Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by AchtungBono

These are the best 7.5 minutes I have ever seen on FOX news.....

I'm honestly not sure I have ever watched that much FOX news consecutively.

[deep]

she's hot
does O'Reilly have her phone number

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by deep

she's hot
does O'Reilly have her phone number

The judge or the mom?

[deep]

both
(a guy can dream)



*
and for the one person that does not get the O'Reilly reference

[MrsSpringsteen]

Jihad Mom has visited the infowars site frequently, so it seems. Must have it bookmarked. She was also discussing jihad with Timmy, according to Russian wiretaps (maybe they have better intelligence gathering than we do). She complains that America didn't keep her sons safe, what incredible audacity. What a piece of work. She can't come here to claim her dead son's body because she'll be arrested on her outstanding shoplifting warrant.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston

by Ron Paul

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

[digitize]

I tend to be very pro-civil liberties, but the sentence "it's not the government's job to keep us safe, it's the government's job to protect our liberties", as if the government should have no role in protecting safety, and as if safety weren't a component at all in liberty, is ridiculous.

[bono_212]

You know, though, I didn't think about it the way he put it until it was written out like that. They didn't find him during the shelter in place. I had completely forgotten about that.

He may be kind of crazy, but he raises a few valid points.

[Jive Turkey]

At the same time, nobody was hurt during the 'shelter in place' request (it was a request, wasn't it? Or was it manditory?). I do kinda agree with a lot of that article however

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

At the same time, nobody was hurt during the 'shelter in place' request (it was a request, wasn't it? Or was it manditory?). I do kinda agree with a lot of that article however

I suspect it was like a State of Emergency, because as I recall there were people milling about during the event the whole day.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by digitize

I tend to be very pro-civil liberties, but the sentence "it's not the government's job to keep us safe, it's the government's job to protect our liberties", as if the government should have no role in protecting safety, and as if safety weren't a component at all in liberty, is ridiculous.

As long as we're all armed to the teeth, we don't need the government to protect our safety.

[U2DMfan]

Ron Paul is right about a lot of things w/r/t civil liberties. And if he could just wash himself of his Constitutionalism and his generally scary 'Wingnut' social politics, he'd actually be a viable national force - politically. Yet some people are still attracted to (because of his libertarian stances) him, even if they don't agree with his social politics.

Take his Federalist (10th amendment) argument, which is nothing more than a default to the Constitution - and thus the States, and essentially an argument (HIS argument, HIS preference) that certain States ought to be allowed to be as Right Wing as they want. Or take the Health Care mandate, where he's somehow okay if the State government wants to squash your civil liberties, just long as it's not the Feds. Ridiculous. This is just the mindset of using the Constitution as a crutch to argue for this particular brand of government. He's not a libertarian, to me. He's a Right Wing Constitutionalist.

On a similar note, I believe the future 3rd party that will have the most success will carry a belief that is similar to this - Bleeding-heart libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston

by Ron Paul

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties.

Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties.

Now who argues just that all the time here. That would me.

The Left that screams about the loss of individual liberty when it comes to the Patriot Act or armed SWAT teams on the streets of Boston is entirely blind to the loss of someone's individual liberty in every tax increase, in 17 trillion dollars of debt that will be paid by someone, in regulations that smother job growth and opportunity, health care mandates, affirmative action laws, rules about seatbelts & light bulbs & toliets and the size of soda cups, etc, etc, etc.

The Welfare State is just as injurious to personal liberty as the Security State. Only the latter has a constitutional mandate however.

There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.

-- R Reagan

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

Ron Paul is right about a lot of things w/r/t civil liberties. And if he could just wash himself of his Constitutionalism and his generally scary 'Wingnut' social politics, he'd actually be a viable national force - politically.

Gee, I thought every elected federal representative takes an oath to uphold; not the president, not the flag, not the country; but the constitution. We could use more Constitutionalism in D.C.

Take his Federalist (10th amendment) argument, which is nothing more than a default to the Constitution - and thus the States, and essentially an argument (HIS argument, HIS preference) that certain States ought to be allowed to be as Right Wing as they want.

Yes, or as leftwing as they like. With a free people left to decide through self-governance.
By the way, there would be no United States or Constitution without the Bill of Rights which the states insisted on to curb the power of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment that reserved those powers not directly enumerated to the federal government as belonging to the states and the people was crucial to ratification.
Now we act like it doesn't exist except in the mind of "scary wingnut's."

Or take the Health Care mandate, where he's somehow okay if the State government wants to squash your civil liberties, just long as it's not the Feds. Ridiculous.

Now haven't you heard, it's not a mandate it's a tax and of course governments can tax.

[the iron horse]

[QUOTE=INDY500;7657818]Now who argues just that all the time here. That would me.

The Left that screams about the loss of individual liberty when it comes to the Patriot Act or armed SWAT teams on the streets of Boston is entirely blind to the loss of someone's individual liberty in every tax increase, in 17 trillion dollars of debt that will be paid by someone, in regulations that smother job growth and opportunity, health care mandates, affirmative action laws, rules about seatbelts & light bulbs & toliets and the size of soda cups, etc, etc, etc.

The Welfare State is just as injurious to personal liberty as the Security State. Only the latter has a constitutional mandate however.



I agree

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

~Ron Paul

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Now who argues just that all the time here. That would me.

The Left that screams about the loss of individual liberty when it comes to the Patriot Act or armed SWAT teams on the streets of Boston is entirely blind to the loss of someone's individual liberty in every tax increase, in 17 trillion dollars of debt that will be paid by someone, in regulations that smother job growth and opportunity, health care mandates, affirmative action laws, rules about seatbelts & light bulbs & toliets and the size of soda cups, etc, etc, etc.

The Welfare State is just as injurious to personal liberty as the Security State. Only the latter has a constitutional mandate however.





-- R Reagan

If your reasonable grievances weren't tainted by your batshit crazy ones, maybe people would listen to you.

Seatbelts? really?

Interesting that it only seems to be same sex marriage that you beg the government to get involved in. Very revealing

[Kieran McConville]

If the states really had the automony some on this thread seem to hanker after, there would be no 'American exceptionalism'. There would be a continent of minor republics free from the tyranny of seatbelts and the minimum wage, a veritable Holy Roman Empire of irrelevance. Not that that would necessarily be so terrible for the world, some might argue. (I wouldn't, necessarily).

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.

-- R Reagan

Do conservatives even "believe" in the law of physics?

Well certainly this world has felt the effects of Reagan's expanded government.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Gee, I thought every elected federal representative takes an oath to uphold; not the president, not the flag, not the country; but the constitution. We could use more Constitutionalism in D.C.


Yes, or as leftwing as they like. With a free people left to decide through self-governance.
By the way, there would be no United States or Constitution without the Bill of Rights which the states insisted on to curb the power of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment that reserved those powers not directly enumerated to the federal government as belonging to the states and the people was crucial to ratification.
Now we act like it doesn't exist except in the mind of "scary wingnut's."


Now haven't you heard, it's not a mandate it's a tax and of course governments can tax.

Did you purposely miss his point?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

Do conservatives even "believe" in the law of physics?

Now try applying that quote on the quantum level