War with Russia
Discussion
From history it is likely extremism to both left and right will come into being in this part of the world when tensions mount. I don't doubt that both sides have undesirable elements compared to what you really need, politics less extreme and more centralised.
For the West it means you are not that keen on some parts of both sides, so makes it more tricky. Rather like Syria where the West cannot decide who it dislikes most, seems at the moment prefers current regime to some, and only some, of the anti regime factions. Of course in the Ukraine it's not as clear cut and previous actions, such as annexation of Crimea, tend to push support to one side.
Interestingly Estonia had a rather unfortunate number of years in the 19th C stuck between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia. They tried to go for independence at least twice but in the main either the Germans were occupying the country with a puppet government and eliminating certain sections of the population ( ie Jews ) or the Russians doing likewise.
Since they became independent in latter years it's been looking a lot better for them, nice stable country with good IT sector and pretty good relationship with the press etc. They should be a shining light to what Ukraine should like to emulate, but it seems currently they are more concerned about winning, even if it means winning some concrete rubble.
For the West it means you are not that keen on some parts of both sides, so makes it more tricky. Rather like Syria where the West cannot decide who it dislikes most, seems at the moment prefers current regime to some, and only some, of the anti regime factions. Of course in the Ukraine it's not as clear cut and previous actions, such as annexation of Crimea, tend to push support to one side.
Interestingly Estonia had a rather unfortunate number of years in the 19th C stuck between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia. They tried to go for independence at least twice but in the main either the Germans were occupying the country with a puppet government and eliminating certain sections of the population ( ie Jews ) or the Russians doing likewise.
Since they became independent in latter years it's been looking a lot better for them, nice stable country with good IT sector and pretty good relationship with the press etc. They should be a shining light to what Ukraine should like to emulate, but it seems currently they are more concerned about winning, even if it means winning some concrete rubble.
Having a hand in installing Fascist militia in Europe, not good is it? All sounds very similar to the Croatian Ustase being installed by the Nazis.
It is reported that these thugs were set loose because the new Ukrainian 'government' did not trust their own regular army and thought them sympathetic to the Russians.
Does that sound like the the actions of a balanced and mature government?
It appears it's back to the bad old days of U.S intervention to install anyone but the Russians.
It is reported that these thugs were set loose because the new Ukrainian 'government' did not trust their own regular army and thought them sympathetic to the Russians.
Does that sound like the the actions of a balanced and mature government?
It appears it's back to the bad old days of U.S intervention to install anyone but the Russians.
To balance my RT viewing Ukraine has an online TV channel http://uatoday.tv/live which has been showing an alternative version of events out east.
Phil
Phil
toppstuff said:
Esseesse said:
toppstuff said:
But how are you less "free" than you were, say, 5 years ago? 10 years ago?
Aside from a fuzzy sense that internet eavesdropping or phone hacking , for example, " Is a Bad Thing", in what way are you freedoms restricted?
I am interested to know because in every aspect of my life, I can't think of anything that I feel impinges on my sense of freedom, of self-determination.
I'm interested to know precisely why you feel so differently? What do you want to do, that somehow you feel you are being restricted from doing?
Off the top of my head...Aside from a fuzzy sense that internet eavesdropping or phone hacking , for example, " Is a Bad Thing", in what way are you freedoms restricted?
I am interested to know because in every aspect of my life, I can't think of anything that I feel impinges on my sense of freedom, of self-determination.
I'm interested to know precisely why you feel so differently? What do you want to do, that somehow you feel you are being restricted from doing?
Reducing speed limits (50 the new 60, 20 the new 30). We can no longer buy high powered vacuum cleaners. I can't go through an airport without delays because everything needs to be scanned and searched. Are window cleaners allowed up ladders any more? Increasingly we can only buy poorer performing water based paints. The only light bulbs we can now buy flicker and have to warm up. I have no idea when the rule came in, but I'm not allowed to buy a gas oven and connect up the bayonet fitting myself. I wanted to buy some strong peroxide the other day (whiten old plastics) but found that we're only allowed to purchase 12% without a license these days. On websites I build I'm supposed to include a pointless cookies message. On websites I visit I have to click on a pointless cookies message. If you want to help your kids with a house deposit you have to allow lenders/solicitors to investigate your own finances.
First world problems methinks.
In a thread about Russia, where there is no free press, an autocrat in charge for 15 years, where a small elite have stolen anything of value, where opposition politicians are locked up and where organised crime and corruption are endemic in every part of life, we find ourselves worrying that the west is seeing an erosion of civil liberties, and the best we can muster as an example is that we are worried that we can't buy old fashioned light bulbs.....
Really?!!!
It's a slippery slope when expressing your opinion can now attract the police applying laws that were originally intended to stop "terrorism"... but since terrorism can now be defined to mean anything, including discontent people expressing their opinions, then what did we expect.
It's not so bad now, but the systems are just getting into place. Give it more time... until all the laws and systems are matured enough... and another 'attack' by some 'terrorists' and suddenly we'll have a lock down on expressing anything that could cause discontent to spread and thus encourage 'lone wolf' terrorists or some such.
It'll be sold that it's good for us first though, just like in Spain where it has a double-speak name that Orwell would be proud of.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/20/spain...
Praise our glorious and great leaders Cameron and Obama!
Mr Whippy said:
Isn't Spain about to vote back in powers that allow governments to basically fine people silly sums for protesting or saying anything negative about the government or politicians?
It's a slippery slope when expressing your opinion can now attract the police applying laws that were originally intended to stop "terrorism"... but since terrorism can now be defined to mean anything, including discontent people expressing their opinions, then what did we expect.
It's not so bad now, but the systems are just getting into place. Give it more time...
It's farther along than you might think. I recommend Dark Ages America to you if you have not read it. You sound like a budding Wafer. It's a slippery slope when expressing your opinion can now attract the police applying laws that were originally intended to stop "terrorism"... but since terrorism can now be defined to mean anything, including discontent people expressing their opinions, then what did we expect.
It's not so bad now, but the systems are just getting into place. Give it more time...
scherzkeks said:
Mr Whippy said:
Isn't Spain about to vote back in powers that allow governments to basically fine people silly sums for protesting or saying anything negative about the government or politicians?
It's a slippery slope when expressing your opinion can now attract the police applying laws that were originally intended to stop "terrorism"... but since terrorism can now be defined to mean anything, including discontent people expressing their opinions, then what did we expect.
It's not so bad now, but the systems are just getting into place. Give it more time...
It's farther along than you might think. I recommend Dark Ages America to you if you have not read it. You sound like a budding Wafer. It's a slippery slope when expressing your opinion can now attract the police applying laws that were originally intended to stop "terrorism"... but since terrorism can now be defined to mean anything, including discontent people expressing their opinions, then what did we expect.
It's not so bad now, but the systems are just getting into place. Give it more time...
I'm simply of the persuasion that governments lie and powers are abused. For the last 20 years that is all I've seen so to expect anything else would be foolish.
Freedom of speech is too dangerous in the West these days, so it'll disappear unless we fight for it.
Shoddy (by design) anti-terror laws are the perfect way to allow that creep to happen.
The USA has a constitution to protect such things, but I'd be keeping a keen eye out for how that might be nullified soon, under some 'emergency' laws.
Dave
scherzkeks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It isn't just the Russians. Nation-building both covert and overt has been US foreign policy since Andrew Jackson, if you really want to see the worst of it, dig deeper into the history of actions in South America.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why is having a counterpoint to an autocratic, corrupt Russian bourgeoisie a bad thing?Surely for the free nations of Europe, having the strength and financial independence so as to not depend on a moody ex-partner with a terrible history of abuse, is perfectly understandable and sensible?
Are you suggesting the alternative strategy is to have neighbours who are friendly and sympathetic to undemocratic, autocratic, bullies and give them what they want? Why would that be a good thing?
Edited by toppstuff on Monday 5th January 14:42
Mr Whippy said:
Freedom of speech is too dangerous in the West these days, so it'll disappear unless we fight for it.
The USA has a constitution to protect such things, but I'd be keeping a keen eye out for how that might be nullified soon, under some 'emergency' laws.
Dave
This is a bit hysterical isn't it?The USA has a constitution to protect such things, but I'd be keeping a keen eye out for how that might be nullified soon, under some 'emergency' laws.
Dave
In which way is freedom of speech restricted? Can you go online and express an opinion? Can you talk in public and offer your point of view? Who is stopping you?
The day the US constitution is threatened is the day the President in charge at the time gets thrown out, impeached and probably arrested. People in the US take the constitution very seriously.
You seem to have this vague fog around you , suggesting there are people trying to restrict your freedoms. Show me the evidence of real, meaningful attempts to restrict your freedoms. Not being able to buy 100 watt light bulbs doesn't count. Neither does having to put up with the PITA of airport security. Show me some real examples of the Gov suppressing you, or restricting you.
toppstuff said:
The day the US constitution is threatened is the day the President in charge at the time gets thrown out, impeached and probably arrested. People in the US take the constitution very seriously.
I clearly stated that they'll use Executive Orders, or some emergency based around war/terror to nullify the parts of the constitution that matter to you, and do it legally at that time.Once it's done it'll be kept ticking while the 'threat' remains.
Doesn't the government use executive orders all the time to undermine the constitution in one way or another?
All that is needed is for something to occur that makes everyone really scared, and then you'll happily give up part of your constitution, temporarily, to feel safe.
Who knows if it'll happen, or when it might happen... I'm just saying that it can happen and the constitution will be irrelevant when it is deemed that a part of it is necessary to be ignored.
No significant suppressing yet. But all the tools have been added in the last few decades to make it possible to monitor every last facet of most of your modern life now.
Why even have these systems and laws that allow it if they may not use it at some point in the future? Pretty big waste of money and time setting up systems and laws to make it ok to spy on everyone without a warrant or 'suspicion' of criminality!
Dave
toppstuff said:
Why is having a counterpoint to an autocratic, corrupt Russian bourgeoisie a bad thing?
Surely for the free nations of Europe, having the strength and financial independence so as to not depend on a moody ex-partner with a terrible history of abuse, is perfectly understandable and sensible?
Are you suggesting the alternative strategy is to have neighbours who are friendly and sympathetic to undemocratic, autocratic, bullies and give them what they want? Why would that be a good thing?
You only have to look back through the history of the 20th century to see that when fascism and militias get in then people in that country will suffer. So you think fascist, racist militias are going to be a good thing for all Ukrainians?Surely for the free nations of Europe, having the strength and financial independence so as to not depend on a moody ex-partner with a terrible history of abuse, is perfectly understandable and sensible?
Are you suggesting the alternative strategy is to have neighbours who are friendly and sympathetic to undemocratic, autocratic, bullies and give them what they want? Why would that be a good thing?
Edited by toppstuff on Monday 5th January 14:42
When you eventually see the evil that has been installed is far worse for the people of that country than the evil it was supposed to prevent you will realise it was never about what was right for those people but simply to suit the interests of a third party.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 5th January 16:06
Mr Whippy said:
toppstuff said:
The day the US constitution is threatened is the day the President in charge at the time gets thrown out, impeached and probably arrested. People in the US take the constitution very seriously.
I clearly stated that they'll use Executive Orders, or some emergency based around war/terror to nullify the parts of the constitution that matter to you, and do it legally at that time.Once it's done it'll be kept ticking while the 'threat' remains.
Doesn't the government use executive orders all the time to undermine the constitution in one way or another?
All that is needed is for something to occur that makes everyone really scared, and then you'll happily give up part of your constitution, temporarily, to feel safe.
Who knows if it'll happen, or when it might happen... I'm just saying that it can happen and the constitution will be irrelevant when it is deemed that a part of it is necessary to be ignored.
No significant suppressing yet. But all the tools have been added in the last few decades to make it possible to monitor every last facet of most of your modern life now.
Why even have these systems and laws that allow it if they may not use it at some point in the future? Pretty big waste of money and time setting up systems and laws to make it ok to spy on everyone without a warrant or 'suspicion' of criminality!
Dave
My take on this is rather different. Of course, I totally see how there is pressure on what we may regard as our freedoms, but it seems to me that people are losing all sense of perspective. It is also easy to ignore the context against which the "erosions to liberty" are being applied. I think the context is important and I don't think you are taking it into account.
The world is operating in a way it has never done before. The internet and the availability of cheap, easy travel has resulted in movement of people around the world to an extent never seen before in the history of mankind. The result of all of this movement, is that borders are now porous. Different ethnic and political groups of the human population are mixed up more than at anytime in human history. We do not have the systems, or the rules of law, to cope with these changes. Globalisation and the mixing of different cultures and values has moved much faster than our ability to make sense of it, or somehow regulate it.
As a result, the developed world ( largely because of its success ) now represents every different cultural belief system, all embedded within it. It was not like this in the middle of the last century.
The problem is that people with differing values, different politics and motivation to hurt others in pursuit of their aims, are not "over there" anymore. The "bad guys" are not in another country. They are in the house next door, or the flat above you. On the bus next to you, or on the aircraft you are about to board.
This means that governments don't really know how to deal with threats to us anymore. It isn't like there is another country pointing a gun at you. It isn't like that anymore. If the threats to our way of life are all around us, all that governments can do is watch everyone around us and, indeed, watch us all. Look for patterns of unusual behaviour; use software to observe the people and try to spot those among us who may do us harm.
This process "feels" like our freedoms are being eroded and, in a way, they are. But that is perhaps the price of the modern globalised world we live in? We can't go back. If threats are not "over there" anymore but are in fact " embedded amongst us" , then what other way can there be for governments to find threats to us?
I must say that in my life I can't think of a single thing that genuinely bothers me in terms of having a sense of restricted freedom. I guess, having said that, if I started to behave or communicate differently and in a pattern that suggests I may want to do harm to people, then I may end up on some systems somewhere as a person of interest. I can't say that bothers me to be honest. You clearly feel differently. I'd love to know why, because I can't really see it myself.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukr...
"An investigation by The New York Times into the final hours of Mr. Yanukovych’s rule — based on interviews with prominent players, including former commanders of the Berkut riot police and other security units, telephone records and other documents — shows that the president was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone else."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukr...
"An investigation by The New York Times into the final hours of Mr. Yanukovych’s rule — based on interviews with prominent players, including former commanders of the Berkut riot police and other security units, telephone records and other documents — shows that the president was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone else."
MrCarPark said:
This is an interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukr...
"An investigation by The New York Times into the final hours of Mr. Yanukovychâ??s rule â?†based on interviews with prominent players, including former commanders of the Berkut riot police and other security units, telephone records and other documents â?†shows that the president was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone else."
Looks like an escalation was avoided if that arms consignment bit was true, also puts the theory of benign protesters in doubt.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukr...
"An investigation by The New York Times into the final hours of Mr. Yanukovychâ??s rule â?†based on interviews with prominent players, including former commanders of the Berkut riot police and other security units, telephone records and other documents â?†shows that the president was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone else."
But where are the statements galore from all these politicians who changed sides? When politicians do such things they normally release some cock and bull statement to 'explain' their decision.
I am intrigued to find out who those people were who were reportedly shooting protestors and policemen. I have seen some blame the Russians, I have seen some blame the Americans, but a supposed desertion of the police force and armed forces does not tally with a loyal team willing to shoot and kill 'unarmed' protestors. I guess if we don't find out who they were then we can safely say they were organised from outside.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why come to that conclusion? Why does one thing infer the other?Surely the most logical explanation is the most likely; that it was forces wanting to keep the status quo that acted. Given that the same article suggests that the west didn't really expect this to happen, suggests that it was those most opposed to a change to the status quo that were the most motivated to act. That points, therefore, to Moscow. If so, the unintended consequences of this action ended up being considerable. I don't think the Russians for one moment thought that standing up for "their man" would end up with civil war in eastern Ukraine, Russian troops and armour in another country pretending to not be Russian, the decimation of their currency, financial disaster for their country and very limited political or economic options. Way to go, Vladimir.
On the other hand, if the CIA were behind the whole thing, then they pulled off a great trick; decimating the Russian economy. Personally, I don't think they are that smart !
toppstuff said:
Mr Whippy said:
toppstuff said:
The day the US constitution is threatened is the day the President in charge at the time gets thrown out, impeached and probably arrested. People in the US take the constitution very seriously.
I clearly stated that they'll use Executive Orders, or some emergency based around war/terror to nullify the parts of the constitution that matter to you, and do it legally at that time.Once it's done it'll be kept ticking while the 'threat' remains.
Doesn't the government use executive orders all the time to undermine the constitution in one way or another?
All that is needed is for something to occur that makes everyone really scared, and then you'll happily give up part of your constitution, temporarily, to feel safe.
Who knows if it'll happen, or when it might happen... I'm just saying that it can happen and the constitution will be irrelevant when it is deemed that a part of it is necessary to be ignored.
No significant suppressing yet. But all the tools have been added in the last few decades to make it possible to monitor every last facet of most of your modern life now.
Why even have these systems and laws that allow it if they may not use it at some point in the future? Pretty big waste of money and time setting up systems and laws to make it ok to spy on everyone without a warrant or 'suspicion' of criminality!
Dave
My take on this is rather different. Of course, I totally see how there is pressure on what we may regard as our freedoms, but it seems to me that people are losing all sense of perspective. It is also easy to ignore the context against which the "erosions to liberty" are being applied. I think the context is important and I don't think you are taking it into account.
The world is operating in a way it has never done before. The internet and the availability of cheap, easy travel has resulted in movement of people around the world to an extent never seen before in the history of mankind. The result of all of this movement, is that borders are now porous. Different ethnic and political groups of the human population are mixed up more than at anytime in human history. We do not have the systems, or the rules of law, to cope with these changes. Globalisation and the mixing of different cultures and values has moved much faster than our ability to make sense of it, or somehow regulate it.
As a result, the developed world ( largely because of its success ) now represents every different cultural belief system, all embedded within it. It was not like this in the middle of the last century.
The problem is that people with differing values, different politics and motivation to hurt others in pursuit of their aims, are not "over there" anymore. The "bad guys" are not in another country. They are in the house next door, or the flat above you. On the bus next to you, or on the aircraft you are about to board.
This means that governments don't really know how to deal with threats to us anymore. It isn't like there is another country pointing a gun at you. It isn't like that anymore. If the threats to our way of life are all around us, all that governments can do is watch everyone around us and, indeed, watch us all. Look for patterns of unusual behaviour; use software to observe the people and try to spot those among us who may do us harm.
This process "feels" like our freedoms are being eroded and, in a way, they are. But that is perhaps the price of the modern globalised world we live in? We can't go back. If threats are not "over there" anymore but are in fact " embedded amongst us" , then what other way can there be for governments to find threats to us?
I must say that in my life I can't think of a single thing that genuinely bothers me in terms of having a sense of restricted freedom. I guess, having said that, if I started to behave or communicate differently and in a pattern that suggests I may want to do harm to people, then I may end up on some systems somewhere as a person of interest. I can't say that bothers me to be honest. You clearly feel differently. I'd love to know why, because I can't really see it myself.
I'm pretty sure from checking demographics that the US demographics for the last 50 years haven't changed that much.
Similar proportions of white, black african, hispanic/latin, and the native indians.
So those few foreigners that the USA are letting in sure must be risky minorities!
I feel differently because governments are there to serve the people, not their own gravy train, corrupt, self serving, crony capitalist supporting ends. They're all liars, proven time and again.
I wouldn't trust them or their potential future motives further than I could throw them. And since we're marching into that future blind to what they want to or will do, then that is scary to me.
These people are our elected representatives, but they act like dictatorships imposing their will.
Notice how terrorism went from large scale planned attacks to 'lone wolves', it went from organised angry international muslim groups angry at wars, to angry religious types on your own soil...
Now that will justify even tighter personal spying and intrusion on every single individual no matter what.
You're all about to lose all privacy and freedom under your 'constitution', for what, to feel slightly safer from terrorism that kills probably 1 in 10,000,000 a year.
You've still more chance of winning the lottery, but you give up all your constitutional rights to privacy, at YOUR cost, to feel safer from terror.
Again, not saying Russia or China are better... but the West is soon going to join the ranks of totalitarian paranoid governments at the rate it's going. All to keep you 'safe' from evillllllll! You don't realise how lucky you are. Evilllll foreigners everywhere!!!
Dave
Jimbeaux said:
scherzkeks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It isn't just the Russians. Nation-building both covert and overt has been US foreign policy since Andrew Jackson, if you really want to see the worst of it, dig deeper into the history of actions in South America.Mr Whippy said:
It sounds more like you're paranoid of all the 'foreigners' around you, and let your fear of them justify governments spying on you to protect you from them.
I'm pretty sure from checking demographics that the US demographics for the last 50 years haven't changed that much.
Similar proportions of white, black african, hispanic/latin, and the native indians.
So those few foreigners that the USA are letting in sure must be risky minorities!
I feel differently because governments are there to serve the people, not their own gravy train, corrupt, self serving, crony capitalist supporting ends. They're all liars, proven time and again.
I wouldn't trust them or their potential future motives further than I could throw them. And since we're marching into that future blind to what they want to or will do, then that is scary to me.
These people are our elected representatives, but they act like dictatorships imposing their will.
Notice how terrorism went from large scale planned attacks to 'lone wolves', it went from organised angry international muslim groups angry at wars, to angry religious types on your own soil...
Now that will justify even tighter personal spying and intrusion on every single individual no matter what.
You're all about to lose all privacy and freedom under your 'constitution', for what, to feel slightly safer from terrorism that kills probably 1 in 10,000,000 a year.
You've still more chance of winning the lottery, but you give up all your constitutional rights to privacy, at YOUR cost, to feel safer from terror.
Again, not saying Russia or China are better... but the West is soon going to join the ranks of totalitarian paranoid governments at the rate it's going. All to keep you 'safe' from evillllllll! You don't realise how lucky you are. Evilllll foreigners everywhere!!!
Dave
I don't have a problem with multiculturalism at all - as evidenced by my family, which has links to various parts of the world through marriage. I'm pretty sure from checking demographics that the US demographics for the last 50 years haven't changed that much.
Similar proportions of white, black african, hispanic/latin, and the native indians.
So those few foreigners that the USA are letting in sure must be risky minorities!
I feel differently because governments are there to serve the people, not their own gravy train, corrupt, self serving, crony capitalist supporting ends. They're all liars, proven time and again.
I wouldn't trust them or their potential future motives further than I could throw them. And since we're marching into that future blind to what they want to or will do, then that is scary to me.
These people are our elected representatives, but they act like dictatorships imposing their will.
Notice how terrorism went from large scale planned attacks to 'lone wolves', it went from organised angry international muslim groups angry at wars, to angry religious types on your own soil...
Now that will justify even tighter personal spying and intrusion on every single individual no matter what.
You're all about to lose all privacy and freedom under your 'constitution', for what, to feel slightly safer from terrorism that kills probably 1 in 10,000,000 a year.
You've still more chance of winning the lottery, but you give up all your constitutional rights to privacy, at YOUR cost, to feel safer from terror.
Again, not saying Russia or China are better... but the West is soon going to join the ranks of totalitarian paranoid governments at the rate it's going. All to keep you 'safe' from evillllllll! You don't realise how lucky you are. Evilllll foreigners everywhere!!!
Dave
My point is not about fear or xenophobia, just the simple fact that the population is a lot more mobile than it used to be and larger numbers of people are on the move than before.
Take, for example, the Iranian guy who held siege in the Sydney coffee shop. Sure, there have always been asylum seekers, but they are in much larger numbers than they used to be and it is easier for them to move around. That guy, chances are, would have stayed in Iran and probably died there, if this was 50 years ago. Maybe even 20 years ago. Look at the hundreds of thousands of people landing in Italy from Africa - deserving cases most of them, I am sure, but chances are that some of them will not be. And we don't really know what to do about it.
It is what it is. The worlds population moves around more than it has ever done. And the security services struggle to know what to do about it.
Frankly, it is all too easy for someone in the west to sit down and start complaining that their governments are oppressing them and reducing their freedoms, but I think it is exaggerated.
You haven't really answered my earlier question anyway - in what specific ways is your freedom restricted? What do you want to do that the Government is somehow stopping you from doing?
While I accept your basic point, I think you are giving it much too great weight. You are a free person, able to do and say whatever you want. You fears are more imagined than real IMO.
If the time comes when we are genuinely restricted, I will be one of the first to stand alongside you and protest about it. But IMO we just aren't in that situation. I can't think of any single thing that makes me feel oppressed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff