- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
GreatPig said:
Regarding Reichstag911's political threads
- Thread starter Joe Blow
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
Regarding Reichstag911's important threads
Wow - just call me Mr. Popularity : )
To those free thinking and open minded people who have provided support for my 'rants' - many thanks.
To those other individuals who wish to censor me and who clearly fail to understand that the posts are indeed very relevent to investing AND our lives in general - please continue to ignore me - all will become clear eventually...
I am shocked and disturbed that presumably intelligent traders at this forum can be so naive and short sighted in relation to what is REALLY happening under their noses.
Denial is an excellent self-defence mechanism for those who refuse to accept unpleasant information and who are clearly threatened when their belief systems are challenged.
Some refer to these individuals as 'sheeple'.
Don't blame the messenger guys ...
Cheers.
Wow - just call me Mr. Popularity : )
To those free thinking and open minded people who have provided support for my 'rants' - many thanks.
To those other individuals who wish to censor me and who clearly fail to understand that the posts are indeed very relevent to investing AND our lives in general - please continue to ignore me - all will become clear eventually...
I am shocked and disturbed that presumably intelligent traders at this forum can be so naive and short sighted in relation to what is REALLY happening under their noses.
Denial is an excellent self-defence mechanism for those who refuse to accept unpleasant information and who are clearly threatened when their belief systems are challenged.
Some refer to these individuals as 'sheeple'.
Don't blame the messenger guys ...
Cheers.
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
US CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED FOR 10 YEARS.
Here's another silly rant : )
US CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED FOR 10 YEARS.
The US Congress has passed legislation which re-authorises the
Patriot Act for another ten years. Patriot Act I, which Congress
approved without reading, trashed the Bill of Rights. It also laid
the foundation for a full internal Surveillance State in the sad
guise of the new Department of Homeland Security. Since
then, Executive power has run rampant inside the United States.
More sober second thoughts in Congress led to some sunset
clauses in the first Patriot Act, but as these deadlines
approached, the Bush White House engaged in a massive
campaign to retain them. They have now succeeded beyond
their wildest dreams in Patriot Act II.
The New "Normalcy":
All of the obnoxious and dangerous clauses have been retained.
They all have an effective ten further years to run. In the
nearly four years since the passage of Patriot Act I, Americans
stand in a political situation where large and important parts of
their Constitution have been made void until 2015. Here lies
the big danger. The danger is that Americans will become used
to this situation. They will become used to having their drivers
licences function as internal passports. They will become used
to presenting their papers to any official on demand. They will
become used to an unrelenting electronic and human
surveillance tracking their every individual move. They will
become used to having their private possessions searched at the
beck and call of any official who wants to. They will become
used to such officials pawing all over their bodies. And they
will become used to a situation in which resistance, even mere
verbal resistance, is an invitation for officials to engage in even
further outrages.
Ten years from now, there will be people in their early twenties
who have never known anything else. To them, it will all seem
like "normal" life.
The Defence Of FREEDOM Is Both Direct And Indirect:
For as long as there is freedom of speech, the battle for
individual Freedom and Liberty must be fought solely in the
intellectual realm, in the field of ideas. Leave it to the real
opponents of freedom to be the first to use either political force
or actual force. If and when they do that, they have conceded
that their ideas are indefensible in reason. By acting with force,
they lose the central moral advantage. That is the direct
defence of freedom. In extremely dangerous times, this defence
is best done indirectly and one of the grand masters of this was
Voltaire. He was once asked if he had ever asked God for
anything (an entrapment question in his times). Here is his
answer: "Yes - to make my enemies look ridiculous." Then
he waved his arms around in all directions and laughter filled the
hall. Now, here's a quote from President Bush: "They hate us
because of our freedom." Then re-read the top paragraph on
this page. If you are laughing, look out! They might think
you're a terrorist.
You Really Do Live On A Battlefield:
The US is under de facto internal martial law. In a courthouse
in Richmond, Virginia, a government attorney has declared that
in the war on terror, the United States is a battlefield, so
President Bush has the authority to detain enemy combatants
indefinitely. This was said in a case before a court dealing with
the US Supreme Court's previous ruling that people held by the
US Federal Government had the legal right to seek habeas
corpus in US Federal Court, meaning that the Bush
Administration had to show the legal justifications for holding
these people in custody. Habeas corpus means to have to
present the body. This means that the person accused must
appear before a competent US court and a valid justification
must be shown for having taken that person into custody.
Here, this principle was denied by the US Federal Attorney,
who held forward the argument that the President's powers
were singular and that he, the President held in his own hands
the power to hold all people he calls enemy combatants
indefinitely.
When The Military Power Supercedes The Civil Power:
Having declared in open court that the United States is a
battlefield, this US Federal Attorney is attempting to elevate
the Presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the US
Armed Forces ABOVE the real and actual power of the
Presidency. The President is subject to the Constitution. But if
the President is acting directly as Commander In Chief and if
the United States is itself a battlefield, then and only then does
this claim have even partial legal standing. If it does, then the
US is under martial law!
In terms of the actual United States Constitution, the civil
powers of the Presidency stand above the secondary powers the
President also has as Commander In Chief of the US armed
forces. The reason for this is to assure that the civil power is
superior to the military power. This US Federal Attorney has
reversed the order. He does this by the means of declaring the
United States to be a battlefield. If that is taken as given, then
the US military is the supreme power inside the US. From
there, it follows inescapably that all of the United States is under
military control until this state of war ends.
Then - All Our Screens Went Blank:
We admit this openly and freely. Being way down under in the
Land of OZ, and trying with might and main, all reporting about
this assertion in the Richmond courthouse fell into a black hole.
Suddenly, a sequence of court moves we have been tracking for
close to three odd years vanished. All reporting by US state
media went blank, as did the broader US media, in regard to
these legal moves in Richmond.
We have tried contacting Congress, news media galore, direct
connections, and have gotten exactly nowhere. But what we do
know is that the authority given to President Bush, by
Congress, to launch his attack upon Iraq was so broad and
vague that it could be turned in other directions. That made us
nervous, in intellectual and political terms. That's why we have
been tracking, as closely as we can from Australia, all these
many cases rolling through the US legal system. These cases
and their outcomes will make clear to us WHAT individual
RIGHTS Americans still might have. Constitutionally as well as
historically, as the Supreme Court itself said during the Civil
War - on the battlefield - THE COURTS ARE SILENT! The
US Supreme Court has never retreated from this since the Civil
War, except to say that where the civil courts can re-establish
themselves - they have supremacy and the military power does
not. If all of the United States is now a battlefield - then -
except at the State level, where some judges and some States
might dispute the situation, the main US Federal Courts are all
silent. They are silent wherever or whenever the President of
the United States asserts his Commander In Chief voice.
The CENTRAL Issue:
Either the United States IS a battlefield, and therefore under at
least de facto martial law, or it is not. If the "Global War On
Terror" (GWOT as they call it) IS being fought out INSIDE the
US, then Americans have LOST their individual rights and have
NO access to senior courts of law to defend them.
An Economy In A State Of War:
It is well documented in US history that during both WWI and
WWII, the Presidency and the Federal Government stepped
right into the civil economy and almost literally conscripted it for
the duration. If the plan is to do the same in the so-called
Global War On Terror, then the Federal Government has again
stepped into the US civil economy for the purpose of war.
During Wars - The Markets Are Suspended:
That means that the US economy is no longer a MARKET
economy. It is instead a fully regulated economy, regulated for
the purposes of war. Throughout WWI and WWII, when
Congress did in fact declare war, prices were controlled and the
stock market was "stabilised" for the duration. The entire US
monetary and financial system was placed under federal control
which effectively controlled interest rates to ease passage of
more money created through Treasury debt into the US
financial system.
But as is well known to economic and political practice, the first
thing that is corrupted during wars is the price mechanism. The
entire civil economy relies on prices to signal what to produce
and in what quantity and quality. When prices no longer send
real signals, the civil economy is flying blind. It ends up
producing more or less what it produced before the war began.
After both WWI and WWII ended, there were great fears inside
the US that a renewed state of peace inside the civil economy
would cause it to go through a convulsive phase of readjustment
- along with the stock, bond and financial markets - as the
broader markets responded to the peace time price signals.
At the end of WWI, after strenuous debates both public and
behind closed doors, Americans still had a vast confidence in
freedom and in the free market economy. That ensured that
most of the wartime controls were rolled away fairly fast. The
American economy did have a massive shakeout, but it was
over by 1921 and the US civil economy surged forward. The
latent problem was that the wartime controls had been lifted but
NOT abolished. Most of them were still there, as were most of
the wartime Federal Agencies. First amongst these was the new
Federal Reserve, created at the end of 1913.
To "assist" in the transition to a peacetime economy, according
to Federal Reserve Governor Benjamin Strong, the Fed held US
interest rates artificially below the market rate. This launched
an accelerating internal US credit expansion which, in turn,
swung the economy into the "Roaring Twenties". US stock
markets surged into a historic blow-off, peaked in September
1929, and then abruptly reversed in October 1929 with the great
stock market crash after the Fed had belatedly stepped on the
brakes.
After the end of WWII, there were the same worries about the
post-war period. But this time, instead of the downscaling of
the military as had happened after WWI, the US Military was
not only maintained but expanded to fight - the "Cold War".
The external enemy was the Soviet Union.
The result was that after WWII, the US economy never had an
economic correction of any magnitude. It did not respond to
prices freely set in the markets. The other consequence was
that the US maintained a wartime economy throughout the
decades of the Cold War. In effect, in economic and historic
terms, the US economy has not really had a chance to respond
to free market real price signals since it had a short and sharp
recession after WWI in 1920-21. That this is so can be seen
from the fact that the US never demobilised its armed forces
after the end of WWII. The US maintained them to face the
new enemy, the Soviet Union. In effect, the US has had a
wartime economy since WWII, that economy supporting the
US military, intertwined with a partial US peacetime economy
which had to pay the economic costs of the US military. In
1991, the Soviet Union fell into a heap and the external enemy
was no longer there. Voices were heard in the US talking about
a "peace dividend". It was obvious that the scale of the US
military could finally be lowered, followed by the taxes to pay
for it.
It was not to be. A "new" enemy was found in Iraq. Now, the
Global War On Terror has followed.
The Direct Costs Of War:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost the US
taxpayers $US 314 Billion. The Congressional Budget Office
projects additional expenses of perhaps $US 450 Billion over
the next ten years. That could make the combined campaigns,
especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in
the last 60 years. The Pentagon says that the "burn rate" (the
operating costs of the wars) has averaged $US 5.6 Billion per
month in the current fiscal year. That does not include the
costs of maintenance and replacement of worn out military
equipment. President Bush has chosen to pay for his wars with
supplemental appropriations outside the normal budget process.
The costs of war are not seen directly in the US budget deficits.
But the costs are embedded in the climbing US Treasury debts.
A Long Look Backwards:
One of the truly central problems today is that most people have
never in their lives experienced real peacetime standards, such
as existed before WWI. For that reason, present wartime
standards have become "normal". "Normal" had a very
different meaning before WWI. There were only two nations
which required passports for foreigners to cross their borders,
the Czar's Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Everywhere else,
people rolled up to the border posts, presented themselves and
happily proceeded onwards as tourists or, if they were on
private business, to buy, sell or invest.
Great Britain was the bulwark of free trade. Anybody could
sell, buy or invest there. Even the Kaiser's Imperial Germany
stood in a freer trade position than the United States, which was
hiding behind tariff walls. Entire people wanderings took place
with millions peacefully crossing borders to make their lives in
other countries. The United States received more than most,
though a secondary wave of people from all over the world
travelled to all the many nations of the extended British
Commonwealth.
The last three decades before the year 1900 were years of an
immense human optimism which, today, is next to impossible to
describe. Apart from the Franco/German War of 1871 and the
Crimean War, the Western world had been at peace, to the full
extent of that term, since 1815. Peacetime standards were not
only well known, they were normal. And what were peacetime
standards? They were sound money with Gold at its centre and
a hard commercially orientated credit and banking system.
They were private businesses. It was no business of
government to set any kinds of standard or to regulate anything.
All governments were small-scaled to the economies of those
days. Taxes were so low as to make any sane person weep
today. There were no welfare systems, except in Germany
where Bismarck was setting up the start of today's welfare
state. Not having such a welfare state anywhere else, people
saved for their old age. As real savers, they had a distinct
interest in having their saved money maintain its purchasing
power over the years ahead. That's why they watched the
height of taxes with an eagle eye. They knew that government
was not an economic benefactor, but a cost. These
innumerable streams of saved money fuelled immense waves of
investment in capital through those years.
It is this vast, and real, knowledge of what it means to live
under peacetime standards which has been lost. The generations
since 1914 have never had the real experience. By the mid
1950s, the last of the generations which had experienced it were
departing the scene. With them went knowledge of peace.
Today, this knowledge of what living in a state of real peace in
a really free economy is like and what living in freedom and
liberty is like can only be found in two places. It can be found
in old (pre WWI) history books and it can be found in the
personal writings of the people who lived back it those times.
Today there is nothing more important than the rediscovery of
peacetime standards. If the West in general and the United
States in particular are ever to begin travelling back to a
peacetime standard, this is the knowledge required to be
grasped. It will tell us whether we are travelling the right way
because we can already know, in advance, what it will look like
when we get closer - and eventually get there.
To discover how we have travelled the other way - read, or
reread, Hayek's The Road To Serfdom.
Here's another silly rant : )
US CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED FOR 10 YEARS.
The US Congress has passed legislation which re-authorises the
Patriot Act for another ten years. Patriot Act I, which Congress
approved without reading, trashed the Bill of Rights. It also laid
the foundation for a full internal Surveillance State in the sad
guise of the new Department of Homeland Security. Since
then, Executive power has run rampant inside the United States.
More sober second thoughts in Congress led to some sunset
clauses in the first Patriot Act, but as these deadlines
approached, the Bush White House engaged in a massive
campaign to retain them. They have now succeeded beyond
their wildest dreams in Patriot Act II.
The New "Normalcy":
All of the obnoxious and dangerous clauses have been retained.
They all have an effective ten further years to run. In the
nearly four years since the passage of Patriot Act I, Americans
stand in a political situation where large and important parts of
their Constitution have been made void until 2015. Here lies
the big danger. The danger is that Americans will become used
to this situation. They will become used to having their drivers
licences function as internal passports. They will become used
to presenting their papers to any official on demand. They will
become used to an unrelenting electronic and human
surveillance tracking their every individual move. They will
become used to having their private possessions searched at the
beck and call of any official who wants to. They will become
used to such officials pawing all over their bodies. And they
will become used to a situation in which resistance, even mere
verbal resistance, is an invitation for officials to engage in even
further outrages.
Ten years from now, there will be people in their early twenties
who have never known anything else. To them, it will all seem
like "normal" life.
The Defence Of FREEDOM Is Both Direct And Indirect:
For as long as there is freedom of speech, the battle for
individual Freedom and Liberty must be fought solely in the
intellectual realm, in the field of ideas. Leave it to the real
opponents of freedom to be the first to use either political force
or actual force. If and when they do that, they have conceded
that their ideas are indefensible in reason. By acting with force,
they lose the central moral advantage. That is the direct
defence of freedom. In extremely dangerous times, this defence
is best done indirectly and one of the grand masters of this was
Voltaire. He was once asked if he had ever asked God for
anything (an entrapment question in his times). Here is his
answer: "Yes - to make my enemies look ridiculous." Then
he waved his arms around in all directions and laughter filled the
hall. Now, here's a quote from President Bush: "They hate us
because of our freedom." Then re-read the top paragraph on
this page. If you are laughing, look out! They might think
you're a terrorist.
You Really Do Live On A Battlefield:
The US is under de facto internal martial law. In a courthouse
in Richmond, Virginia, a government attorney has declared that
in the war on terror, the United States is a battlefield, so
President Bush has the authority to detain enemy combatants
indefinitely. This was said in a case before a court dealing with
the US Supreme Court's previous ruling that people held by the
US Federal Government had the legal right to seek habeas
corpus in US Federal Court, meaning that the Bush
Administration had to show the legal justifications for holding
these people in custody. Habeas corpus means to have to
present the body. This means that the person accused must
appear before a competent US court and a valid justification
must be shown for having taken that person into custody.
Here, this principle was denied by the US Federal Attorney,
who held forward the argument that the President's powers
were singular and that he, the President held in his own hands
the power to hold all people he calls enemy combatants
indefinitely.
When The Military Power Supercedes The Civil Power:
Having declared in open court that the United States is a
battlefield, this US Federal Attorney is attempting to elevate
the Presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the US
Armed Forces ABOVE the real and actual power of the
Presidency. The President is subject to the Constitution. But if
the President is acting directly as Commander In Chief and if
the United States is itself a battlefield, then and only then does
this claim have even partial legal standing. If it does, then the
US is under martial law!
In terms of the actual United States Constitution, the civil
powers of the Presidency stand above the secondary powers the
President also has as Commander In Chief of the US armed
forces. The reason for this is to assure that the civil power is
superior to the military power. This US Federal Attorney has
reversed the order. He does this by the means of declaring the
United States to be a battlefield. If that is taken as given, then
the US military is the supreme power inside the US. From
there, it follows inescapably that all of the United States is under
military control until this state of war ends.
Then - All Our Screens Went Blank:
We admit this openly and freely. Being way down under in the
Land of OZ, and trying with might and main, all reporting about
this assertion in the Richmond courthouse fell into a black hole.
Suddenly, a sequence of court moves we have been tracking for
close to three odd years vanished. All reporting by US state
media went blank, as did the broader US media, in regard to
these legal moves in Richmond.
We have tried contacting Congress, news media galore, direct
connections, and have gotten exactly nowhere. But what we do
know is that the authority given to President Bush, by
Congress, to launch his attack upon Iraq was so broad and
vague that it could be turned in other directions. That made us
nervous, in intellectual and political terms. That's why we have
been tracking, as closely as we can from Australia, all these
many cases rolling through the US legal system. These cases
and their outcomes will make clear to us WHAT individual
RIGHTS Americans still might have. Constitutionally as well as
historically, as the Supreme Court itself said during the Civil
War - on the battlefield - THE COURTS ARE SILENT! The
US Supreme Court has never retreated from this since the Civil
War, except to say that where the civil courts can re-establish
themselves - they have supremacy and the military power does
not. If all of the United States is now a battlefield - then -
except at the State level, where some judges and some States
might dispute the situation, the main US Federal Courts are all
silent. They are silent wherever or whenever the President of
the United States asserts his Commander In Chief voice.
The CENTRAL Issue:
Either the United States IS a battlefield, and therefore under at
least de facto martial law, or it is not. If the "Global War On
Terror" (GWOT as they call it) IS being fought out INSIDE the
US, then Americans have LOST their individual rights and have
NO access to senior courts of law to defend them.
An Economy In A State Of War:
It is well documented in US history that during both WWI and
WWII, the Presidency and the Federal Government stepped
right into the civil economy and almost literally conscripted it for
the duration. If the plan is to do the same in the so-called
Global War On Terror, then the Federal Government has again
stepped into the US civil economy for the purpose of war.
During Wars - The Markets Are Suspended:
That means that the US economy is no longer a MARKET
economy. It is instead a fully regulated economy, regulated for
the purposes of war. Throughout WWI and WWII, when
Congress did in fact declare war, prices were controlled and the
stock market was "stabilised" for the duration. The entire US
monetary and financial system was placed under federal control
which effectively controlled interest rates to ease passage of
more money created through Treasury debt into the US
financial system.
But as is well known to economic and political practice, the first
thing that is corrupted during wars is the price mechanism. The
entire civil economy relies on prices to signal what to produce
and in what quantity and quality. When prices no longer send
real signals, the civil economy is flying blind. It ends up
producing more or less what it produced before the war began.
After both WWI and WWII ended, there were great fears inside
the US that a renewed state of peace inside the civil economy
would cause it to go through a convulsive phase of readjustment
- along with the stock, bond and financial markets - as the
broader markets responded to the peace time price signals.
At the end of WWI, after strenuous debates both public and
behind closed doors, Americans still had a vast confidence in
freedom and in the free market economy. That ensured that
most of the wartime controls were rolled away fairly fast. The
American economy did have a massive shakeout, but it was
over by 1921 and the US civil economy surged forward. The
latent problem was that the wartime controls had been lifted but
NOT abolished. Most of them were still there, as were most of
the wartime Federal Agencies. First amongst these was the new
Federal Reserve, created at the end of 1913.
To "assist" in the transition to a peacetime economy, according
to Federal Reserve Governor Benjamin Strong, the Fed held US
interest rates artificially below the market rate. This launched
an accelerating internal US credit expansion which, in turn,
swung the economy into the "Roaring Twenties". US stock
markets surged into a historic blow-off, peaked in September
1929, and then abruptly reversed in October 1929 with the great
stock market crash after the Fed had belatedly stepped on the
brakes.
After the end of WWII, there were the same worries about the
post-war period. But this time, instead of the downscaling of
the military as had happened after WWI, the US Military was
not only maintained but expanded to fight - the "Cold War".
The external enemy was the Soviet Union.
The result was that after WWII, the US economy never had an
economic correction of any magnitude. It did not respond to
prices freely set in the markets. The other consequence was
that the US maintained a wartime economy throughout the
decades of the Cold War. In effect, in economic and historic
terms, the US economy has not really had a chance to respond
to free market real price signals since it had a short and sharp
recession after WWI in 1920-21. That this is so can be seen
from the fact that the US never demobilised its armed forces
after the end of WWII. The US maintained them to face the
new enemy, the Soviet Union. In effect, the US has had a
wartime economy since WWII, that economy supporting the
US military, intertwined with a partial US peacetime economy
which had to pay the economic costs of the US military. In
1991, the Soviet Union fell into a heap and the external enemy
was no longer there. Voices were heard in the US talking about
a "peace dividend". It was obvious that the scale of the US
military could finally be lowered, followed by the taxes to pay
for it.
It was not to be. A "new" enemy was found in Iraq. Now, the
Global War On Terror has followed.
The Direct Costs Of War:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost the US
taxpayers $US 314 Billion. The Congressional Budget Office
projects additional expenses of perhaps $US 450 Billion over
the next ten years. That could make the combined campaigns,
especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in
the last 60 years. The Pentagon says that the "burn rate" (the
operating costs of the wars) has averaged $US 5.6 Billion per
month in the current fiscal year. That does not include the
costs of maintenance and replacement of worn out military
equipment. President Bush has chosen to pay for his wars with
supplemental appropriations outside the normal budget process.
The costs of war are not seen directly in the US budget deficits.
But the costs are embedded in the climbing US Treasury debts.
A Long Look Backwards:
One of the truly central problems today is that most people have
never in their lives experienced real peacetime standards, such
as existed before WWI. For that reason, present wartime
standards have become "normal". "Normal" had a very
different meaning before WWI. There were only two nations
which required passports for foreigners to cross their borders,
the Czar's Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Everywhere else,
people rolled up to the border posts, presented themselves and
happily proceeded onwards as tourists or, if they were on
private business, to buy, sell or invest.
Great Britain was the bulwark of free trade. Anybody could
sell, buy or invest there. Even the Kaiser's Imperial Germany
stood in a freer trade position than the United States, which was
hiding behind tariff walls. Entire people wanderings took place
with millions peacefully crossing borders to make their lives in
other countries. The United States received more than most,
though a secondary wave of people from all over the world
travelled to all the many nations of the extended British
Commonwealth.
The last three decades before the year 1900 were years of an
immense human optimism which, today, is next to impossible to
describe. Apart from the Franco/German War of 1871 and the
Crimean War, the Western world had been at peace, to the full
extent of that term, since 1815. Peacetime standards were not
only well known, they were normal. And what were peacetime
standards? They were sound money with Gold at its centre and
a hard commercially orientated credit and banking system.
They were private businesses. It was no business of
government to set any kinds of standard or to regulate anything.
All governments were small-scaled to the economies of those
days. Taxes were so low as to make any sane person weep
today. There were no welfare systems, except in Germany
where Bismarck was setting up the start of today's welfare
state. Not having such a welfare state anywhere else, people
saved for their old age. As real savers, they had a distinct
interest in having their saved money maintain its purchasing
power over the years ahead. That's why they watched the
height of taxes with an eagle eye. They knew that government
was not an economic benefactor, but a cost. These
innumerable streams of saved money fuelled immense waves of
investment in capital through those years.
It is this vast, and real, knowledge of what it means to live
under peacetime standards which has been lost. The generations
since 1914 have never had the real experience. By the mid
1950s, the last of the generations which had experienced it were
departing the scene. With them went knowledge of peace.
Today, this knowledge of what living in a state of real peace in
a really free economy is like and what living in freedom and
liberty is like can only be found in two places. It can be found
in old (pre WWI) history books and it can be found in the
personal writings of the people who lived back it those times.
Today there is nothing more important than the rediscovery of
peacetime standards. If the West in general and the United
States in particular are ever to begin travelling back to a
peacetime standard, this is the knowledge required to be
grasped. It will tell us whether we are travelling the right way
because we can already know, in advance, what it will look like
when we get closer - and eventually get there.
To discover how we have travelled the other way - read, or
reread, Hayek's The Road To Serfdom.
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
Defamatory Post by HAPPY.
Happy,
Your suggestion that my posting activity should be reported to the
National Security Hotline is immature, ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory and actionable.
I have sent a screen grab of your defamatory post to my solicitors for his advice.
No I am not joking.
Your conduct is beyond comprehension.
My thought provoking posts clearly threaten you own insular and ignorant belief system. That's your problem.
I require an APOLOGY from yourself for your appalling and totally irresponsible
conduct ASAP.
Moderator: please remove his offensive and defamatory post.
Thankyou.
--------------------------------------------------------
Happy,
Your suggestion that my posting activity should be reported to the
National Security Hotline is immature, ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory and actionable.
I have sent a screen grab of your defamatory post to my solicitors for his advice.
No I am not joking.
Your conduct is beyond comprehension.
My thought provoking posts clearly threaten you own insular and ignorant belief system. That's your problem.
I require an APOLOGY from yourself for your appalling and totally irresponsible
conduct ASAP.
Moderator: please remove his offensive and defamatory post.
Thankyou.
--------------------------------------------------------
Happy said:
Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.
Hi Reichstag,
I assume Happy has rosen your blood pressure a bit...
Well there is a difference between what a person says and what someone does.
God gave us two eyes to see, two ears to hear and thank goodness only one mouth .(so that we do not tell to much idiocies).
Unfortunately Bill Gates gave us the computer, we are now using two fingers, on top of that to write letters. Oh well; nobody is perfect.
I am not trying to defend anybody, but there is something like freedom of speech.
It is his comment to involve the authorities and his right to do so.
But who tells me that he doesn`t aleady have the cops on his back?
Everyone on this board has the choice of using a so-called ignore button and this alternative is valid also for you.
Keep cool
reichstag911 said:
Hi Reichstag,
I assume Happy has rosen your blood pressure a bit...
Well there is a difference between what a person says and what someone does.
God gave us two eyes to see, two ears to hear and thank goodness only one mouth .(so that we do not tell to much idiocies).
Unfortunately Bill Gates gave us the computer, we are now using two fingers, on top of that to write letters. Oh well; nobody is perfect.
I am not trying to defend anybody, but there is something like freedom of speech.
It is his comment to involve the authorities and his right to do so.
But who tells me that he doesn`t aleady have the cops on his back?
Everyone on this board has the choice of using a so-called ignore button and this alternative is valid also for you.
Keep cool
Porper
Ralph Nelson Elliott
- Joined
- 11 August 2004
- Posts
- 1,413
- Reactions
- 274
Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.
reichstag911,
I don't really care what you post, but please don't post exactly the same thing in two different threads, I know you feel passionately but some of us come on here to exchange views, information on stocks and don't want bombarding with double posts.
reichstag911 said:
reichstag911,
I don't really care what you post, but please don't post exactly the same thing in two different threads, I know you feel passionately but some of us come on here to exchange views, information on stocks and don't want bombarding with double posts.
- Joined
- 28 May 2004
- Posts
- 10,858
- Reactions
- 5,257
Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.
Reichstag911,
Happy's post is not defamatory. Nobody is reporting anyone.
It's ironic that while others are calling for your censorship that you could turn around and call for the censorship of someone else.
I'm going to merge this thread with the one I originally started about this topic.
Please note that while you are welcome to start the odd political thread in the General Chat forum, you are not to simply create threads just to cut and paste long articles into them. If it's a really long article, please just cut and paste the first few paragraphs and then add a link to the whole article.
Also, I want to see your own commentary - a short paragraph will do - in any thread you start.
Reichstag911,
Happy's post is not defamatory. Nobody is reporting anyone.
It's ironic that while others are calling for your censorship that you could turn around and call for the censorship of someone else.
I'm going to merge this thread with the one I originally started about this topic.
Please note that while you are welcome to start the odd political thread in the General Chat forum, you are not to simply create threads just to cut and paste long articles into them. If it's a really long article, please just cut and paste the first few paragraphs and then add a link to the whole article.
Also, I want to see your own commentary - a short paragraph will do - in any thread you start.
- Joined
- 21 December 2004
- Posts
- 674
- Reactions
- 1
Happy said:
I thought the news said that they held him down and then shot him in the back of the head. They said something about shooting him in the head so that he didn't detonate "the bomb". In my view, if they had him pinned down, there was no way he could detonate anything. Shoot first ask questions later? Cold blooded murder comes to mind.
Unfortunately a series of unfortunate events may have contributed to his death. It was reported that he was beaten up by english hooligans two weeks before and that having armed men in civilian clothes chase him with guns probably sent him running scared. Try listening to someone chase you with a gun wouldn't be high on the be able to do list whilst trying to preserve your own life. The victim had also rung work to say he was running late and may have been running to the station to get to work on time. Wearing a jacket didn't help his cause.
Happy said:
Probably didn't want to make the same mistakes as above, especially when cameras were there.
- Joined
- 21 December 2004
- Posts
- 674
- Reactions
- 1
Just an update on the victim from the Age:
tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,417
- Reactions
- 6,356
I find most with fanatical views to be more interested in other peoples lives than taking care of their own!
If they had a life they wouldnt have a need to be fanatical! Its their way of being noticed----through someone elses opinions/veiws generally.
Best avoided I think.
If they had a life they wouldnt have a need to be fanatical! Its their way of being noticed----through someone elses opinions/veiws generally.
Best avoided I think.
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html
DTM said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html
My sincere apologies to R…1
And please please do not start deflagmatory case; I didn’t think I’d get up your nose that bad.
Grandma used to say that truth hurts most, not sure why she said something like that.
Could we get the poster on ‘Copy Rights’ ground?
And please please do not start deflagmatory case; I didn’t think I’d get up your nose that bad.
Grandma used to say that truth hurts most, not sure why she said something like that.
Could we get the poster on ‘Copy Rights’ ground?
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
Joe Blow said:
I agree and have been *attempting* to show that this IS happening already -despite denial by certain individuals who clearly have their heads buried in the sand.
Do people know that humans are ALREADY being micro chipped like pets ?
Just wait ...
- Joined
- 31 May 2005
- Posts
- 132
- Reactions
- 0
A quote from the testimony of Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, not long before Hitler's Vice-Fuehrer poisoned himself in his jail cell:
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Joined
- 18 March 2005
- Posts
- 79
- Reactions
- 2
Brazilian murder cover up continues ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
The U.S.economy: a train wreck coming to a station near you :Þ
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
The U.S.economy: a train wreck coming to a station near you :Þ
Mistakes do happen, they happen at the workplace and people die, innocent people die on the roads in plane crashes, so it is only natural that innocent person might die in anti-terrorist operation.
Joe,
If this Independent Guardian is copyrighted, shouldn’t we have written explicit permission to publish it on our board?
Wouldn’t link alone be more appropriate?
But I suppose they don’t mind to spread the poisonous agenda ridden innuendos, it actually serves somebody’s purposes, so probably they will be more than happy, more than I am.
Joe,
If this Independent Guardian is copyrighted, shouldn’t we have written explicit permission to publish it on our board?
Wouldn’t link alone be more appropriate?
But I suppose they don’t mind to spread the poisonous agenda ridden innuendos, it actually serves somebody’s purposes, so probably they will be more than happy, more than I am.
- Joined
- 28 May 2004
- Posts
- 10,858
- Reactions
- 5,257
Happy said:
I have shortened the quote for brevity but posts with just links and nothing else are not allowed on the forums. It is common practice for excerpts from other news sources to be posted on forums. As long as the source is credited and a link is included I see no problem.
- Joined
- 21 December 2004
- Posts
- 674
- Reactions
- 1
Happy said:
Mistakes are different from accidents. Mistakes are different from calculated murder, just ask the bombers (aren't we supposed to be better?). They had obviously overpowered him but chose to execute him even though the arresting police had no idea who he was. He was wearing no bulky jacket as previously stated (he was wearing a denim jacket from the pictures), he wasn't chased as previously stated by the police (cameras showing him walking through the gates) etc etc. Pure incompetence in my opinion and shooter should be sent to jail.
How many more mistakes must there be before it becomes inexcusable?
From the Age today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-o...ting-challenged/2005/08/17/1123958126875.html
- Status
Similar threads
