Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism

[Fisherking]

This to me is no left vs. right issue. Sides seem to switch dependent on who is in office but it should concern us all.

And not just in the US because others seem to like to fallow suite.




http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-29/multiple-polls-americans-are-more-afraid-government-terrorists

http://www.sott.net/article/261416-Americans-troubled-more-by-governmental-abuse-than-terrorism


Well, which camp are you in?

Do you want more surveillance cameras and house to house searches or has the government and its agencies gone far enough, or too far?

[Fragony]

Not American, also not sure where I stand. It's a matter of trust, I wouldn't trust my government with all too much liberties.

[Fisherking]

Here is one example of the current Security State. The War on Whistlblowers.

http://www.waronwhistleblowers.com/

There are assaults on 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights in recent weeks or months.

This documentary film is by someone obviously left of center.

As I said, it is not really just a left or right wing concern.

[Fisherking]

I'm always worried about the government, but what irks me is that Republicans try to play that card while ignoring that it was their party that has been responsible for growing the government in the most intrusive ways--War on Drugs, War on Terror, Moral Majority, etc. I'm not worried about Obama, because Democrats are harmless. But the ground-work has been laid thickly for the next Republican who gets elected to really do some damage.


Interesting you say that. It may well have begun under Lincoln but Democrats have been more than willing to go along and erode them further. FDR did his share and every other POTUS of the 20th and 21st century. Obama has accelerated the process so it is still not a party issue, It should be a people issue and to blame one side more than another is to miss the point entirely.

As long as you make noise when the other party is in office and shut up when your people are there, you will only make it worse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

See the funny is that when the bad guys were "over there" people were happy to give up freedoms if it kept them "over there". When the Boston bombings happened, the only thing more frightening than the terrorists were the armored ATV's rolling down the streets and the massive suppressive fire from the pseudo military forces directly into suburbia while in pursuit of the bombers.

[Husar]

Oh yes, such ideas could also only come from the government, the people always strive for more freedom.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution

The whole episode (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-24-2013-bassem-youssef) is pretty good IMO btw.

It's not really a left or right issue but I was told there's really nothing you can do when people are scared and what they're scared about. It's human nature and you can't change it. Nothing can be done.
Essentially I'm not scared by my government yet, I believe they are mostly good, upstanding democrats trying their best to solve complex issues.

[Fisherking]

I am not afraid of the German Government either. They are not perfect. Still a bit too much surveillance but overall, no where near as bad as the US and many others.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm afraid of the US government. Republicans like myself got carried away after 911, democrats kept their heads because they were the opposition. At this point though I am willing to trade back; more freedoms for a slight uptick in terrorism if necessary. The country is at a crossroads. I choose the road that promises due process, rights to speech, arms, religion, opposes warrantless or unreasonable searches and seizures.

Do we make exceptions on aircraft? Sure. Should school backpacks now be forced to transparent? No.

I don't want safety beyond a certain level. I wasn't some expectation of it, but I would trade much safety for freedom.

[Beskar]

Depends on whereabouts the privacy lines are done. On one hand, I expect Security forces to be able to do their job to a reasonable level whilst in contrast, I don't want a camera in my home watching me as I sleep.

The thing is, in that sentence, there is a fundamental error. Why is it the Police and Security forces which should have the monopoly on protection?

If I was concerned about people trespassing on my property and other random acts of vandalism, I shouldn't have to simply rely on a 999 call. I should be the one responsible and if I have any cameras, they are controlled and operated by me, the home owner, so I have the monopoly on any surveillance in my personal area. Now, I can provide what information I want to share with the security forces, to ensure they do their job better without them standing on my toes.

With power becomes responsibility, and that means that as citizens, if we want more freedoms and liberties, we have to be responsible for them. We cannot rely on others to do it for us, or expect them to, such as demanding the police to do a far better job in protecting your local area if you, yourself, do not take personal measures to protect it yourself, otherwise you are inviting the police into your own home to do the job you wasn't willing to do yourself.

So where does the line start and end? I expect when I go into the town centre for some shopping, not to have bandits running around with guns. This is where I would gladly hold up my hands and go "Install those surveillance cameras, protect me in this place". I am sure some one could be very bored and watch me pop into various shops and saw I bought something from a food stall, but ultimately, all it would do is make bored, knowing I popped in to buy some clothes from River Island won't make me want to burn down parliament.

So my stance is more of a "Collective Security, Individual Privacy" approach. I don't mind broad sweeping security measures such as a CCTV camera on a busy high-street corner, however, I take issue with measures which target me personally in the privacy of my realm such as my home. (Random stop and searches come under the latter, unless they have a very good and plausible reason to)

[Husar]

So you also think people should be allowed to have guns to defend their home, Tiaexz? ~;)

[Greyblades]

I choose the road that promises due process, rights to speech, arms, religion, opposes warrantless or unreasonable searches and seizures.
So why did you advocate the republicans? Badum-tish

[Major Robert Dump]

the Boston police forcing a family -- none of whom matched the description of the guy -- out of their home at gunpoint, manhandling them and yelling for them to keep their hands up, making them run down the street where they were frisked and searched (the 40 year old fat blonde mom I mean really?).... well that video made me very angry. Could not just let them walk out, had to point assault rifles at them.

The funniest thing about these videos is seeing how they un-tactically crowd around the doors and the porches, their fat rolls hanging out of their body armor like that potato in the sack inching out the hole, each one hoping for chance to get his shot off when the firefight breaks out. See this everywhere, and it often causes such confusing friendly fire that the cops think they are being shot at when in fact they are not, spurring them to shoot even more. I can think of a few cases where that was what happened, the victim fired nothing, it was some dumb cop trying to flex his polipeen

[Papewaio]

So tactically like seven year olds playing soccer crowding around the ball.

Except the ball in this instance might be an innocent bystander or a pressure cooker bomb.

[Kadagar_AV]

So tactically like seven year olds playing soccer crowding around the ball.


Me <- was about to write stuff, but decided to :bow: instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think its an interesting thought exercise to imagine what would happen if the government did make a sweeping overnight transformation into obvious tyranny, martial law, sham trials, and all that sort of business*. Personally I don't think the American people would fight very hard, and those who did wouldn't last very long. Most likely most people would actually just bend over and take it, and pretend to like it, or actually genuinely like it. I also don't think the international community would do much at all, in fact they would probably cheer it on.

Kind of makes you wonder why it hasn't happened yet. There would be no real consequences, realistically speaking. There just hasn't been an Administration with the balls, greed, and lack of moral fortitude to do it yet.

I think people would fight back. There is only so much people can take before they rebel. There is a zone where government has enough control to really do as it pleases while the individual still believes himself to be free. We are slowly moving towards that zone but it won't go further than that. Why ruin a good thing by ruining people's fantasies that they are in control?

[Greyblades]

Kind of makes you wonder why it hasn't happened yet. There would be no real consequences, realistically speaking. There just hasn't been an Administration with the balls, greed, and lack of moral fortitude to do it yet.
Democracy.
You allready know this, but seriously it's the ultimate answer to power corrupts: it makes sure the ruling "class" (for what else can we catagorise the average politician, they sure as heck aren't that way because they proved their competence) are too busy fighting eachother over the right to exhert their power over the rest of us. When they try to create a police state they instantly devolve into fighting over how it's done and which of them gets to be top dog.
Sure they're too embroiled to do anything beneficial for the countries they "serve" beyond the objectives that obviously need to be done (and even then... #cough#extremist parties#cough#Republicans#cough#) but it's the price we pay to not let the buggers get us down.

[Papewaio]

Greed is your answer.

More money in the current state of affairs for the Military Industrial complex. Not enough money in a police state.

[Tuuvi]

I think its an interesting thought exercise to imagine what would happen if the government did make a sweeping overnight transformation into obvious tyranny, martial law, sham trials, and all that sort of business*. Personally I don't think the American people would fight very hard, and those who did wouldn't last very long. Most likely most people would actually just bend over and take it, and pretend to like it, or actually genuinely like it. I also don't think the international community would do much at all, in fact they would probably cheer it on.

Kind of makes you wonder why it hasn't happened yet. There would be no real consequences, realistically speaking. There just hasn't been an Administration with the balls, greed, and lack of moral fortitude to do it yet.

*Not counting Mumia, Peltier, or other political prisoners... or the myriad documented and as-yet-to-be-declassified actions of our Alphabet Soup of evil. Those are mostly oversight problems, but definitely a symptom of our democratic values on the wane, even as we trumpet "freedom" all over the place.

If it happened slowly, then I think that there probably wouldn't be a lot of resistance from the American people. But I think it happening overnight would be too much of a shock for people not to fight back. Suddenly not being able to do things you could do just the other day would make a lot of people angry, and they wouldn't be conditioned to fear the government as much as people living in established police states.

[Major Robert Dump]

I also forgot to mention, in case anyone else has failed to, that it was soooooo dangerous that they made all businesses shut down and send employees home. Except Dunkin Donuts.

The real reason they did what they did was because it would have been another Christopher Dorner manhunt debacle, and after the bombing, Boston would not be able to afford 100 million in payouts to citizens wrongfully shot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I also forgot to mention, in case anyone else has failed to, that it was soooooo dangerous that they made all businesses shut down and send employees home. Except Dunkin Donuts.

The real reason they did what they did was because it would have been another Christopher Dorner manhunt debacle, and after the bombing, Boston would not be able to afford 100 million in payouts to citizens wrongfully shot.

YOU CAN'T CORNER THE DORNER.

So they said.

[Beskar]

I also don't think the international community would do much at all, in fact they would probably cheer it on.

You are right for the wrong reasons. The International Community wouldn't do much at all, but it wouldn't be cheering the US, it would be because of the superinflated US warbudget and the fact a totalitarian government US would be more keen to actually use those nuclear weapons it possesses.

[Husar]

Democracy.
You allready know this, but seriously it's the ultimate answer to power corrupts: it makes sure the ruling "class" (for what else can we catagorise the average politician, they sure as heck aren't that way because they proved their competence) are too busy fighting eachother over the right to exhert their power over the rest of us. When they try to create a police state they instantly devolve into fighting over how it's done and which of them gets to be top dog.
Sure they're too embroiled to do anything beneficial for the countries they "serve" beyond the objectives that obviously need to be done (and even then... #cough#extremist parties#cough#Republicans#cough#) but it's the price we pay to not let the buggers get us down.

Politicians can do what they want if they don't lose votes over it. The more predictable the voters are, the more politicians can play with them. Of course I also think that the voters can be wrong but that's not surprising considering that I believe too many people vote on habit or tradition or whatever other harmful reason they can think of to keep voting for parties that keep lying to them...
I find it problematic here and I find it even worse in countries where the winner takes it all. And yes, smaller parties are sometimes more extreme and so on and on but that can't be an excuse to keep voting for the same people over and over. Our forefathers died so we could vote for the politicians we want, not the ones we don't really want, show some respect!

[HopAlongBunny]

I also forgot to mention, in case anyone else has failed to, that it was soooooo dangerous that they made all businesses shut down and send employees home. Except Dunkin Donuts.

The last place a police state is going to shut down is a coffee/doughnut outlet :p

[Greyblades]

And yes, smaller parties are sometimes more extreme and so on and on but that can't be an excuse to keep voting for the same people over and over. ...Why not? 'Rather vote for same old when the only viable alternative is the facist party.

Our forefathers died so we could vote for the politicians we want, not the ones we don't really want, show some respect!
If your forefathers cared about votes as much as you advocate they would have demanded changes to the british political system at the end of the revolution, not run away from the problem to do over.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...If your forefathers cared about votes as much as you advocate they would have demanded changes to the british political system at the end of the revolution, not run away from the problem to do over.

Too much blood and treasure by that point. If Parliament had been willing to grant some kind of semi-autonomous commonwealth status, or integrated the colonies into Parliament in a fairly representative fashion, a political solution was probably doable up through 1770 or so, possibly even later. The "Independency" champions were actually a fairly small minority up until early 1775.

[Husar]

...Why not? 'Rather vote for same old when the only viable alternative is the facist party.

Yes, but when the fascists are the only alternative I dare say your democracy is not a very healthy one...


If your forefathers cared about votes as much as you advocate they would have demanded changes to the british political system at the end of the revolution, not run away from the problem to do over.

My forefathers tried to conquer and save Britain twice, what's your point?
You British are always proud of your non-bloody change from monarchy to constitutional monarchy so you really shouldn't complain about what you have now if you're really so proud of it.

[The Lurker Below]

the best looking number on those polls were the 29% for independents. everyday more powerless people take off the rose colored glasses and look behind the curtains.

[Strike For The South]

Governments abuse their power.

This is nothing new. In fact, It's kind of comforting that things stay completely the same.

Nothing makes me happier then when all these freethinking and independent Americans fall in line against the other.

It gives me a massive erection.

[Major Robert Dump]

It gives me a massive erection.

So how is that different from everything else?

[Papewaio]

He's been like that since being made a senior member... It's the free Viagra.

[Greyblades]

Yes, but when the fascists are the only alternative I dare say your democracy is not a very healthy one...

Not arguing here.


My forefathers tried to conquer and save Britain twice, what's your point?
You British are always proud of your non-bloody change from monarchy to constitutional monarchy so you really shouldn't complain about what you have now if you're really so proud of it.

Oh dear lord, did I just mistake you for an american? I must express my deepest apologies, I cannot beleive I made such a gross and offensive mistake. This is what happens when I post hungover.

[Husar]

Oh dear lord, did I just mistake you for an american? I must express my deepest apologies, I cannot beleive I made such a gross and offensive mistake. This is what happens when I post hungover.

:laugh4:

Maybe I should increase the size of my signature picture a little more...

[Papewaio]

Well based on KAVs signature we just thought you had a thing for well endowned German women...