The Creepy, Inhumane Legal Weapon the State Uses to Break Prisoners

[tkhayes 348]

no I did not read your second post - I do not spend my day 'seeking out' you nor your information. Threads are often long and if you are going to say something on a website that has a 'reply' button at the botom of it, you need to get used to the idea that people are going to actually press that button.

Perhaps you should try more complete posts with more complete information so that one does nto misinterpret what you are trying to say.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

no I did not read your second post - I do not spend my day 'seeking out' you nor your information. Threads are often long and if you are going to say something on a website that has a 'reply' button at the botom of it, you need to get used to the idea that people are going to actually press that button.

Perhaps you should try more complete posts with more complete information so that one does nto misinterpret what you are trying to say.

There was one page of posts when you replied. You should have read them before jumping into the conversation. After all, that is the only way you will know what has been discussed.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Ummm, once again, Bin Laden did NOT shut down anything - the US government shut down the airlines, closed all the airspace and GA for 9 or 10 days.

paranoia and fear caused all the after-effects - all in the name of 'freedom' The US could have chosen to change nothing, but instead we have wars and the Patriot Act, ongoing fear-mongers - apparently you are one of them.

The unprecedented shutdown of various aspects of infrastructure for a little while after 9/11 was clearly directly the result of bin Laden's actions (or the actions of the 9/11 mastermind if it wasn't bin Laden).

As for fear causing a lot of things that happened on a more long term basis--they aren't called terrorists for nothing. A terrorist's greatest weapon is fear (along with secrecy about the exact ways they plan to attack). To the extent that people are living in fear, a terrorist has largely succeeded.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Bin Laden nearly brought down a nuclear superpower with a few box cutters.

that is what you said.....

and now you are saying:

Quote

...was clearly directly the result of bin Laden's actions...

those two statements are quite different. One is fear-mongering and once is a closer factual statement, but still an embellishment.

I have said before and I will say again - if they succeeded in bombing a building in EVERY city in the USA on 9/11, killed 250,000 people instead of 3000, the USA would still be a 'free country'. The Constitution did not change. Armed troops wearing turbins did not invade our soil. The government remained intact, and most people went to work the next day, ate food, bought stuff at Wal-Mart, took a shit, etc.

TERRORists yes....but only if we let them. all decisions to restrict our lives after 9.11 were OUR decisions. Many of them I find unacceptable. They won in many ways - because we let them.

Now we have 'secret prisons', and people advocating MORE 'secret prisons'. Sounds a lot like Chile and Eastern Europe after WWII to me. I want no part of it.

For a bunch of right-wingers who stand so staunchly behind the Constitution, they sure don't seem to have a problem with trampling all over it to get the end.....I would argue that I, the liberal socialist, have a greater respect for freedoms in this country that any right-wing Republican.

'breaking someone down' in solitary confinement is not the way to make a case. How about the prosecutors MAKE THE CASE - and if they cannot, then unlock the fucking handcuffs. For me, or for anyone else for that matter.

I will accept freedom with risk, rather than no freedom.....

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

TERRORists yes....but only if we let them. all decisions to restrict our lives after 9.11 were OUR decisions. Many of them I find unacceptable. They won in many ways - because we let them.

Yes they were our decisions but we have an established history of making poor decisions in such circumstances, and bin Laden exploited that known weakness.

I'm referring to past similar situations where we've overreacted to similar threats--for example McCarthyism in the 1950's or the so-called War on Drugs beginning in the 1980's. One didn't need to be a rocket scientist to predict that the USA might respond similarly to a terrorist attack.

Yes we again made some poor decisions but until we acknowledge that there's a pattern of behavior that long predates 9/11 we are going to remain vulnerable to future bin Laden's.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[tkhayes 348]

that is fine, but my point is that I am not willing to give up Constitutional freedoms for 'future bin-ladens'....as you say.

3000 people dies that day. 30000 children starve to death in the world every day. the problems we have with terrorism are fucking minuscule......but the military industrial complex has us by the balls. I would like to see that 'curbed' somewhat. not entirely, just reeled in a bit. If we did that, even with the terrorist threat, the country would be far better off. We would have money to spend on healthcare and education - imagine that - what a concept!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

that is fine, but my point is that I am not willing to give up Constitutional freedoms for 'future bin-ladens'....as you say.

3000 people dies that day. 30000 children starve to death in the world every day. the problems we have with terrorism are fucking minuscule......but the military industrial complex has us by the balls. I would like to see that 'curbed' somewhat. not entirely, just reeled in a bit. If we did that, even with the terrorist threat, the country would be far better off. We would have money to spend on healthcare and education - imagine that - what a concept!

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,990]

>And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for
>your fucking health care.

Problem is that once you're willing to give up freedom for security, arguments that "you can't give up your freedom for X" become a lot less supportable.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for
>your fucking health care.

Problem is that once you're willing to give up freedom for security, arguments that "you can't give up your freedom for X" become a lot less supportable.

Or freedom for health care....or freedom for X

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

more correctly, that should read... 'And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for our fucking health care.'

nice police state you're building over there by the way - you'll fit in well...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

more correctly, that should read... 'And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for our fucking health care.'

nice police state you're building over there by the way - you'll fit in well...

No, you are wrong...as usual. I am willing to pay for my own healthcare and insurance. I am not willing to give up any freedoms to pay for someone else's.
Where do you see a police state? Do you even know what one is?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

what in the name of %&&^$^$^ are you talking about? that statement is not even the slightest bit coherent, relevant or even correct in any context.....what does freedom have to do with healthcare?

try again, you failed to even address any of my points but I see you managed to distract a couple of posters.....well done.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

more correctly, that should read... 'And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for our fucking health care.'

nice police state you're building over there by the way - you'll fit in well...

No, you are wrong...as usual. I am willing to pay for my own healthcare and insurance.

but you're not willing to pay for your own defence - you've got a military that does that for you...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

more correctly, that should read... 'And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for our fucking health care.'

nice police state you're building over there by the way - you'll fit in well...

No, you are wrong...as usual. I am willing to pay for my own healthcare and insurance.

but you're not willing to pay for your own defence - you've got a military that does that for you...

Totally different situation. The military serves the country as a whole, not each individual independently. Health care treats each individual independently, not the country as a whole.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

what in the name of %&&^$^$^ are you talking about? that statement is not even the slightest bit coherent, relevant or even correct in any context.....what does freedom have to do with healthcare?

try again, you failed to even address any of my points but I see you managed to distract a couple of posters.....well done.

You wrote, "that is fine, but my point is that I am not willing to give up Constitutional freedoms for 'future bin-ladens'...."
I stated that I am not willing to give up my constitutional freedoms for something you want or desire.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for your fucking health care.

more correctly, that should read... 'And many, if not most, are not willing to give up our freedoms to pay for our fucking health care.'

nice police state you're building over there by the way - you'll fit in well...

No, you are wrong...as usual. I am willing to pay for my own healthcare and insurance.

but you're not willing to pay for your own defence - you've got a military that does that for you...

Totally different situation. The military serves the country as a whole, not each individual independently. Health care treats each individual independently, not the country as a whole.

wrong, health care also serves the country as a whole...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,990]

>health care also serves the country as a whole...

True. However, health care is something that 99% of the country can provide for themselves. Military protection is something that 99% of the country cannot provide for themselves.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>health care also serves the country as a whole...

True. However, health care is something that 99% of the country can provide for themselves. Military protection is something that 99% of the country cannot provide for themselves.

i think you'll find the uninsured are more than 1%. an individual cannot provide a hospital same as an individual cannot provide a tank. military protection, like health care, is better for the country when it is government run. and remember not to run around with infectious diseases - you'll soon find yourself locked up for the benefit of the country...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,990]

>i think you'll find the uninsured are more than 1%.

?? I didn't say anything about health insurance. I said that health care is something that 99% of the country can provide for themselves, whether they have insurance or not. The remainder go without even basic care.

Now, you can argue that those 1% deserve coverage or that early (cheap) treatment is much cheaper than later (ER) coverage paid for by taxpayers. But that's a different argument.

>an individual cannot provide a hospital same as an individual cannot
>provide a tank.

Agreed. But you can take yourself to a hospital. You cannot just rent a tank and defend your country.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

>You cannot just rent a tank and defend your country.

I can't?
Piss.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[quade 4]

Quote

You cannot just rent a tank and defend your country.

Why not? Isn't that what Saudi Arabia does rather than using its own forces; just "rent" the US ones?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>i think you'll find the uninsured are more than 1%.

?? I didn't say anything about health insurance. I said that health care is something that 99% of the country can provide for themselves, whether they have insurance or not. The remainder go without even basic care.

99% of the country could provide their own weapons then. belgian draft prefers the state run his military though rather than pay for it himself...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

>i think you'll find the uninsured are more than 1%.

?? I didn't say anything about health insurance. I said that health care is something that 99% of the country can provide for themselves, whether they have insurance or not. The remainder go without even basic care.

99% of the country could provide their own weapons then. belgian draft prefers the state run his military though rather than pay for it himself...

I do provide my own weapons for my personal self defense. Millions of others do as well. Millions choose not to. That is their right. But no single person can pay for the men, women, an equipment needed to protect our country and her interests around the world.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

no single person can pay for the men, women, an equipment needed to protect our country and her interests around the world.

you're right - it takes a lot of chinese to do that

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,990]

>99% of the country could provide their own weapons then.

Yes, they can. They cannot defend their country from attack, though; even large caliber handguns aren't all that effective against ships, bombers, ICBMs or submarines. Thus the callout in the US Constitution for funding a common defense.