long expensive prosecution that may result in a long jail term due to prosecutorial misdeeds?

So again....What's your definition of an acceptable amount of persecution & lack of civil rights? Sure there are no mass executions but.......

does it really need to be as bad as the middle east/Africa before I can claim the country is a danger to my health & well being? I can give you thousands of reasons for my exile/refugee status. How many can you give me for not being so? "It's not as bad as elsewhere" doesn't count.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore - I like the cut of your jib, Sir! Too many citizens sleepwalk through their lives conveniently ignoring all but the issues which impact them directly and blatantly.

Here's another disgraceful atrocity to add to your list - the Obama administration in its eagerness to assasinate Bin Laden has delayed the eradication of Polio by at least 20 years. An estimated 100,000 more children will now be crippled by this dreadful disease. Undertaking a sham public health campaign in areas of abject poverty in order to infiltrate spies in a subterfuge with humanitarian aid workers (whose licence to practice medicine should be revoked) is far from the U.S finest hour. *source Scientific American, May 2013*


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> justonemore - I like the cut of your jib, Sir! Too many citizens sleepwalk through their lives conveniently ignoring all but the issues which impact them directly and blatantly.
> 
> Here's another disgraceful atrocity to add to your list - the Obama administration in its eagerness to assasinate Bin Laden has delayed the eradication of Polio by at least 20 years. An estimated 100,000 more children will now be crippled by this dreadful disease. Undertaking a sham public health campaign in areas of abject poverty in order to infiltrate spies in a subterfuge with humanitarian aid workers (whose licence to practice medicine should be revoked) is far from the U.S finest hour. *source Scientific American, May 2013*


(*Shhhhh... Be quiet, lads...... He's listening......*)


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> (*Shhhhh... Be quiet, lads...... He's listening......*)


Governments come and go - what is decent, honourable and proper remains forever constant.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> justonemore - I like the cut of your jib, Sir! Too many citizens sleepwalk through their lives conveniently ignoring all but the issues which impact them directly and blatantly.
> 
> Here's another disgraceful atrocity to add to your list - the Obama administration in its eagerness to assasinate Bin Laden has delayed the eradication of Polio by at least 20 years. An estimated 100,000 more children will now be crippled by this dreadful disease. Undertaking a sham public health campaign in areas of abject poverty in order to infiltrate spies in a subterfuge with humanitarian aid workers (whose licence to practice medicine should be revoked) is far from the U.S finest hour. *source Scientific American, May 2013*


Indeed & this is one of the reasons that many countries are eliminating outside charity groups from their borders. The "real" charities could have done quite a bit of good on the whole but the U.S. habit of constructing phantom charities to spy on their hosts & promote political dissention has pretty much undercut the credibility of the real "do-gooders" .


----------



## VictorRomeo

justonemore said:


> Indeed & this is one of the reasons that many countries are eliminating outside charity groups from their borders. The "real" charities could have done quite a bit of good on the whole but the U.S. habit of constructing phantom charities to spy on their hosts & promote political dissention has pretty much undercut the credibility of the real "do-gooders" .


I have had to engage with USAID (overseas aid and development wing of the State Department) quite a bit over the years and this sentiment could not be more true. The stories I could tell....


----------



## Shaver

When any old means are considered to be acceptable to justify the ends then liberty might as well be taken out the back, shot in the head and her corpse thrown in a dumpster.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> When any old means are considered to be acceptable to justify the ends then liberty might as well be taken out the back, shot in the head and her corpse thrown in a dumpster.


To make it even worse, it was actually done by Lady Justice after removing her blindfold & throwing down the scales.


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> Would self imposed political exile be a better term for you? probably not, so I'll just stick with my original statement no matter your opinion as to what makes a "real" political refugee. As the U.S. has a higher percentage of it's population in jail than any other "civilized" country persecution is just as likely. I agree the U.S. is only 3rd in executions (behind only China & Iran). Perhaps you think a stack of dead bodies is needed? What is your minimum definition? Are you trying to claim there is no religious & political persecution in the U.S.? I believe the IRS was just caught targeting conservative political groups & people claiming to be patriots. I believe under Bush the FBI visited a few people that held contradictory political view s. The U.S. government admits to using infiltration agents for certain political & religious groups. Let's see. The federal government has now condoned the collection of a DNA data base even for those not charged for a crime. Have they not passed laws allowing for the monitoring of citizen emails & other electronic communication? Under Bush weren't they monitoring people's library books? Hasn't it just been found legal to kill U.S. citizens without a trial through drone strikes? Did the police not just shut down & search a major U S. city under the guise of terrorism? Do you know how much time & money are spent lobbying by American police agencies to restrict civil rights & liberties? The court system is well known as being biased as to race/sex/etc. Any clue as to how many people are jailed wrongly due to overzealous prosecution? I believe 16 people were released from death row in Illinois alone because of this. Of course police corruption plays a part in these wrong prosecutions as well. does the U.S. not use Privately owned for profit prisons which lobby lawmakers and judges? I remember several civil liberty issues arising from this as well. I still seem to remember places such as Ruby Ridge & Waco Texas. There was another case where the government went in and took everyone's children with no proof of abuse. Weren't the Mormons pretty much forced into Utah just to eventually have their doctrine forcibly changed by government regulation. The U.S. has what a third rate medical system & fourth rate education system? How many people each year are killed by police officers in the U.S. ? Homosexuals and minorities have never been persecuted in the States I suppose? What about federal hate laws used in persecuting those that commit assault on minorities (assault is assault)? Slavery? Japanese Interment? Native American issues? Teaching of creationism is schools? Denial of Evolution? Didn't the Government condone kidnapping, torture & perpetual imprisonment without a trial (all international crimes). Isn't the U.S. the largest exporter of arms? Are they not supplying weapons to terrorists & other groups of dubious ethical standards? How about all the foreign interests lining our politicians pockets in order to usurp citizens representation? If the court system is equal why do those who can afford a team of lawyers & experts get of scott free while the poor get a public defender and life in jail? How about coreced confessions in the form of plea deals? You know, people that aren't guilty but wish to avoid a long expensive prosecution that may result in a long jail term due to prosecutorial misdeeds?
> 
> So again....What's your definition of an acceptable amount of persecution & lack of civil rights? Sure there are no mass executions but.......
> 
> does it really need to be as bad as the middle east/Africa before I can claim the country is a danger to my health & well being? I can give you thousands of reasons for my exile/refugee status. How many can you give me for not being so? "It's not as bad as elsewhere" doesn't count.


So tell me, what would have happened to you - specifically you - had you remained in the US? For the most part, that is the refugee litmus test in the US. I highly doubt you have refugee status in Switzerland. Did you successfully apply for and receive refugee status in Switzerland, or did you simply just move there in protest of Waco, slavery, and events which had yet to take place at the time of your move? You'll note that I'm not defending a single event or policy you named - I can't - but refugee status is a very specific thing and either you have it or you don't. If you do, I'm surprised, and if you don't, don't claim to.


----------



## justonemore

While I realize the U.N. has set standards as to actual refugee status, this is hardly what I'm getting at. Would you actually think the U.S. would allow the U.N. to state Americans should have refugee status? I have a feeling that permanant Security Council veto would come into play. q1Norway listed the u.s. government as supporters of torture & caused a small uCibaproar with u.s. diplomats. 

Wasn't there just a case where a couple fled to Cuba because the u.s. authorities didn't like his anti-government rhetoric & tried to take away their children (i think they actually did under the guise of marijuana use). I suppose such persecution can happen to anyone. yes indeed, I would fear such if I were to return.

I never claimed to have official refugee status. not sure where you got that from. again the u.s. wouldn't allow other nations to make such decisions.


----------



## eagle2250

CuffDaddy said:


> eagle', as far as I can tell, justonemore's views on Michael Moore are this:  "Limbaugh spouts lies on one extreme while Moore goes on the other direction. both are fueled by by playing off of negative emotions that set citizens against each other. Is anything ever changed for the better there? no." Doesn't sound like he's really arguing in his favor to me.
> 
> BTW, -2 points for failing to reference Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" in the second half of your post.... or were you saving it for round two of the inter-continental cage match?


I agree with much of what justonemore has said and commend him for his comprehensive listing of our Country's ills. I do however disagree with his approach to responding to those ills. Years ago I was privileged to attend a speech being given by the late, great USAF General Chappie James, in which he spoke of his deep and abiding love of our country, the challenges facing and ills afflicting the United States, and the responsibility of her citizens to "defend against all enemies foreign and domestic and hold Her hand and nurse this great nation of ours back to health!" Active, constructive, direct and personal involvement is the way things get fixed...not by talking the country down from a safe haven across the pond. General Jame's speech really got to me...perhaps serving as a primary motivation for the many years I spent wearing a uniform and working as a civilian, carrying out the peoples business. Looking back all any of us can do is hope we might have done some good, but these days I'm not so sure of even that small consolation.

Regarding the "Teddy Roosevelt, Man in the Arena" reference I can only say...'man I wish I had been bright enough to think of that!'



justonemore said:


> I think you've confused me with one of the Koch brothers. As an average schmo I don't have much political leverage. In reality I can cast one vote for whoever is presented to me by one of two parties, neither acceptable. What else can I do? Call my Senator? Don't make me laugh. Wtite a letter to the newspaper?
> 
> I think the best way to protest is to not support them with my labor/time/ money. Can I do that in the U.S. without going to jail? of course not, I legally have to pay taxes. Can I do it by moving overseas? indeed I can as anything under 85'000 isn't taxed (that's right I haven't been in the U.S. for 5 years but I should pay taxes on anything over). Have I made sacrifices in doing so? yes. Will I be silent because I have done so? no. Although I'm basically a political refugee I still want my country back.
> 
> Perhaps your faith is indeed mightier. I see no purpose in walking into the same wall everyday and having faith that tomorrow you'll walk through it. Isn't it smarter really to just go around it?
> 
> I'm always in the cage & can do just as much from here than there (and more). Tell me, who has a better oview of the game, the catcher or the people in the "cheap seats"?


That's like asking, "if you eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, which has made the greater commitment to sate your hunger, the chicken or the pig?" I sir, would suggest that it is the pig! Seriously, I just do not see you as a victim in this scenario. If you are, it is certainly a self imposed condition...you made the choice.

PS: LOL. The upside here is that I will spare you from having to endure my opinions about draft dodgers!


----------



## Tilton

Well, you did say "I can give you thousands of reasons for my [...] refugee status."


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> Well, you did say "I can give you thousands of reasons for my [...] refugee status."


My apologies for any confusion but I believe I did say all this was SELF IMPOSED. No "official" refugee status. No victimization. Fully my choice based on personal ethics. My previous list was to prove the point that the U.S. commits many of the same acts as countries that we grant refugee status for their residents. I myself have taken "refuge" from such acts over seas & that's that. If we made the same list for most any other country the U.S. would probably invade the place on humanitarian grounds. I've stated quite clearly that the States are not at the same level as Afrika the middle east. If I returned to the states I wouldn't really fear execution but I wouldn't put it past our wonderful government to come up with a reason to jail those who are critical of their policies. I believe I mentioned a few cases where this has indeed happened. In jail or dead, political persecution is political persecution. Our wonderful policing agencies don't need much suspician before going in with guns drawn & even if they bothered with warrants, the judge is most llikely to just sign the thing without too much fuss & investigation of the facts. Are there any other "civilized, 1st world" countries that use "knockless warrants" (other than communist russia & nazi germany)? I don't pretend to know everything. All I can do is show interest & take a stand against things I feel are incorrect but it's rather hard to do when the president gets up and states he doesn't care what the populace wants because his agenda is "Just"(good ole Bush). The current president wants 500,000 signatures before they'll even look at citizens initiatives & concerns. Anyone that thinks things can be changed with the system the way it is, is sorely mistaking. Short of having our own Arab Sping or a full out revolution, the status quo remains the same.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Well, Mr. Shaver, a good idea for a topic has devolved into the usual lobbing back and forth b/n left and right over which side and their representative figures do the most good and claim the putative high ground of oppression. Perhaps you are correct about Iggy and his Lust for Life.


----------



## Shaver

Joseph Peter said:


> Well, Mr. Shaver, a good idea for a topic has devolved into the usual lobbing back and forth b/n left and right over which side and their representative figures do the most good and claim the putative high ground of oppression. Perhaps you are correct about Iggy and his Lust for Life.


Iggy Pop is worth a million in prizes. :icon_smile:


----------



## roman totale XVII

It was Lux Interior. Then it was Christopher Hitchens. It's probably Noam Chomsky for now...


----------



## Shaver

roman totale XVII said:


> It was Lux Interior. Then it was Christopher Hitchens. It's probably Noam Chomsky for now...


Lux is a good call! You better ask my momma how to make a monster. :icon_smile:

Edit - I made my views plain on Chomsky earlier in this thread. Commencing here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...reatest-Living-American&p=1347370#post1347370


----------



## justonemore

Joseph Peter said:


> Well, Mr. Shaver, a good idea for a topic has devolved into the usual lobbing back and forth b/n left and right over which side and their representative figures do the most good and claim the putative high ground of oppression. Perhaps you are correct about Iggy and his Lust for Life.


Ha. True, but you have to realise that nothing here really stays on topic. On the manners forum a critique of Michelle Obama's dinner manners gas turned into a debate on the advantages and disadvantages modern food production/sources. At least we're still commenting on the U.S. on this thread.


----------



## justonemore

Although many here will disagree, I'll nominate Edward Snowden. It's spooky that a government that claims transparency is thick in the middle of secretly violating the constitutional rights of every American. Once again we seem to be competing with the worst China has to offer. If a Military general can put American lives at risk for our constititional rights, I see no wrong in someone coming forward to do the same. I would gladly die on a "terrorist attack" versus living my life in fear of my "democatically elected" government. If a lawyer representing someone did something "in secret", agsinst their client, they'd have to give up their right to practice law. The same should go for all the lawyers "representing" the American people. I wish I could say I was surprised but it appears to be par for the course for these same people we regularly rate with a "pinnochio test". What a great country we"d be if we could state things honestly & straightforward versus manipulating everyone under some current "threat".


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> Ha. True, but you have to realise that nothing here really stays on topic. On the manners forum a critique of Michelle Obama's dinner manners gas turned into a debate on the advantages and disadvantages modern food production/sources. At least we're still commenting on the U.S. on this thread.


+1...., but what really perplexes me about the thread you reference is that after watching a video in which our "First Lady"at the inauguration luncheon, sat with her forearms braced on the edge of the table, bracketing her dinner plate; head and neck pitched forward, guarding her food like a scavenger dining on roadkill, and chewing food with her mouth open, so many of our members saw fit to condone the behavior and in a few instances to condemn those members who dared to criticize Michelle Obama's table manners. Most of our Mamma's taught us better than that! It seems political correctness has gone viral in this country and infected a fair percentage of our membership in the process! ROFALOL. :crazy:


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> +1...., but what really perplexes me about the thread you reference is that after watching a video in which our "First Lady"at the inauguration luncheon, sat with her forearms braced on the edge of the table, bracketing her dinner plate; head and neck pitched forward, guarding her food like a scavenger dining on roadkill, and chewing food with her mouth open, so many of our members saw fit to condone the behavior and in a few instances to condemn those members who dared to criticize Michelle Obama's table manners. Most of our Mamma's taught us better than that! It seems political correctness has gone viral in this country and infected a fair percentage of our membership in the process! ROFALOL. :crazy:


After all these years together here at Aaac, we may have our differences in thought, but it's always been refreshing to hear your point of view. We may be different in many ways but I always get the feeling that your intetests lie within American society becoming better as a whole. After 48 hours of work I come here for discussion and you're willing to provide it (even through the disagreements). I am half way through a nice bottle of mouton rothschild & I'll raise a toast to those who may disagree with me but are "man" enough to state their views in a respectful yet constructive manner.


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> Although many here will disagree, I'll nominate Edward Snowden. It's spooky that a government that claims transparency is thick in the middle of secretly violating the constitutional rights of every American. Once again we seem to be competing with the worst China has to offer. If a Military general can put American lives at risk for our constititional rights, I see no wrong in someone coming forward to do the same. I would gladly die on a "terrorist attack" versus living my life in fear of my "democatically elected" government. If a lawyer representing someone did something "in secret", agsinst their client, they'd have to give up their right to practice law. The same should go for all the lawyers "representing" the American people. I wish I could say I was surprised but it appears to be par for the course for these same people we regularly rate with a "pinnochio test". What a great country we"d be if we could state things honestly & straightforward versus manipulating everyone under some current "threat".


I might not call him the "greatest" but I appreciate his courage and his actions. I heard on NPR this morning he was a Ron Paul supporter. I'm not sure if they mentioned it as a good thing or a bad thing, but it is certanily a thing. I applaud his effort to do what's right. Worlds away from Julian Assange - in a good way, in my mind.


----------



## justonemore

AH. My fault.. Not the "greatest" but a great.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> I might not call him the "greatest" but I appreciate his courage and his actions. I heard on NPR this morning he was a Ron Paul supporter. I'm not sure if they mentioned it as a good thing or a bad thing, but it is certanily a thing. I applaud his effort to do what's right. Worlds away from Julian Assange - in a good way, in my mind.


I'M not sure why Assange is on your hit list. He seems to be on the same side of "truth" albeit a denied truth. If you're speaking of the so called "sexual" nonsense, I'd like to poin out all the people brought down from U.S. sexual policies. Assange. DSK. Bersculonni. etc. etc. Go against the U.S. and you're a pervert. Who here would deny such pleasures should your budget allow?


----------



## Tilton

Nope, wasn't even considering the sexual thing - I'd totally forgotten about it. The difference to me is that Assange's leaks got American service people killed and put many real life American heros in serious danger, Snowden's didn't. Had Assange leaked his info after relevant actions had taken place, it would be a different story, but he posted info on American troop movements and put lives at risk by doing so.


----------



## VictorRomeo

One thing is for certain, for Edward Snowdon to do what he did took an immense level of courage as he seems to have an explicit understanding of the consequences. 

There are absolutely no excuses, reasoning nor justification for the existence of this Prism program. None at all.

This fellow has done the world a great service indeed.


----------



## Tilton

What really leaves me stunned about all of this is that a guy without a high school diploma is pulling in $200k/year from subcontracting through BAH. Also, that NSA finds it necessary to have, what I suppose is a data facility, in Hawaii. I'm not surprised at all that the US is tracking cellphone calls.


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> After all these years together here at Aaac, we may have our differences in thought, but it's always been refreshing to hear your point of view. We may be different in many ways but I always get the feeling that your intetests lie within American society becoming better as a whole. After 48 hours of work I come here for discussion and you're willing to provide it (even through the disagreements). I am half way through a nice bottle of mouton rothschild & I'll raise a toast to those who may disagree with me but are "man" enough to state their views in a respectful yet constructive manner.


Thank you sir for those generously kind thoughts, justonemore. I do enjoy a thoughtful difference of opinion and have learned a great deal from many of your and other members postings. It is consistently clear in your postings that you have done the legwork and put a lot of thought into them. I greatly respect such effort(s)! Thanks again.


----------



## fishertw

Jimmy Buffett!


----------



## doncorleon

Muhammad Ali, no contest


----------



## Chouan

Why? Because he could punch people effectively and avoid getting punched himself?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> Why? Because he could punch people effectively and avoid getting punched himself?


Pugilists would argue that Sugar Ray Robinson was the best pound-for-pound boxer ever.... If his fighting prowess is how a man is measured that is.... Dead though.


----------



## eagle2250

VictorRomeo said:


> One thing is for certain, for Edward Snowdon to do what he did took an immense level of courage as he seems to have an explicit understanding of the consequences.
> .....................................,
> ......


Courage? Running off to a 'safe haven' prior to making the initial disclosures and as the noose tightens and criminal prosecution comes closer to becoming reality, it's being reported that Snowden appears to be trying to be trying to negotiate a defection to Red China, in exchange for the disclosure of other highly classified/protected information, to avoid responsibility for his (Snowden's) actions. Doesn't sound very courageous or heroic to me....indeed, he sounds to me like a common thief simply trying to get away! Great American? I don't think so! A courageous individual would be ready to stand accountable for their actions.


----------



## Belfaborac

Of course it was courageous. He did what he did in the certain knowledge that he would never again be able to lead a normal life, ending up either in a US jail or spending the rest of his days looking over his shoulder, expecting a US rendition team to show up. Or maybe just a double tap to the chest or forehead.

Yup, that's courage as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## wdrazek

Belfaborac said:


> Of course it was courageous. He did what he did in the certain knowledge that he would never again be able to lead a normal life, ending up either in a US jail or spending the rest of his days looking over his shoulder, expecting a US rendition team to show up. Or maybe just a double tap to the chest or forehead.
> 
> Yup, that's courage as far as I'm concerned.


And he did it because his conscience and ethical sensibilities were seared. I agree, it was courage.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
So you boys must give very little weight to the security oaths and various non-disclosure agreements Snowden swore to and signed off on in the process of getting his security clearance? Sould any governmental employee, cleared to work with classified material or carry out classified operations be expected to live up to his/her commitments. If not, what's the purpose of the security clearances and indeed, can any government function effectively without some degree of secrecy? And while we're asking questions, seeking to sell state secrets in exchange for political asylum, how does that not constitute treason?


----------



## Joseph Peter

Personally, I rather like rabble rousers or cage rattlers or whistleblowers. Somethings about Mr Snowden, however, are still uncertain for me. I am still unclear about what he revealed. The existence of a phone mining program? Anyone who didnt think it existed for however longer has been living on Mars. Some parts of his personal story lead to more questions; for example, his professed belief in First Amendment values and he goes to China? Since when did China become a paragon of personal liberties? If he is the high school equivalent of 007, should we believe what he has to say? I also dont understand how someone can get into the sleuth/spy business and not expect to get icky learning what is "really going on". Just not sure about this guy at this time and certainly not prepared to anoint him as anything, either positive or negative.


----------



## justonemore

Contracts that involve unethical & illegal behavior ((let alone unconstitutional) are not legally binding & orders given by "superiors" along the same lines are not to be followed. You can't get away with the "I was ordered to" defense. Just ask the jewish community how many nazis tried that one after ww2 & whether or not it was accepted by the international community at the time. 

"Never mind that pile of dead children, I have a N.D.A. & a top secret security clearance therefore I can ignore international law & the u.s. constitution" 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I guess you'd just kill everyone & burn the village under orders? How far criminally will you follow the government under the guise of orders, secrecy & security?

Aren' domestic violence victims brought to safe houses? I think the government has a witness protectiob program as well. Funny that an excop doesn't understand the need for witnesses to be protected from those they're accusing. A violent exwife has less resources for finding the husband than does the mafia & the mafia has less resources for finding an informant than the U.S. government has for finding Snowden


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Contracts that involve unethical & illegal behavior ((let alone unconstitutional) are not to be followed. You can't get away with the "I was ordered to" defense. Just ask the jews how many nazis tried that one. "Never mind that pile of dead children, I have a N.D.A. & a top secret security clearance therefore I can ignore international law & the u.s. constitution"
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> I guess you'd just kill everyone & burn the village under orders? How far criminally will you follow the government under the guise of orders, secrecy & security?


What's more is that the lesson which the authorities wish us to learn from this style of behaviour is clear - don't think differently.

An obedient populace simply begging for approval whilst completely subsumed to the Capitalist dream (as flogged to them by vacuous advertisements) and compliant in their own degradation is the absolute ideal status for government.


----------



## Belfaborac

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> So you boys must give very little weight to the security oaths and various non-disclosure agreements Snowden swore to and signed off on in the process of getting his security clearance? Sould any governmental employee, cleared to work with classified material or carry out classified operations be expected to live up to his/her commitments. If not, what's the purpose of the security clearances and indeed, can any government function effectively without some degree of secrecy? And while we're asking questions, seeking to sell state secrets in exchange for political asylum, how does that not constitute treason?


As has been indirectly pointed out by earlier posts, the fact that one is not bound by either oaths or contracts if one is being asked and required to do something that is either illegal or immoral was quite firmly established by the Nuremberg Trials. It is not, however, a point of law that any government is keen to stress, least of all apparently the US.

In any case, my point was solely that Mr. Snowden is indeed a very courageous man.


----------



## justonemore

Oh. It may be considered ignorant, but I'd prefer no government secrecy. Tell the people you represent the truth. If they don't want you to do something, well welcome to democracy you pr*ck, you were elected to represent, not lead and lie.


----------



## eagle2250

^^


justonemore said:


> Contracts that involve unethical & illegal behavior ((let alone unconstitutional) are not legally binding & orders given by "superiors" along the same lines are not to be followed. You can't get away with the "I was ordered to" defense. Just ask the jewish community how many nazis tried that one after ww2 & whether or not it was accepted by the international community at the time.
> 
> "Never mind that pile of dead children, I have a N.D.A. & a top secret security clearance therefore I can ignore international law & the u.s. constitution"
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> I guess you'd just kill everyone & burn the village under orders? How far criminally will you follow the government under the guise of orders, secrecy & security?
> 
> Aren' domestic violence victims brought to safe houses? I think the government has a witness protectiob program as well. Funny that an excop doesn't understand the need for witnesses to be protected from those they're accusing. A violent exwife has less resources for finding the husband than does the mafia & the mafia has less resources for finding an informant than the U.S. government has for finding Snowden


Trying to confuse compliance with a security clearance, oath of office and non disclosure agreements binding an employee working as an information technology specialist, on an electronic surveillance program with the Nuremberg war trials and holding the Nazis accountable for their efforts to exterminate the Jewish people/race, seem more than just a bit of a stretch. The two events are just not comparable. Is your intent to so completely obfuscate reality that we lose sight of Ed Snowden's transgressions? While collecting all that data may be objectionable to many, no one has shown any of the data was or is being misused, as Ed Snowden claims it could have been. If Snowden was so convinced that his actions were completely righteous, why is he not or should he not be held accountable?

PS: I'm not an ex-cop. I am a retired cop and a retired USAF officer. I've lived with the burden's of various security clearances, several of them equivalent to that held by Mr. Snowden, pretty much all of my adult life. While I may lie awake occasionally in the middle of the night, pondering my past actions and responsibilities, I plan to take those secrets I was entrusted with to my grave! That's the way it's supposed to work.


----------



## justonemore

Just as scary.. At one point at least 3 states had laws against filming police.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but when considered within the context of your earlier opinions regarding Mr Snowdens actions, it seems you are alluding that it's OK for private citizens to engage in covert video surveillance, but it's not OK for the US Government to engage in covert audio/electronic surveillance. Are my impressions correct? Can we expect to have it both ways?


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> Trying to confuse compliance with a security clearance, oath of office and non disclosure agreements binding an employee working as an information technology specialist, on an electronic surveillance program with the Nuremberg war trials and holding the Nazis accountable for their efforts to exterminate the Jewish people/race, seem more than just a bit of a stretch. The two events are just not comparable. Is your intent to so completely obfuscate reality that we lose sight of Ed Snowden's transgressions? While collecting all that data may be objectionable to many, no one has shown any of the data was or is being misused, as Ed Snowden claims it could have been. If Snowden was so convinced that his actions were completely righteous, why is he not or should he not be held accountable?
> 
> PS: I'm not an ex-cop. I am a retired cop and a retired USAF officer. I've lived with the burden's of various security clearances, several of them equivalent to that held by Mr. Snowden, pretty much all of my adult life. While I may lie awake occasionally in the middle of the night, pondering my past actions and responsibilities, I plan to take those secrets I was entrusted with to my grave! That's the way it's supposed to work.


It seems as you prefer to be called "retired"? Although I'll take note of such, I used "ex" as in " former", which I believe is also correct in the case of retirees (this says nothing for preferences of course).


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but when considered within the context of your earlier opinions regarding Mr Snowdens actions, it seems you are alluding that it's OK for private citizens to engage in covert video surveillance, but it's not OK for the US Government to engage in covert audio/electronic surveillance. Are my impressions correct? Can we expect to have it both ways?


Really? Filming a cop beating someone should be criminal while the government filming ordinary civilians every move should be fine? Cops can film the activities all they want but someone stopped can't film even to gather proof of innocence or police misdeed? Wow. What a different U S. we believe in. I grew up believing that you didn't need to show a cop an ID if you didn't want to & he couldn't tell you a good enough reason for suspect. Do you believe citizens should have any rights over the government & the police? They're all a bunch of employees & seem to forget this fact. It'll be a hard day when their employers finally wake up & claim their rights back. Any employer will tell you that it's their job to assure the employees are doing their job to standard. It is not for the employee to spy on their boss in an offensive manner.

Any violations of American's constitutional rights (let alone one as massive as this) goes right under unethical and ilegal. What line do you draw sir? I don't understand why you think violating the constitution is fine. Underground prisons & torture? Is that ok as well? Murder & Rape in the name of country? How far do you think it's o.k. to go until basic ethics states that it's time to speak out in spite of security clearances and non-disclosure? Following orders to violate the rights of over 300 million people sounds rather serious to me, but you appear not only to support it but favor prosecution for someone that just stood up against unwarranted government intrusion.

With all this secrecy how can a citizen use his rights to free speech? Hard to speak out against what you don't know. I guess if we just ignore our rights the government will still grant them? Ah, only the 4th today which affects the 1st but hopefully tomorrow we can greatly reduce the 2nd.


----------



## Shaver

I wouldn't like to see this thread degenerate into any disrespect toward Eagle, who in my experience is a thoroughly lovable bloke. :icon_smile:


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> I wouldn't like to see this thread degenerate into any disrespect toward Eagle, who in my experience is a thoroughly lovable bloke. :icon_smile:


Indeed, but the question remains. Where does one draw the line as to government control & secrecy? It appears that all I mentioned has indeed been accepted by many people who have signed N.D.A. s & hold security clearances. Most had no problem following the N D.A.s right into torture. Clearly illegal. Mr. Eagle seems to think constitutional violations are covered under such N.D.A.s I strongly disagree. If you're going to hide secrets for those commiting illegal acts, you're just as guilty under civilian law in the U S. Complicity isn't it? He states N.D.A.s as an excuse to complicity & I simply ask how far he believes an N.D.A. can go.


----------



## justonemore

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not every individual have not only a right but an obligation to follow international law? Not only this but also an obligation not to support those who do break international law? Does international law not overide individual country's policies in various legal aspects? Signing an N.D.A. for the U.S. wouldn't always be held legal even if we wanted to pretend it was. I would hope law enforcement officials wouldn't condone breaking the law (be it local, state, federal or international).


----------



## Tilton

eagle2250 said:


> While collecting all that data may be objectionable to many, no one has shown any of the data was or is being misused, as Ed Snowden claims it could have been. .


Would you find it as equally unobjectionable if the government tracked your every move via GPS, so long as they weren't doing anything with that data?



eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but when considered within the context of your earlier opinions regarding Mr Snowdens actions, it seems you are alluding that it's OK for private citizens to engage in covert video surveillance, but it's not OK for the US Government to engage in covert audio/electronic surveillance. Are my impressions correct? Can we expect to have it both ways?




He wasn't talking about crazy coat button cameras or methods to otherwise covertly film an officer, so I think you were misunderstanding his comment. Previously, in some states, it has been a crime (wiretapping charge) to film a police officer on duty, performing his job, in public. While that is no longer the case (after several court cases regarding such), US law enforcement felt that even though police carried out their acts in public, they had a right to privacy. Even you can agree that this is not the case - if you do something in the public square, you inherently have no right to privacy concerning the act.

I just realized that I'm agreeing with justonemore. Oh, world... Oh, government...


----------



## Joseph Peter

Just what is international law and who promulgates it? Btw, who enforces it? Is there a concept called sovereignty or jurisdiction? I've never voted in a global election. Did I not get a ballot?


----------



## wdrazek

Evidently, some regard an NDA as a promise to carry out, without question, violations of national law and international law. And to never divulge those violations ever.

Well, if that is not the perfect setup for a police state I cannot imagine what is.


----------



## justonemore

Joseph Peter said:


> Just what is international law and who promulgates it? Btw, who enforces it? Is there a concept called sovereignty or jurisdiction? I've never voted in a global election. Did I not get a ballot?


Well there is an International court in Den Hague in The Netherlands.

No, I'm afraid you have no say on the legality of Piracy, traficking in women & children, slavery, torture & various war crimes such as genocide.. nor technically does your sovereign state. It is illegal to participate in or support such international crimes & many people have found themselves in Holland once they were discovered & extradited (no one from the U.S. curiously). I never got my ballot either but there it is.

Not surprisingly Crimes Of Aggression while illegal, aren't actionable by the International court. Too many big players might go to jail.


----------



## Belfaborac

eagle2250 said:


> Trying to confuse compliance with a security clearance, oath of office and non disclosure agreements binding an employee working as an information technology specialist, on an electronic surveillance program with the Nuremberg war trials and holding the Nazis accountable for their efforts to exterminate the Jewish people/race, seem more than just a bit of a stretch.


I rather think that justonemore and I simply wanted to point out the legal principle which was established by the Nuremberg trials - a principle which at the time was supported by the US in the strongest possible terms - without making any comparisons as such. At least that was my intention.



eagle2250 said:


> I plan to take those secrets I was entrusted with to my grave! That's the way it's supposed to work.


While I'm certainly no expert on US law as it pertains to these things, I will still hazard a guess that that is not the way it is supposed to work if those secrets include criminal or immoral actions carried out by your own country or government. Unless US law differs radically from that of pretty much every other developed nation your duty would in that case be to disclose said secrets.


----------



## Belfaborac

Joseph Peter said:


> Just what is international law and who promulgates it?


I suggest googling it.



> Btw, who enforces it? Is there a concept called sovereignty or jurisdiction? I've never voted in a global election. Did I not get a ballot?


Are you then advocating a return to the state of affairs which existed before the _Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice_ and the _United Nations Charter_? That we revoke _the principle of pacta sunt servanda_ and re-visit the good old days of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or even earlier, when peace or war hung on the words of monarchs?


----------



## Shaver

Belfaborac said:


> I suggest googling it.
> 
> Are you then advocating a return to the state of affairs which existed before the _Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice_ and the _United Nations Charter_? That we revoke _the principle of pacta sunt servanda_ and re-visit the good old days of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or even earlier, when peace or war hung on the words of monarchs?


Love the Assyrian sculpture avatar by the way Belfaborac, that particular one is on display in the British Museum if I recall correctly.


----------



## eagle2250

Shaver said:


> I wouldn't like to see this thread degenerate into any disrespect toward Eagle, who in my experience is a thoroughly lovable bloke. :icon_smile:


Thank you, my friend, for those kind words in my defense. LOL. For what it's worth, my wife and our grand kids agree with your assessment of me as "a thoroughly lovable bloke," but our adult kids might give you a bit of argument on that point! 



justonemore said:


> Indeed, but the question remains. Where does one draw the line as to government control & secrecy? .......
> ...............





Belfaborac said:


> ........
> ..........
> While I'm certainly no expert on US law as it pertains to these things, I will still hazard a guess that that is not the way it is supposed to work if those secrets include criminal or immoral actions carried out by your own country or government. Unless US law differs radically from that of pretty much every other developed nation your duty would in that case be to disclose said secrets.


One of the frustrations to be expected when participating in threads in the Interchange is that one's words are so frequently taken out of context and wildly exaggerated versions of what was said are assumed. I have never said that I am in favor of our government violating anyone's constitutional rights. I have said we have yet to establish that any actual violations have occurred as a result of the Prism initiative. Software platforms scan electronic exchanges to detect troubling patterns (that could indicate or relate to future terrorist actions). Viewed in the context of the events of 9/11, that strikes me as a very good thing. Is there a possibility of abuse? Certainly, but we have no evidence of such abuses being committed at this point. Indeed, at this point only the suggestion of said potential for abuse has even been claimed. In light of the terrorist realities of the world we live in, that seems to be a reasonable risk to take...until abuses of such programs have been proven! Rather than getting our bloomers all bunched up over a program that was put in place to protect us, why not direct all that pent up umbrage towards the terrorists! As for your "great American, Ed Snowden," he is but a low level functionary who himself, failed to grasp the overall concept of the program he worked to support and is now attempting to destroy.

Truth be known, the private sector collects far more information on each of us, than any of our Governments ever considered doing! Why are we not upset about those invasions of our privacy?


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> Really? Filming a cop beating someone should be criminal while the government filming ordinary civilians every move should be fine? Cops can film the activities all they want but someone stopped can't film even to gather proof of innocence or police misdeed? Wow. What a different U S. we believe in. ........
> 
> Any violations of American's constitutional rights (let alone one as massive as this) goes right under unethical and ilegal. What line do you draw sir? I don't understand why you think violating the constitution is fine. Underground prisons & torture? Is that ok as well? Murder & Rape in the name of country? How far do you think it's o.k. to go until basic ethics states that it's time to speak out in spite of security clearances and non-disclosure? Following orders to violate the rights of over 300 million people sounds rather serious to me, but you appear not only to support it but favor prosecution for someone that just stood up against unwarranted government intrusion.
> 
> With all this secrecy how can a citizen use his rights to free speech? Hard to speak out against what you don't know. I guess if we just ignore our rights the government will still grant them? Ah, only the 4th today which affects the 1st but hopefully tomorrow we can greatly reduce the 2nd.


Justonemore: Can you show me where I said any of the things you are attributing to me? As far as people filming the police as they carry out their duties, where did I say that was objectionable? My point was that that road should run both ways. Photograph the police, but quit whining when you get caught in a traffic violation by a traffic camera; demand more police protection when you hear of the plight of crime victims, but then don't debase the positive results of police cameras documenting street activities in our highest crime areas; and don't charge that US governmental authorities were asleep at the stick on 9/11 and then cry fowl when programs are put in place to preclude or at least sharply reduce the likelihood of such future attacks being successfully executed!



Tilton said:


> Would you find it as equally unobjectionable if the government tracked your every move via GPS, so long as they weren't doing anything with that data?
> 
> I just realized that I'm agreeing with justonemore. Oh, world... Oh, government...[/COLOR]


If you carry an iphone with you, or drive certain brands/models of cars, they are already tracking us as you suggest. Every cell phone call you make can be retrieved and used against you in a future criminal proceeding. Have we ever stopped to think how much personal information we put out there(?) every time we use a credit or debit card to make a purchase? My friend, big brother has been with us for a considerable while, at this point in time...and he just keeps getting bigger and bigger. How many of us have received those customized shopping lists sent to us by stores/vendors that we frequent/from which we make purchases. Never in the history of mankind has so much effort been expended by private as well as public sector entities to keep track of us and how we spend our time/money/etc.! One of the reasons so many of us herein, overspend as we do on our clothing/shoe purchases is specifically and well targeted advertising, developed and sent to us based on detailed studiy of our past behavoir(s). Ya want to blow off some steam...get angry about that!


----------



## VictorRomeo

eagle2250 said:


> One of the frustrations to be expected when participating in threads in the Interchange is that one's words are so frequently taken out of context and wildly exaggerated versions of what was said are assumed.
> 
> My friend, big brother has been with us for a considerable while, at this point in time...and he just keeps getting bigger and bigger.


You're friends with big brother?! :crazy: :wink2:


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> You're friends with big brother?! :crazy: :wink2:


The placement of the comma is indicative that Eagle is talking to someone not about someone, it is direct address and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. A coma following the word 'brother' would appear as a non-restrictive modifier and _this_ would allow us to interpret Eagle as declaring his friendship with BB. :teacha:


----------



## Belfaborac

eagle2250 said:


> One of the frustrations to be expected when participating in threads in the Interchange is that one's words are so frequently taken out of context and wildly exaggerated versions of what was said are assumed. I have never said that I am in favor of our government violating anyone's constitutional rights.


If I gave the impression that I thought you were in favour of such a thing, then I apologise unreservedly. My point was simply that regardless of what security clearances one has (and I have held one myself, signed the papers, etc), what oaths one has sworn and what NDAs one has signed, there are secrets one is obliged *not* take to the grave. Should one find oneself in possession of any such, then refraining from divulging them is an act of cowardice and betrayal, not conscientiousness.


----------



## Belfaborac

Shaver said:


> Love the Assyrian sculpture avatar by the way Belfaborac, that particular one is on display in the British Museum if I recall correctly.


Your recollection is impeccable my friend. It was a toss-up between this one and one from the Louvre, both taken from the palace of Sargon II at Dur-Sharukin. Wonderful as the Louvre is, the British Museum eclipses it as the planet's pre-eminent museum, so I went with the one you see.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> The placement of the comma is indicative that Eagle is talking to someone not about someone, it is direct address and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. A coma following the word 'brother' would appear as a non-restrictive modifier and _this_ would allow us to interpret Eagle as declaring his friendship with BB. :teacha:


I know, I know. I was just messing about and living Eagle's point about how we cherry pick the ridiculous and break off in tangent arguments. So to speak....


----------



## eagle2250

^^
VictorRomeo, I like your sense of humor, but truth be known, I am not a big fan of "Big Brother." Indeed, my distrust runs so strongly against the poor cad, I must admit to initial and continuing reservations against passage of the Patriot Act and the wife and I steadfastly avoid involvement with/in the various social media (Facebook, My Space, Twitter, etc), had the OnStar system in our cars disabled, refuse to include the use of iphones in our lives and in a majority of such instances, pay cash for our purchases. Am I paranoid? Perhaps just a bit! 

PS: Ironically, our adult kids can't seem to live without Facebook and their iphones seem permanently affixed to the end of their arms! :crazy:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Eagle, you're not paranoid... You're right! I've mentioned this before... I do not do Facebook, Twitter or possess any sort of personal online presence in fact. I dabble a little in LinkedIn in a professional capacity but the lines between person and professional life do not mix. 

Perhaps it's tin foil hat territory, but I do not do loyalty cards, gmail - anything google in fact and like you I'm in favour of cash purchase for most. We don't have anything like and OnStar service here so that's not an issue. There are things you can't avoid as part of modern life - but I shall never let 'the tail wag my dog'.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> I know, I know. I was just messing about and living Eagle's point about how we cherry pick the ridiculous and break off in tangent arguments. So to speak....


Sorry VR I was being frivolous with the grammar business, not really my style to criticise people's usage of English - Heaven knows I mangle it enough myself. :tongue2:


----------



## Tilton

eagle2250 said:


> J How many of us have received those customized shopping lists sent to us by stores/vendors that we frequent/from which we make purchases.


Not to derail any more than we already have, but apparently Target is the king of this. Someone (WSJ?) had an article on their analytics and specifically how they were able to accurately predict a particular teenager's pregnancy. They started sending her those personalized fliers filled with baby stuff and her father, enraged, contacted Target to immediate stop such nonsense only to later apologize and say something like "I spoke with my daughter and there are apparently things going on under my roof that I was previously unaware of." They have since stopped being so obvious - sending a seemingly innocuous flier but with one page of baby stuff hidden somewhere inside. Pretty frightening.


----------



## Shaver

Tilton said:


> Not to derail any more than we already have, but apparently Target is the king of this. Someone (WSJ?) had an article on their analytics and specifically how they were able to accurately predict a particular teenager's pregnancy. They started sending her those personalized fliers filled with baby stuff and her father, enraged, contacted Target to immediate stop such nonsense only to later apologize and say something like "I spoke with my daughter and there are apparently things going on under my roof that I was previously unaware of." They have since stopped being so obvious - sending a seemingly innocuous flier but with one page of baby stuff hidden somewhere inside. Pretty frightening.


If you buy a pregnancy testing kit and then cease purchasing sanitary towels what else might you expect?  More seriously, targeted advertisements aggravate me and nothing is more likely to disincline my purchase than pushiness. Those 'recommended for you' lists on Amazon are wildly far from the the mark.The whole world is being run by algorithms.

Oh, and those appalling 'lifestyle' ads where they dream up some vapid perfect life that they imagine will tempt the target demographic. Those dratted slices of glossy inanity make me sick at heart. The rattling of a stick in a swill bucket, as Mr. Orwell rather succinctly put it.


----------



## VictorRomeo

It's when they sell your data - or as they say "share with their partners" - is where it can get scary. The age old example is where a supermarket sells your shopping history to insurers who then know how to gauge your cover based on the food and drink you consume.

Interestingly, American Norman Joseph Woodland - a co-inventor of the barcode system - died last year. His invention of course a fundamental part in the process of all the above!


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> It's when they sell your data - or as they say "share with their partners" - is where it can get scary. The age old example is where a supermarket sells your shopping history to insurers who then know how to gauge your cover based on the food and drink you consume.
> 
> Interestingly, American Norman Joseph Woodland - a co-inventor of the barcode system - died last year. His invention of course a fundamental part in the process of all the above!


The barcode - Book of Revelations Chapter 13 verse 17. :icon_pale:


----------



## gaseousclay

Shaver said:


> It's your call.
> 
> Here's my vote, Iggy Pop (pictured here with Debbie Harry)


the Crypt Keeper called, he wants his DNA back


----------



## Zakk

Louie Zamperini

edit: I see this thread has gone off on a tangent for a while now :rolleyes2:


----------



## Shaver

Zakk said:


> Louie Zamperini
> 
> edit: I see this thread has gone off on a tangent for a while now :rolleyes2:


Not to worry.

I had never heard of Mr Zamperini before. I have just read his wikipedia entry and he certainly qualifies as great living American as far as I'm concerned. What a truly remarkable life.

Thank you for mentioning him.


----------



## justonemore

Although almost dead, I will allow myself to continue with the previous thoughts on this thread concerning Mr. Snowden... The 4th admendment is a "RIGHT" for all Americans & not a priveledge (a typical arguement used by cops, lawyers and politicians when they themselves wish to disregard civil liberties). That Snowden allowed government lies to be exposed is a criminal case not against a c orrupt & incorrect government but to the exposer is a problem. Not only has the government disregarded the constitution (a major issue in a true democracy) but they lie & spin it to ridiculous borders... I believe these NSA directors claimed that terrorism was prevented by ignoring constitutional rights and 10 minutes later such claims were shown to be false. The original claim was that the government didn"t do this at all...Yet another lie..But for some reason acceptable from a "representative" society..You can fool yourself as much as you want but no true democracy can be run as the U.S. has been run for the past several decades. If the people have no knowlege or say in government operations than you're no better than political figures such as Stalin & Hitler. Furthermore, actions perfomed without the consent of the people & held in secret are not consistant with a representative democratic government. Take any law you want that has been forced upon the populace such as insurance lobbied laws concerning forced seatbelt laws & drinking ages (state contolled but blackmailed by the federal government through refusing "highway funding"). What's worse is that the police enthusiastically enforce laws that are greatly in dispute (i.e. sodomy laws).


----------



## Chouan

Quite. The man has taken such a bold and honest step to reveal such hypocrisy. A brave and honourable man. Yet some Americans will, and do, regard him as a traitor. For what? Revealing that the US government does that which it morally shouldn't? He also revealed that the British government is doing what it shouldn't in terms of spying on the perfectly legitimate communications of the British people, using US intelligence agency's resources. Our government's response? "You've got nothing to fear, if you weren't doing anything wrong." I can remember studying European regimes that said the same kind of thing in the 1930's....


----------



## TSWalker

I nominate George Zimmer, poor sod.


----------



## justonemore

I also love the b.s. reason as to private businesses being "worse" as to violating people's privacy... They weren't elected to represent a populace & if given a chance, I'd bet a majority of people would vote against such collection of information by private firms. Unfortunate that big business has much deeper political pockets than the average American..G.E. gets a tax refund while middle class america gets tax increases & an eviction notice.


----------



## justonemore

I wasn't there but it appears that the man stood his ground in protecting his community. Both sides have played the press be it a photo of a "sweet innocent 12 year old or photos of someone wishing to live the "thug life". I give no credence to the "pot charges", they are B.S. made up by the U.S. government in form of lobbying by the cotton growing community & supported by the private u.s. prison industry. A year living on the Netherlands showed me that pot users are much less a problem than drinkers. I would think Zimmer has a right as a neighborhood watchman to question someone he doesn't know & seems to be acting strangely. Wearing a hood, mask or any other forms of concealment are bound to raise suspect, rain or shine. From there it's hard to say. Justified/unjustified, Murder/self defense, racial issues/no racial issues, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## justonemore

Post deleted.. To be rebuilt...


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> I wasn't there but it appears that the man stood his ground in protecting his community. Both sides have played the press be it a photo of a "sweet innocent 12 year old or photos of someone wishing to live the "thug life". I give no credence to the "pot charges", they are B.S. made up by the U.S. government in form of lobbying by the cotton growing community & supported by the private u.s. prison industry. A year living on the Netherlands showed me that pot users are much less a problem than drinkers. I would think Zimmer has a right as a neighborhood watchman to question someone he doesn't know & seems to be acting strangely. Wearing a hood, mask or any other forms of concealment are bound to raise suspect, rain or shine. From there it's hard to say. Justified/unjustified, Murder/self defense, racial issues/no racial issues, etc. etc. etc.


What are your sources for all of those malicious allegations against our beloved Uncle Sam? They sound much like the spurrious rants of an unsettled individual. Please, say it isn't so, Joe!


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> What are your sources for all of those malicious allegations against our beloved Uncle Sam? They sound much like the spurrious rants of an unsettled individual. Please, say it isn't so, Joe!


Ha. I admit that I'm a bit unsettled but this is because I'm at work versus napping in bed.

There are several sources on-line which explain how welathy companies & individuals such as DuPont, William Randolph Hurst & Harry Anslinger lobbied the federal government extensively for laws against hemp/marijuana. These same wealthy people were heavily invested in other industries such as wood, cotton, etc. Just as today, they used scare tactics such as "*******" sleeping with white women & people going insane after a puff. I'd guess most people have heard of the film "Reefer Madness".So yes, the U.S. government passed on this same B.S. to the people they "represented" although it was clearly promoted by special interests. The term "Conflict of interest" comes to mind.

As a retired cop, I'd guess you're aware of the percentage of prisoners doing time for breaking marijuana laws. It's an easy victimless bust which makes everyone feel warm & cozy from the prosectution, to the judge, to those capitalist sweeties that own the prisons. As to private prison lobbying efforts look up the GEO group & C.C.A. both spend millions in lobbying in order to protect their $3 billion enterprise (about $1.5 billion comes directly from the federal government). The issues are usually as to keeping various things as jailable crimes (pot, illegal immigrants, etc ).

Are you not aware that the federal government withheld highway funding to states with a drinking age lower than 21?

Was it not a big controversy that the C.E.O. of G.E. was appointed as a presidential economic advisor while G.E. itself was exploiting tax loopholes that are convenient only for wealthy companies & individuals? Although I have no source, I would doubt there are any G.E. execs being evicted from their homes. This privilege usually goes to the middle classes.

The line "it's a privilege, not a right" has been used for many things from driving to smoking to gun ownership. If we were to believe the politicians and police we'd assume we were the most privileged society on earth.


----------



## Belfaborac

justonemore said:


> people going insane after a puff. I'd guess most people have heard of the film "Reefer Madness".


I have the distinct impression that many Jamaicans do enjoy the odd spliff and so surely it would be an ideal country in which to observe the alleged mental problems caused by the use of cannabis. Strangely though, the frequency with which such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolarity and other forms of psychosis occur in the population is no greater in Jamaica or the Caribbean in general than in the US and Europe. If anything it's rather lower according to such sources as WHO, BJPsych, SciELO and others.


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> ......
> ............................
> As a retired cop, I'd guess you're aware of the percentage of prisoners doing time for breaking marijuana laws. It's an easy victimless bust which makes everyone feel warm & cozy from the prosectution, to the judge, to those capitalist sweeties that own the prisons. As to private prison lobbying efforts look up the GEO group & C.C.A. both spend millions in lobbying in order to protect their $3 billion enterprise (about $1.5 billion comes directly from the federal government). The issues are usually as to keeping various things as jailable crimes (pot, illegal immigrants, etc ).


Shouldn't we be more concerned about the actual added medical consequences of smoking pot, rather than some trumped up tripe about "victimless crimes"? :icon_scratch:



> Are you not aware that the federal government withheld highway funding to states with a drinking age lower than 21?


Yes I am aware of that and considering the added propensity of younger drivers to get in traffic accidents and the number of avoidable traffic deaths that occur each year as a result of drunk drivers, I support said actions with great vigor! :teacha:



> Was it not a big controversy that the C.E.O. of G.E. was appointed as a presidential economic advisor while G.E. itself was exploiting tax loopholes that are convenient only for wealthy companies & individuals? Although I have no source, I would doubt there are any G.E. execs being evicted from their homes. This privilege usually goes to the middle classes.


See what happens when we put a democrat in the White House! 



> The line "it's a privilege, not a right" has been used for many things from driving to smoking to gun ownership. If we were to believe the politicians and police we'd assume we were the most privileged society on earth.


Indeed, it is good to be an American, the land of the free and the home of the "privileged!"


----------



## eagle2250

Gee, I read in this AM's news that greatest living American "Ed Snowden" is now on the run, conspiring with this Nation's sworn enemies and actively trading additional (unspecified) classified information with said enemies in return for protection from prosecution for his actions. That sure doesn't fit my definition of a "greatest living American!" Maybe a traitor, spy, coward, criminal...but not a greatest living American. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Belfaborac

eagle2250 said:


> conspiring with this Nation's sworn enemies and actively trading additional (unspecified) classified information with said enemies


Are China, Russia and Ecuador now sworn enemies of the US?


----------



## justonemore

Sorry you missed the sarcasm. My point on being "priveliged" was that we no longer have "rights".

Odd, for someone who holds rather conservative views, it appears you support the ever famous "Nanny State". The federal government bribing states to ignore constituants rights is hardly supportable. Even if you agree with the end result it does not justify the means of eliminating state rights at the behest of the insurance lobby. 

Drinking age in Switzerland is 16 for beer, wine & alcopops (baccardi breezers, etc.) I'll research the figures a bit later but I believe I've read that there are far less road fatalities & accidents (per 1000 drivers) here than there. 

I'm not sure where it's the government's concern to tell me how to treat my own body. Believe it or not slavery was abolished at some point. You're concerned about health risks of pot for others? That's a stand up type of attitude but many would most likely tell you to mind your own concerns. Alcohol is much more addictive & damaging to the body, it affects almost all major organs in a negative way. The withdrawal process is more damaging than that of Heroin & it's the only withdrawal that can kill you. I don't know what type of cop you were but I'd bet alcohol is involved in domestic violence much more than pot. Same with car accidents, murders etc. Bob drinks a glass of wine after work, Tim smokes a joint. Tim should go to jail for a year because we're worried about his health? Really? I'd almost sympathize with your thoughts should the U.S. invest in medical intervention programs versus $billions in jails.


----------



## justonemore

Belfaborac said:


> Are China, Russia and Ecuador now sworn enemies of the US?


More than likely anyone not directly involved in U.S. politics is considered as an enemy of the U.S.


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> Gee, I read in this AM's news that greatest living American "Ed Snowden" is now on the run, conspiring with this Nation's sworn enemies and actively trading additional (unspecified) classified information with said enemies in return for protection from prosecution for his actions. That sure doesn't fit my definition of a "greatest living American!" Maybe a traitor, spy, coward, criminal...but not a greatest living American. :icon_scratch:


How sad is it that someone willing to tell the truth about a bunch of liars in a supposedly transparent, representative democracy has to run for his life & freedom.

I haven't seen any of these "government secrets" that are "being sold to America's enemies". I have seen confirmed exposure of governmental lies & corruption however. "Enemies foreign & domestic", well the later appears to be a government hell bent on destroying basic civil rights hiding behind "security" in order to violate citizens constitutional rights.

How about prosecuting govermental thugs instead. Toss the lying bastard N.S.A. director in the clink for a couple decades for "abuse of power". Perhaps our elected officials would get the point. Sadly we blame those that are supporting our rights.

Again, how far are you willing to hide the truth before it becomes unethical in your point of view?


----------



## eagle2250

Belfaborac said:


> Are China, Russia and Ecuador now sworn enemies of the US?


You betcha! I spent a good portion of my adult life preparing to visit great wrath and destruction upon the first two, but thankfully never had to put that training to use. However, given the litany of documented human rights violations on the part of that terrible three we are discussing, I'm rather disappointed to think that you seem so accepting of such heathen spawn!


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> Sorry you missed the sarcasm. My point on being "priveliged" was that we no longer have "rights".


Truth be known, I ignored the sarcasm.



> Odd, for someone who holds rather conservative views, it appears you support the ever famous "Nanny State". The federal government bribing states to ignore constituants rights is hardly supportable. Even if you agree with the end result it does not justify the means of eliminating state rights at the behest of the insurance lobby.


When did teen drinking become a constituant right? We seem to have different ways of phrasing the issue...you say bribing, I say incentivising. My way seems so much more positive! 



> I'm not sure where it's the government's concern to tell me how to treat my own body. Believe it or not slavery was abolished at some point. You're concerned about health risks of pot for others? That's a stand up type of attitude but many would most likely tell you to mind your own concerns. Alcohol is much more addictive & damaging to the body, it affects almost all major organs in a negative way. The withdrawal process is more damaging than that of Heroin & it's the only withdrawal that can kill you. I don't know what type of cop you were but I'd bet alcohol is involved in domestic violence much more than pot. Same with car accidents, murders etc. Bob drinks a glass of wine after work, Tim smokes a joint. Tim should go to jail for a year because we're worried about his health? Really? I'd almost sympathize with your thoughts should the U.S. invest in medical intervention programs versus $billions in jails.


For what it's worth, I was referring to the higher incidence of respiratory ailments and cancers incurred by pot smokers, as compared to tobacco smokers and certainly even more so when compared with such experience of non-smokers! Smoking or tobacco use of any sort is not a smart thing to do to our bodies. LOL. Send me in, coach...I don't smoke!


----------



## Belfaborac

eagle2250 said:


> You betcha! I spent a good portion of my adult life preparing to visit great wrath and destruction upon the first two, but thankfully never had to put that training to use.


Aren't you confusing "being sometimes or generally hostile to the US" with being a sworn enemy? Or even just "being sometimes or generally in disagreement with the US"?



> However, given the litany of documented human rights violations on the part of that terrible three we are discussing, I'm rather disappointed to think that you seem so accepting of such heathen spawn!


I'm unsure what you're referring to here. I merely asked a question with no context, while you would appear to have read between a great number of lines which I didn't know existed.


----------



## justonemore

When did 18 year olds stop being voting constituants with legal capacity of concernment? Are you stating certain U.S. citizens should have no say in the way their democracy is run? Do the parents have no rights as to raising their children as they fit? If the majority in these states were well informed of the different sides of the debate & were allowed to vote on the issue, would you have the same outcome? Perhaps, perhaps not, but at least the people's viewpoints would have been stated versus a federal government play on the greed of state politicians in order to ignore the choice of the people. What's free & democratic in that situation?


----------



## justonemore

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "The Cuban Missle Crisis" Russia"s response to American long range missles in Turkey?

Other than being communist, what was China's big agression against the U.S. during the cold war period?


----------



## Shaver

There is no doubt that this chap has had some small influence on the shape of modern America. :icon_smile:


----------



## Joseph Peter

Eagle, the two gents from Switzerland and Norway have already made up their minds that Mr. Snowden is legitimate and that the ends justify his means. You cant argue with them or test their assumptions. 

Mr. Shaver, I hate to admit it but I'm unsure of the identity of gent pictured above...


----------



## blue suede shoes

justonemore said:


> I wasn't there but it appears that the man stood his ground in protecting his community. Both sides have played the press be it a photo of a "sweet innocent 12 year old or photos of someone wishing to live the "thug life". I give no credence to the "pot charges", they are B.S. made up by the U.S. government in form of lobbying by the cotton growing community & supported by the private u.s. prison industry. A year living on the Netherlands showed me that pot users are much less a problem than drinkers. I would think Zimmer has a right as a neighborhood watchman to question someone he doesn't know & seems to be acting strangely. Wearing a hood, mask or any other forms of concealment are bound to raise suspect, rain or shine. From there it's hard to say. Justified/unjustified, Murder/self defense, racial issues/no racial issues, etc. etc. etc.


Agreed. Let's hope the jury feels the same way.


----------



## Belfaborac

Joseph Peter said:


> Eagle, the two gents from Switzerland and Norway have already made up their minds that Mr. Snowden is legitimate and that the ends justify his means. You cant argue with them or test their assumptions.


Congrats on your black belt in assumption-making; may it serve you well in the future.

In regards to the case at hand I have merely 1) stated the blindingly obvious; that regardless of whether he did right or wrong, doing what Mr. Snowden did took a great deal of courage, and 2) asked when the three aforementioned nations became sworn enemies of the US. However, you are of course entirely entitled to read whatever additional and fictional content you desire into my posts, as this is the internet and not somewhere you can be held accountable for inane conjecture.


----------



## Shaver

Joseph Peter said:


> Eagle, the two gents from Switzerland and Norway have already made up their minds that Mr. Snowden is legitimate and that the ends justify his means. You cant argue with them or test their assumptions.
> 
> Mr. Shaver, I hate to admit it but I'm unsure of the identity of gent pictured above...


Take a look at the very top left of this page - there's a gent stood in front of a bookcase...... :biggrin:


----------



## Chouan

For what it's worth, I thought your two points were clear. 
It takes a great deal of courage to announce publicly that your country is doing wrong; whether or not those blinded by jingoism agree with what the man has done is irrelevant. It would have been a lot easier for Snowden to have been complicit in his country's illegitimate activities than to denounce them. In this case moral cowardice would have a much easier option.
In the second case, I wasn't aware that the countries listed were "sworn enemies of the US". If a country that isn't in complete agreement with the US is described as a "sworn enemy", then how would you describe a country that really _*is*_ an enemy?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Chouan: I've wondered where you have been. A few of us are of the age that we remember the "Cold War." I am but one of many. One of my earlier USAF assignments was with a SAC Bomb Wing (B-52's and KC-135's) and a subsequent assignment was with a Minuteman II ICBM wing. Our weapons were cocked and locked and we crew dogs pulled regular alert tours, waiting for orders to go to war against this nations "sworn enemies," while fervently praying that those orders would never come. It is interesting to note that the nuclear war plans of the United States did not call for or provide for preemptive strikes, but those of own sworn enemies did. I do not use the term sworn enemy lightly and you sir, and your two cohorts, simply do not know what you are talking about!

PS: The one leg of our nuclear triad I've not experienced are the "Boomer" Subs and their sea launched ballistic missiles. Frankly, I don't swim that well and getting on a boat that goes out too far for me to catch a reassuring glimpse of the shoreline, scare the H*ll out of me!


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Chouan: I've wondered where you have been. A few of us are of the age that we remember the "Cold War." I am but one of many. One of my earlier USAF assignments was with a SAC Bomb Wing (B-52's and KC-135's) and a subsequent assignment was with a Minuteman II ICBM wing. Our weapons were cocked and locked and we crew dogs pulled regular alert tours, waiting for orders to go to war against this nations "sworn enemies" and fervently praying that those orders would never come. It is interesting to note that the nuclear war plans of the United States did not call for or provide for preemptive strikes, but those of own sworn enemies did. I do not use the term sworn enemy lightly and you sir, and your two cohorts, simply do not know what you are talking about!


As to what? The fear created by U.S. propanda? I admit to not being around for much of "The cold war" but history seems to show that the Russians were nowhere as well organized & equiped as the U.S. government made everyone believe (and fear). This is one of the reasons I don't believe in the "cloak & dagger" nonesense. They keep lying in order to promote their special agendas while the average citizen isn't even in a position to make a choice as to right or wrong. We arw lied to, misinformed or not informed at all. Whose voice is heard? Only those of the choice politicians that have ignored the fact that we are supposedly a representative democracy.

Again American force & aggression is ignored in your comments. Why is it o.k. to put long range missles in Turkey? How would that not merit a response from the Russians? We were always bigger & better funded. Is is not a threatening action?


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Chouan: I've wondered where you have been. A few of us are of the age that we remember the "Cold War." I am but one of many. One of my earlier USAF assignments was with a SAC Bomb Wing (B-52's and KC-135's) and a subsequent assignment was with a Minuteman II ICBM wing. Our weapons were cocked and locked and we crew dogs pulled regular alert tours, waiting for orders to go to war against this nations "sworn enemies," while fervently praying that those orders would never come. It is interesting to note that the nuclear war plans of the United States did not call for or provide for preemptive strikes, but those of own sworn enemies did. I do not use the term sworn enemy lightly and you sir, and your two cohorts, simply do not know what you are talking about!
> 
> PS: The one leg of our nuclear triad I've not experienced are the "Boomer" Subs and their sea launched ballistic missiles. Frankly, I don't swim that well and getting on a boat that goes out too far for me to catch a reassuring glimpse of the shoreline, scare the H*ll out of me!


I did a coastal run on one, HMS Superb, as a junior, very junior watchkeeping officer, down to Devonport, Plymouth, and didn't enjoy it much.
However, that was then; the Cold War is long over, and I can't remember Ecuador being a "sworn enemy", or did I miss something? Britain spent 6 years of bitter war fighting Germany, but I don't see Germany as Britain's "sworn enemy" now. Things change and political alignments move on.


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> As to what? The fear created by U.S. propanda? I admit to not being around for much of "The cold war" but history seems to show that the Russians were nowhere as well organized & equiped as the U.S. government made everyone believe (and fear). This is one of the reasons I don't believe in the "cloak & dagger" nonesense. They keep lying in order to promote their special agendas while the average citizen isn't even in a position to make a choice as to right or wrong. We arw lied to, misinformed or not informed at all. Whose voice is heard? Only those of the choice politicians that have ignored the fact that we are supposedly a representative democracy.
> 
> Again American force & aggression is ignored in your comments. Why is it o.k. to put long range missles in Turkey? How would that not merit a response from the Russians? We were always bigger & better funded. Is is not a threatening action?


Come on justforone, you are better than that. We both know that it was the Soviets themselves that put forth the vast majority of the misinformation regarding their military capabilities and financial realities of the Soviet Unions economy. It was their uber-secretive nature that allowed such pipe dreams to flourish...not the good guys! I'll bet North Korea is resident on your current list of nation states to look up to!


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> I did a coastal run on one, HMS Superb, as a junior, very junior watchkeeping officer, down to Devonport, Plymouth, and didn't enjoy it much.
> However, that was then; the Cold War is long over, and I can't remember Ecuador being a "sworn enemy", or did I miss something? Britain spent 6 years of bitter war fighting Germany, but I don't see Germany as Britain's "sworn enemy" now. Things change and political alignments move on.


Sadly, the "wall came down', but the Cold War is not over. I am admittedly out of the loop and have been for awhile now, but I would bet my life, as have we all (willingly or not!), that Russia and China's neclear forces are pre-targeted at the USA and our remaining land and sea based missiles are targeted at them. How exactly do you define sworn enemies? You seem to be debating terminology. Would you prefer I refer to Russia and the PRC as our clearly identified enemies/military threats? If so, I will...just to put a smile on that ever handsome visage of your's!


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> Come on justforone, you are better than that. We both know that it was the Soviets themselves that put forth the vast majority of the misinformation regarding their military capabilities and financial realities of the Soviet Unions economy. It was their uber-secretive nature that allowed such pipe dreams to flourish...not the good guys! I'll bet North Korea is resident on your current list of nation states to look up to!


The Soviets did put up the first satellite, first living creatures in space, first manned orbit, first spacewalk, first woman in space, first probe to Venus the Moon _and_ Mars, returned first lunar soil samples to Earth, first photo of the dark side of the Moon etc etc etc so there were some *very* tangible reasons to be afraid of their technological superiority.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Thank-you for those excellent and very valid points, Shaver. And on a more personal note, I do appreciate the assistance here, but am left wondering, where are all those good hearted, clear eyed, robust, red blooded American boys, coming to the cyber-aid of our Country? The enemies (cyber, sworn and otherwise) are at our gates. LOL. Let us not suffer further insult or innuendo from these keyboard commandos!


----------



## justonemore

"just for one"? Is that meant as an insult sir? I've respected your desire to be called retired vs. ex. I was hoping for more from you. I'll remind you sir that I too served in the U.S. military & afterwards I volunteered as a firefighter (no profit or position of "authority". 

I "look up to North Korea"? It appears that instead of responding in a manner considered respectful you've taken again to insult. Another jab perhaps? Someone doesn't see eye to eye with you so they are "unsettled, diseased"? I would look forward to anything you can quote me on that shows I "look up to" any government (let alone one such as N.K.). In fact, your viewpoints that the government should spy on its populace& lie to the populace while constructing laws not voted ob seems more N.K. to me.

In addition, you've failed to respond realistically to many points made. 

Why are 18-21 year old voters not to be considered as a group to be represented in your viewpoint? Are they not American citizens or are some of your blue blooded american boys more equal than the red blooded American boys? As long as discrimination is accepted by the majority it's ok? Oh, that's right, it wasn't accepted by a majority of constituants in an open democracy, it was a stated rule by politicians in the pockets of large insurance companies. 

How far into a violation of civil rights is o.k.? I've asked this several times You appear to support government control over the populace. As a retired cop, I'm sure you like to have authority, but that"s not how it"s supposed to work.

Did the U.S. not provoke the Cuban missle crisis? Although Shaver responded a bit to the question, is technological jealousy reason to further promote national tension to the point of paranoia? I also never claimed Russia to be little sweeties that were inferior in all manners but the truth is American Propeganda made them out to be much worse & technologically advanced than history has show (Potemkin Villages anyone?). Perhaps only American's can respond in a military manner the call "national defense"? 

I'm a keyboard commando for promoting civil & constitutional rights in the U.S. yet your promotion of government secrecy & deception should be seen as American as apple pie?

I also nevet mentioned Russian Propaganda. The fact that one of my children is doing something naughty doesn't exclude the other from being naughty too. You're like my 5y.o. telling me that the 2 y.o. was also naughty & she was therefore justified & shouldn't be punished.

Where does your "nanny state" end? Marijuana? Alcohol? Large sodas?

Do as your told.

Do as we say not as we do.

The common man is to be seen & not heard.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Justonemore: Set aside your cyber-outrage and ramp back that umbrage just a bit. The "just for one" was simply a typo, but I suppose it could represent a Freudian slip on my part o). If it was hurtful to you, I apologize...trust me on this...it was unintended. 

As to the North Korea comment, it seems to me that you think it ok for you to use sarcasm in your postings, but I may not do so. I'll be sure to make a note of that, but remain unimpressed.

I have never said I approve violations of of a citizen's civil rights. What I have said, in various ways in past postings, is that I disagree with your conclusion(s) as to what constitutes actual violations. For instance, you and ED Snowden seem to think the PRISM program violates our 4th Amendment rights. I disagree, based on the reality that no actual violations have been proven and, as yet, only suggested by a few who have something personal to gain or some unspecified 'cross to bear!'

I disagree with your conclusion as the the US provoking the Cuban missile crisis. I am rather proud of the way our leadership handled that crisis and many other crises that you and members of the general public never heard about. Most peoples blood would quite literally run cold if they knew of the many instances of nuclear chicken that the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China played during the cold war and how close it brought us to the nuclear threshold. That's why I personally hope to see nuclear weapons done away with entirely someday soon! As a signatory to several of those security oaths and non-disclosure agreements we typed of earlier in this thread, I will not presume to go into any greater detail in that regard. 

I draw the line at large sodas...Bloomberg is an idiot!

I am about as common a man as you are ever going to find, but please don't presume any insult intended in that response; as I include you and oh so many others in that category as well!

I do hope this answers your concerns?


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Justonemore: Set aside your cyber-outrage and ramp back that umbrage just a bit. The "just for one" was simply a typo, but I suppose it could represent a Freudian slip on my part o). If it was hurtful to you, I apologize...trust me on this...it was unintended.
> 
> As to the North Korea comment, it seems to me that you think it ok for you to use sarcasm in your postings, but I may not do so. I'll be sure to make a note of that, but remain unimpressed.
> 
> I have never said I approve violations of of a citizen's civil rights. What I have said, in various ways in past postings, is that I disagree with your conclusion(s) as to what constitutes actual violations. For instance, you and ED Snowden seem to think the PRISM program violates our 4th Amendment rights. I disagree, based on the reality that no actual violations have been proven and, as yet, only suggested by a few who have something personal to gain or some unspecified 'cross to bear!'
> 
> I disagree with your conclusion as the the US provoking the Cuban missile crisis. I am rather proud of the way our leadership handled that crisis and many other crises that you and members of the general public never heard about. Most peoples blood would quite literally run cold if they knew of the many instances of nuclear chicken that the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China played during the cold war and how close it brought us to the nuclear threshold. That's why I personally hope to see nuclear weapons done away with entirely someday soon! As a signatory to several of those security oaths and non-disclosure agreements we typed of earlier in this thread, I will not presume to go into any greater detail in that regard.
> 
> I draw the line at large sodas...Bloomberg is an idiot!
> 
> I am about as common a man as you are ever going to find, but please don't presume any insult intended in that response; as I include you and oh so many others in that category as well!
> 
> I do hope this answers your concerns?


Dear sir, thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm at the end of a 4 hour train ride & perhaps writing on a smart phone all this time has caused a bit of the aforementioned "cyber rage".

Your slip of words is rather funny given our tendancy to quarrel. F(r)eudian indeed.

I will also note that my sarcasm (at least in this thread) was topic related & not directed to any individual. However having used it, I fully respect other peoples rights to do so.

Please realise that the 2 together were perhaps easy to take out of your intended context.

Again, I never spoke of Russia & China being wonderful or great in anyway. I simply wanted to mention that there was more to it than "the russian boogeyman". All sides played their little games & none were right in doing so.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Thank-you for those excellent and very valid points, Shaver. And on a more personal note, I do appreciate the assistance here, but am left wondering, where are all those good hearted, clear eyed, robust, red blooded American boys, coming to the cyber-aid of our Country? The enemies (cyber, sworn and otherwise) are at our gates. LOL. Let us not suffer further insult or innuendo from these keyboard commandos!


Yeah c'mon you American fellows! Maybe this will arouse your passions:

NB be careful if your wives are around before viewing this. 





O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?


----------



## eagle2250

This morning I read three news articles noting that terrorist groups, to include Al Queda, have altered their communications approaches, as reflected by drastic reductions/or total disappearance of such traffic in media sources monitored by the Prism initiative. So a program put in place to prevent future 9/11's is rendered ineffective in that regard, while the information capture and screening continues affecting all of us and yet leaving each of us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Thanks for nothing Ed Snowden, where ever you may be! :crazy:


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle', wouldn't that suggest that we can now drop the Prism program? If it's no longer effective, then there's no justification for the privacy intrusion. 

FWIW, I'm very conflicted about the whole thing, and have not decided how I feel about it.


----------



## wdrazek

eagle2250 said:


> This morning I read three news articles noting that terrorist groups, to include Al Queda, have altered their communications approaches, as reflected by drastic reductions/or total disappearance of such traffic in media sources monitored by the Prism initiative. So a program put in place to prevent future 9/11's is rendered ineffective in that regard, while the information capture and screening continues affecting all of us and yet leaving each of us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Thanks for nothing Ed Snowden, where ever you may be! :crazy:


Not to cut in on anyone, but the 9/11 story was the greatest hoax we were ever sold. Twenty guys with turbans in a cave 10,000 miles away blew up the Pentagon, the most highly defended military nerve center in the world. With almost an hour's notice and with Langely AFB a dozen miles away. Sorry, not buying it.

BTW, why did WTC 7 collapse without even being hit?


----------



## Shaver

wdrazek said:


> Not to cut in on anyone, but the 9/11 story was the greatest hoax we were ever sold. Twenty guys with turbans in a cave 10,000 miles away blew up the Pentagon, the most highly defended military nerve center in the world. With almost an hour's notice and with Langely AFB a dozen miles away. Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> BTW, why did WTC 7 collapse without even being hit?


And not one single frame of footage of the aircraft that allegedly hit the pentagon.......


----------



## wdrazek

Exactly. As though there were no cameras surrounding it.


----------



## eagle2250

wdrazek said:


> Not to cut in on anyone, but the 9/11 story was the greatest hoax we were ever sold. Twenty guys with turbans in a cave 10,000 miles away blew up the Pentagon, the most highly defended military nerve center in the world. With almost an hour's notice and with Langely AFB a dozen miles away. Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> BTW, why did WTC 7 collapse without even being hit?


Your flip assertion is an insult to every victim of the 9/11 attack(s) against the US and does not deserve the dignity of a response...such foolishness!


----------



## eagle2250

CuffDaddy said:


> eagle', wouldn't that suggest that we can now drop the Prism program? If it's no longer effective, then there's no justification for the privacy intrusion.
> 
> FWIW, I'm very conflicted about the whole thing, and have not decided how I feel about it.


It is with some reservations that I say/type this, but I'm not sure it would be wise to do that. If nothing else, the reality of Prism's existence greatly complicates the terrorist's communications, operational planning and logistics efforts. That's a good thing. As long as the protections against 4th Amendment violations that were put in place (as part of the Prism program) are properly enforced, it can also be an effective aid to domestic law enforcement efforts. People seem always so quick to condemn the police for failing to adequately protect them , but then are also quick to law enforcement's hands behind their back, as they take away tools that enable them to more effectively enforce the rules society has put in place. The traffic enforcement/traffic cam example I mentioned in an earlier post is a perfect example. The cops are expected to keep the roadways safe, but when a driver/offender is caught on a traffic camera/security camera committing their civil infraction/crime, the police are accused of cheating and/or harassing innocent citizens. It just doesn't work when we expect to have it both ways!


----------



## wdrazek

That was not a flip assertion. It is reality. And how does it in any way insult the victims? 

Well, thanks anyhow for responding to my comment which didn't merit a response. And, you're not the only one who responded.

From where I stand, the foolishness is buying the lie outright when the truth is so obvious and compelling.


----------



## El_Abogado

ic12337:


wdrazek said:


> Not to cut in on anyone, but the 9/11 story was the greatest hoax we were ever sold. Twenty guys with turbans in a cave 10,000 miles away blew up the Pentagon, the most highly defended military nerve center in the world. With almost an hour's notice and with Langely AFB a dozen miles away. Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> BTW, why did WTC 7 collapse without even being hit?


You, sir, are an idiot. You also have never been to the Pentagon. Many of us saw the AA flight on its way into the Pentagon and there is clear footage of both planes hitting the World Trade Center. WTC7 is interesting, but not dispositive of your conspiracy theory.


----------



## wdrazek

El_Abogado said:


> ic12337:
> 
> You, sir, are an idiot. You also have never been to the Pentagon. Many of us saw the AA flight on its way into the Pentagon and there is clear footage of both planes hitting the World Trade Center. WTC7 is interesting, but not dispositive of your conspiracy theory.


Yes, I have in fact been to the Pentagon, not that it matters any.

WTC7 is only one piece of the story. There is far more to it than you are apparently aware of.

Riddle me this: in the history of modern high rise construction, other than on September 11, 2001, when did a building collapse at the speed of free fall gravity other than in a controlled demolition? And why was military grade nanothermite (demolition explosives) found in a molten state for days afterward at the WTC site?

Then answer this: how did an individual who could not fly or land a Cessna aircraft maneuver a full sized Boeing airliner in a tight 270 degree turn at over 500mph in a move that experienced military pilots have confessed they would be hard pressed to do?

There are lots more questions than those. Including this: why was there no debris from said aircraft at the Pentagon site? No seats, no fuselage, no engines, no body. The official explanation: the plane "vaporized" upon impact.

Open your eyes, and your mind.

Google 'Pilots for 911 truth.' Then get back to me.


----------



## Shaver

wdrazek said:


> Yes, I have in fact been to the Pentagon, not that it matters any.
> 
> WTC7 is only one piece of the story. There is far more to it than you are apparently aware of.
> 
> Riddle me this: in the history of modern high rise construction, other than on September 11, 2001, when did a building collapse at the speed of free fall gravity other than in a controlled demolition? And why was military grade nanothermite (demolition explosives) found in a molten state for days afterward at the WTC site?
> 
> Then answer this: how did an individual who could not fly or land a Cessna aircraft maneuver a full sized Boeing airliner in a tight 270 degree turn at over 500mph in a move that experienced military pilots have confessed they would be hard pressed to do?
> 
> There are lots more questions than those. Including this: why was there no debris from said aircraft at the Pentagon site? No seats, no fuselage, no engines, no body. The official explanation: the plane "vaporized" upon impact.
> 
> Open your eyes, and your mind.
> 
> Google 'Pilots for 911 truth.' Then get back to me.


BBC news informed UK viewers that WTC7 had collapsed quite some time before it actually did..........

Here's a notion to consider - 9/11 used to mean 9th of November to me, we put the day before the month in the UK. But if Britain were to have it's own terrorist attack with an iconic date then we would need something with universal currency. So ours happened on the 7th of July - 7/7, just so as not to cause any confusion .............very convenient that.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> BBC news informed UK viewers that WTC7 had collapsed quite some time before it actually did..........
> 
> Here's a notion to consider - 9/11 used to mean 9th of November to me, we put the day before the month in the UK. But if Britain were to have it's own terrorist attack with an iconic date then we would need something with universal currency. So ours happened on the 7th of July - 7/7, just so as not to cause any confusion .............very convenient that.


I love a good conspiracy theory but - seriously - who would be able to pull off such an intrigue ?


----------



## wdrazek

Haffman said:


> I love a good conspiracy theory but - seriously - who would be able to pull off such an intrigue ?


As they used to say in Rome: First, ask who benefitted.


----------



## Haffman

wdrazek said:


> As they used to say in Rome: First, ask who benefitted.


Well OK but I can think of a number of regimes and individuals who benefited (as well as a number who suffered). Which exactly do you have in mind ?

Also, I think an analysis of the ultimate beneficiaries of an event may be misleading in identifying the culprit. For sure, often in history the initiators end up benefiting the least, a la _The March of Folly _


----------



## VictorRomeo

Haffman said:


> I love a good conspiracy theory but - seriously - who would be able to pull off such an intrigue ?


As do I. Though I find it all to be spectacularly incredulous that 9/11 came from within, nothing would surprise me. Governments, or more so their institutions* - are by and large utterly untrustworthy and capable of the most heinous of acts. I also believe that the US government and their institutions are one of the most - if not the most - untrustworthy on this little planet of ours.

*Political classes are pretty much stupid and only interested in their re-election. State agents however are not.


----------



## Haffman

VictorRomeo said:


> As do I. Though I find it all to be spectacularly incredulous that 9/11 came from within, nothing would surprise me. Governments, or more so their institutions* - are by and large utterly untrustworthy and capable of the most heinous of acts. I also believe that the US government and their institutions are one of the most - if not the most - untrustworthy on this little planet of ours.
> 
> *Political classes are pretty much stupid and only interested in their re-election. State agents however are not.


I think you are wise to be skeptical of the motives of governments. As for the American government, I suppose it's the case that the more powerful the government - and the more fingers it has in various pies - the more scope there is for malfeasance (at least of the kind that affects us all). The Suez Crisis, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate and the Iraq war 'dodgy dossier' are enough evidence for me to question the integrity of recent US and UK governments.

However, with something like 9/11 I struggle to believe that - even if they were so evil as to concoct such a plan - the various agencies of the US government that might be allegedly involved could execute it and then get away with it. I have the same feelings about the Kennedy assassination and the death of Diana shortly after she announced that she had 'big news' to tell the media. My heart feels that there were darker forces at work, but my head just can't reason how it could have been done and covered up.

(Perhaps that's just the way _they_ want me to think ?!)


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> I think you are wise to be skeptical of the motives of governments. As for the American government, I suppose it's the case that the more powerful the government - and the more fingers it has in various pies - the more scope there is for malfeasance (at least of the kind that affects us all). The Suez Crisis, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate and the Iraq war 'dodgy dossier' are enough evidence for me to question the integrity of recent US and UK governments.
> 
> However, with something like 9/11 I struggle to believe that - even if they were so evil as to concoct such a plan - the various agencies of the US government that might be allegedly involved could execute it and then get away with it. I have the same feelings about the Kennedy assassination and the death of Diana shortly after she announced that she had 'big news' to tell the media. My heart feels that there were darker forces at work, but my head just can't reason how it could have been done and covered up.
> 
> (Perhaps that's just the way _they_ want me to think ?!)


Easy. You just trigger the people you intend to blame to do the act in the first place. To wit: invent a terrorist group with some remarkable properties (e.g independent cells, no central chain of command, autonomy) that anyone can theoretically join without having any contact with anyone else - a masterpiece of scapegoating. Now you have the framework of a worldwide terror organisation that you can accuse anyone you like of being a member - there will be no proof to support the claim and in fact proof is impossible as a result of the parameters for membership originally delineated. Prompt a few home-grown nutcases to plant a few explosive devices until the notion of assaulting prime American targets begins to look compellingly easy. Then make up a few stories about imaginary terrorist group claiming responsibility for X, Y and Z. A madman in the desert who wishes to look powerful in front of his friends says 'I am leader of this terrorist group, Jihad, Jihad, Mohammed!' A few disillusioned youths around the world are radicalised. The plot thickens. If people see stuff on TV they believe it. God only knows why, but they do. If they gain the impression from the media that their idle ranting about maltreatment of their ethnic group makes them an extremist cell then you have the first steps to suicide bombings.... and so it goes. No need to rely on internal agencies to do any of the dirty work, plausible deniability.

Cover-ups are easy. There are books available written by extremely senior US officials (military and governmental) exposing dreadful acts. Flood the market with hoax books, gibberish, ludicrous conspiracy theories and the truth is drowned in the overwhelming cacophony. Job done.


----------



## justonemore

And when they are caught red handed they just lie or claim it was for the sake of security. Other than their political buddies, who has the power to question them or ask that they be held responsible for their actions?

Absolute power corrupts absolute.


----------



## wdrazek

Haffman said:


> Well OK but I can think of a number of regimes and individuals who benefited (as well as a number who suffered). Which exactly do you have in mind ?
> 
> Also, I think an analysis of the ultimate beneficiaries of an event may be misleading in identifying the culprit. For sure, often in history the initiators end up benefiting the least, a la _The March of Folly _


I seriously doubt we will ever get to the actual perpetrators but I would suggest the place to start is to the US Dept of Defense and possibly Dept of State. Big oil might also have had some role in it.

The DOD was able to get 2 wars out of it. Since we already had Afghanistan brewing it was a lot easier to attack Iraq. And who really thinks that the Iraq intel about WMD and the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein were anything more than a made up pretense for war? BTW, did anyone notice that the transasia pipeline cuts right through Afghanistan? So it might very well have been hatched beyond the US borders.

Those are some ideas I have, but the truth is that we will likely never know the truth.


----------

